How to evaluate investment risk in practical terms
"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to ""short term investment"", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books ""parrot""), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign)."
"Is playing the lottery a wise investment? --Probably not.  Is playing the lottery an investment at all? --Probably not though I'll make a remark on that further below.  Does it make any sense to play the lottery in order to improve your total asset allocation? --If you follow the theory of the Black Swan, it actually might.  Let me elaborate. The Black Swan theory says that events that we consider extremely improbable can have an extreme impact. So extreme, in fact, that its value would massively outweigh the combined value of all impacts of all probable events together. In statistical terms, we are speaking about events on the outer limits of the common probablity distribution, so called outliers that have a high impact.  Example: If you invest $2000 on the stock market today, stay invested for 20 years, and reinvest all earnings, it is probable within a 66% confidence interval that you will have an 8 % expected return (ER) per year on average, giving you a total of roughly $9300. That's very much simplified, of course, the actual number can be very different depending on the deviations from the ER and when they happen. Now let's take the same $2000 and buy weekly lottery tickets for 20 years. For the sake of simplicity I will forgo an NPV calculation and assume one ticket costs roughly $2. If you should win, which would be an entirely improbable event, your winnings would by far outweigh your ER from investing the same amount.  When making models that should be mathematically solvable, these outliers are usually not taken into consideration. Standard portfolio management (PM) theory is only working within so called confidence intervals up to 99% - everything else just wouldn't be practical. In other words, if there is not at least a 1% probability a certain outcome will happen, we'll ignore it. In practice, most analysts take even smaller confidence intervals, so they ignore even more.  That's the reason, though, why no object that would fall within the realms of this outer limit is an investment in terms of the PM theory. Or at least not a recommendable one. Having said all that, it still might improve your position if you add a lottery ticket to the mix. The Black Swan theory specifically does not only apply to the risk side of things, but also on the chance side. So, while standard PM theory would not consider the lottery ticket an investment, thus not accept it into the asset allocation, the Black Swan theory would appreciate the fact that there is minimal chance of huge success.  Still, in terms of valuation, it follows the PM theory. The lottery ticket, while it could be part of some ""investment balance sheet"", would have to be written off to 0 immediately and no expected value would be attached to it. Consequently, such an investment or gamble only makes sense if your other, safe investments give you so much income that you can easily afford it really without having to give up anything else in your life. In other words, you have to consider it money thrown out of the window.  So, while from a psychological perspective it makes sense that especially poorer people will buy a lottery ticket, as Eric very well explained, it is actually the wealthier who should consider doing so. If anyone. :)" Here's a little different perspective. I'm not going to talk about the quality of the investment, the expected return, or any of the other things you normally talk about when evaluating investments. This is about family, and the most important thing here is the relationships.  What you need to do here is look at the different possible scenarios and figure out how each of these would make you feel. Only you can evaluate this. For example, here are some questions to ask yourself: I know how I would answer these questions, but that wouldn't help you any. But the advice I would give you is, assuming you have this money to lose, and are also investing elsewhere, evaluate this solely on the basis of the effect on your family relationships.  The only other piece of advice I would give you is to knock out that student loan and car loan debt as fast as you possibly can. Minimize your investments until that debt is gone, so you can get rid of it even faster. "Note that these used to be a single ""common"" share that has ""split"" (actually a ""special dividend"" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future.  As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will.  Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs." I disagree with most of the answers here so far because they are either too risky or too conservative and don't take taxes and retirement into consideration. OP, keep in mind the higher the potential return, the greater the risk. You haven't stated your risk tolerance, but consider the following: Pick a certain percentage of your $10k to invest for the long term. Pick a low-cost index fund like the S&P500 Index. Historically this investment does well in the long run, and it gets you started in investing. Keep the balance, the money you will need for the short term, right where it is not earning much interest. Have you started saving for retirement? Consider starting a Roth IRA (if you are in the USA) with some of the money for tax advantages. It's up to you to decide how much you should invest and how much you need to keep on hand for emergencies or short-term needs. There are plenty related questions on this forum you can browse. "The risk of any investment is measured by its incremental effect on the volatility of your overall personal wealth, including your other investments.  The usual example is that adding a volatile stock to your portfolio may actually reduce the risk of your portfolio if it is negatively correlated with the other stuff in your portfolio. Common measures of risk, such as beta, assume that you have whole-market diversified portfolio. In the case of an investment that may or may not be hedged against currency movements, we can't say whether the hedge adds or removes risk for you without knowing what else is in your portfolio.  If you are an EU citizen with nominally delimited savings or otherwise stand to lose buying power if the Euro depreciates relative to the dollar, than the ""hedged"" ETF is less risky than the ""unhedged"" version.  On the other hand, if your background risk is such that you benefit from that depreciation, then the reverse is true. ""Hedging"" means reducing the risk already present in your portfolio.  In this case it does not refer to reducing the individual volatility of the ETF.  It may or may not do that but individual asset volatility and risk are two very different things." "There are some assumptions which can be made in terms of the flexibility you have - I will start with the least flexible assumption and then move to more flexible assumptions. If you must put down a number 1, your go-to for this(""Change the start period to 1""), is pretty good, and it's used frequently for other divide-by-zero calculations like kda in a video game. The problem I have with '1' is that it doesn't allow you to handle various scales.  Some problems are dealt with in thousands, some in fractions, and some in hundreds of millions. Therefore, you should change the start period to the smallest significantly measurable number you could reasonably have. Here, that would take your example 0 and 896 and give you an increase of 89,500%. It's not a great result, but it's the best you can hope for if you have to put down a number,  and it allows you to keep some of the ""meaning in the change."" If you absolutely must put something This is the assumption that most answers have taken - you can put down a symbol, a number with a notation, empty space, etc, but there is going to be a label somewhere called 'Growth' that will exist. I generally agree with what I've seen, particularly the answers from Benjamin Cuninghma and Nath. For the sake of preservation - those answers can be summarized as putting 'N/A' or '-', possibly with a footnote and asterisk. If you can avoid the measurement entirely The root of your question is ""What do my manager and investors expect to see?"" I think it's valuable to dig even further to ""What do my manager and investors really want to know?"". They want to know the state of their investment. Growth is often a good measurement of that state, but in cases where you are starting from zero or negative, it just doesn't tell you the right information. In these situations, you should avoid % growth, and instead talk in absolute terms which mention the time frame or starting state. For example:" Go through a few of the public domain reports on the costs of risk management for banks. Convert qualitative results into some kind of quantitative data and try to answer the most basic questions. It's your job to decide what the hypothesis would be, but it is a hot topic in the industry and breaking new ground could open a lot of doors. "A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/""aggression"" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite."