>

What’s a classy occupation?
investment banking isn't trading stocks >

This is not a hot take at all. It's true. 🤷🏼‍♀️ >

OP doesn't know anything if they think it's classy >

Money shills.  Providing value only to the exorbitantly wealthy >

I am finance adjacent, a very good college friend and a married in cousin both work in high finance.
No one knows what they are doing.
Everyone is guessing.
"Traditional" models for predicting future performance are outdated, because of the really scummy things companies do now. 
Every large company is hiding something that will affect their stock price.
It's all about extracting commissions. >

Ya know, that sort of sounds like society is slowly collapsing from the weight of big business. Haha, that would be crazy though >

Algo bots run the market on nano second trades. I have quite a few set up and dont have to be intelligent or savvy. >

I will upvote even if i disagree.
But i have more respect for somebody that gambles in stock and still has a bigger chance to make a profit or salvage losses, even if it takes time.
Than sombody that goes to a casino expecting to make money and then cry after loosing everything.
But that is why your opinion is unpopular. >

There was some dude who made over a billion during the 2020 crash because he knew what was coming. But yeah, it is a lot like gambling, tbh. >


he ~~knew~~ what was coming.

guessed.  He guessed what was coming. >

It’s not all guesses, sometimes people ignore bad news for short term gains and hope it all works out. Kinda happened with Madoff where there literally was a guy saying “hey, this stuff is sketchy. I wouldn’t put all my eggs in this basket” “hey, I found a few things proving this stuff is fraud, please stop giving them your money” “y’all should be criminally charged for this level of negligence in managing funds, goddamn” >

Honestly we need 2 different words for investing.
If you invest in a start up you give money to an entrepreneur who uses that money to build his business. You profit from the influence of your own money on the business.
If you invest in Google on an exchange your money never goes to Google. You profit from Google's performance independent of your investment. You're a speculator not an investor. >

That all depends on who is selling the shares. If Google is selling additional shares, then it goes to them. >

Sure, but large companies don't have secondary offerings constantly. Unless you're specifically following a company to invest in a secondary offering the percent of shares you buy on an exchange that were bought directly from a company is most likely 0 or within a rounding error of 0. >

I think speculator is a good word for it. But if you have enough shares you actually have some sway, which is cool. >

one of the best examples of cheating is when some huge company built their computer/data center as close to the exchange as possible, because that millisecond delay in transferring the latest price move gave them a huge advantage over rivals that were farther away. 
It's the very definition of cheating, and they made billions. >

Which company was it ? >

Bloomberg >

I don't think you don't understand wealth management and long term investing.
Reddit's take on  things always mirrors the TV and film versions.  The trashy,  exaggerated version. >

I feel like all media portrayals of this subject are about how stock brokers and everyone involved are scumbags and awful people though. >

A wild majority of people who trade stocks are not doing so to make quick profit, but long term gains. Your money is far better in the stock market than it is losing money in a bank. >


Stock trading and investment banking are treated like they're performed by highly sophisticated people who deserve our respect.

They are highly sophisticated people. To be a stock trader or investment banker, you need a degree in economics, finance, or even physics or mathematics. Those that choose these careers have almost always had prior experience before they graduate, such as multiple internships and have proven their competence in the field in their coursework, typically by a very high GPA (above 3.8) or their senior capstone.

But these people either cheat with insider information, or are professional gamblers.

Trading with insider information does happen, but it isn't common and shouldn't be used to judge an entire occupation. Calling them professional gamblers is ignorant, given the number of hours per week they put into their jobs, often more than twice the 40 hours expected of a normal employee.

Economists might study trends and history scientifically, but traders are glorified horse track games who contribute nothing to society.

Again, traders work many long hours 6 or 7 days a week to make sure their projections are as accurate as they possibly can be based on not just past trends, but current economic trends and how stocks in similar sectors are performing. It's not a quick or easy decision. As far as what traders contribute to society, again they were elite students who will end up being leaders of their companies in the future due to their analytical thinking skills and interpersonal skills from working closely with other traders. Many of them end up turning a profit to go back into the company, which in turn may be used to develop people in other departments, or perhaps to society in the form of charity.

As evidenced by them going broke during all the crashes they fail to predict, and by being outperformed by index funds.

When a crash happens, traders don't go broke unless they invest all their money into a single stock. You learn in finance 101 to never put all your eggs in one basket. Traders in large firms are typically invested in at least 15-30 or more assets which are not limited to stocks, but also mutual funds, ETF, and even US Treasuries as those are risk free. Also look up the difference between active management and possible management. Even with active management it’s not easy to outperform index funds, but it does happen.
Overall, this post reeks of ignorance and I encourage you to learn about how hard traders and investment bankers work and what it takes to reach that level. >

There can be only 1 >

Well, performing consistently well in the stock market requires a fully working knowledge of how it works which would imply that person is at least somewhat intelligent. 
A lot of the times when someone loses on a stock it's because of greed, an innate human desire. 
Despite what you said, stockholders do matter and contribute to the company >

The vast majority of stock traders perform worse than the market. >

That's cause it's difficult to do. It's not necessarily attributed to people being stupid >

They're worse than average, just but one of each sock and you'll do better. >

Diversifying your portfolio is basic market knowledge. An experienced investor will know this >

Diversification and indexes are different. It's not about risk mitigation, it's about the market on average outperforming the majority of traders. If the market is up 10% in a year, then an above average trader might be up 8%. >

You're right that the majority of investors do not beat the market.
Still doesn't mean there aren't points to address in OP's post where he might be misinformed or uneducated on the subject >

That just makes them professional overthinkers. You could put the money in an index and outperform them. When increasing effort lowers yield, you're doing something wrong.