<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Confusing Investment with Entertainment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/</link>
	<description>Exploring the relationship between people and their money.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:53:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Carl Richards</title>
		<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/comment-page-1/#comment-897</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Richards</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/#comment-897</guid>
		<description>Yeah, definitely better than a bad movie!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, definitely better than a bad movie!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ann</title>
		<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/comment-page-1/#comment-896</link>
		<dc:creator>Ann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:29:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/#comment-896</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s why my Roth and 401(K) are in index funds, but I have a sharebuilder account. Every so often, I buy a stock or two. 2 share of MSFT, 1 share of EBAY, I put $100 in BAC when it was so low this spring. &lt;br&gt;It can be entertaining, if you&#039;ve got the right perspective. &lt;br&gt;A share of MSFT is better than going to a bad movie, at least.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#39;s why my Roth and 401(K) are in index funds, but I have a sharebuilder account. Every so often, I buy a stock or two. 2 share of MSFT, 1 share of EBAY, I put $100 in BAC when it was so low this spring. <br />It can be entertaining, if you&#39;ve got the right perspective. <br />A share of MSFT is better than going to a bad movie, at least.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Richards</title>
		<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/comment-page-1/#comment-841</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Richards</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/#comment-841</guid>
		<description>Yeah, definitely better than a bad movie!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, definitely better than a bad movie!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ann</title>
		<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/comment-page-1/#comment-839</link>
		<dc:creator>Ann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:29:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/#comment-839</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s why my Roth and 401(K) are in index funds, but I have a sharebuilder account. Every so often, I buy a stock or two. 2 share of MSFT, 1 share of EBAY, I put $100 in BAC when it was so low this spring. &lt;br&gt;It can be entertaining, if you&#039;ve got the right perspective. &lt;br&gt;A share of MSFT is better than going to a bad movie, at least.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#39;s why my Roth and 401(K) are in index funds, but I have a sharebuilder account. Every so often, I buy a stock or two. 2 share of MSFT, 1 share of EBAY, I put $100 in BAC when it was so low this spring. <br />It can be entertaining, if you&#39;ve got the right perspective. <br />A share of MSFT is better than going to a bad movie, at least.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thinkingcarl</title>
		<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/comment-page-1/#comment-809</link>
		<dc:creator>thinkingcarl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:51:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/#comment-809</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Amit. I&#039;ve fixed the link, but you can also find the Snapshot &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.behaviorgap.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/snapshot_1008.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Amit. I&#39;ve fixed the link, but you can also find the Snapshot <a href="http://www.behaviorgap.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/snapshot_1008.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amit_Wilson</title>
		<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/comment-page-1/#comment-807</link>
		<dc:creator>Amit_Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/#comment-807</guid>
		<description>Hi, the link to Behavior Gap Snapshot is 404ed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, the link to Behavior Gap Snapshot is 404ed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RobBennett</title>
		<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/comment-page-1/#comment-805</link>
		<dc:creator>RobBennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/#comment-805</guid>
		<description>I believe that this problem has its roots in the idea that stock returns come from a giant Random Number Generator in the Sky. If stock returns are unpredictable, as we are so often told (the claim that timing doesn&#039;t work suggests this, does it not?) then isn&#039;t stock investing really just gambling? Aren&#039;t we all just putting our money down in the hope that a good number happens to pop up? If that is the attitude with which we begin, how can we fail to come to see investing as an entertainment (one that often shifts from comedy to tragedy)?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I reject the Passive model, which is what gets us thinking this way. My starting premise is that &lt;i&gt;of course&lt;/i&gt; returns are largely predictable at least in the long run, that &lt;i&gt;of course&lt;/i&gt; long-term timing always works even if short-term timing never does. When you start with this idea rather than the Passive idea, some amazing things happen to your attitude to investing over time. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;For investors with this attitude, it&#039;s not an entertainment anymore. Rational Investors are not surprised by the price changes we see. We ignore the short-term changes because we know on a deep level that they are inconsequential. And we anticipate the long-term changes years in advance (because they have played out the same way over and over again since the market first opened and always must continue to do so if the market is to continue to function). We are not surprised by the stock market&#039;s tricks. So they don&#039;t make us laugh or cry. For us, it&#039;s not entertainment anymore.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The key to getting over the idea that investing is entertainment is seeing the reality that is the cause of stock returns. It is the productivity of the U.S. economy that determines long-term stock returns. All that you need to know to avoid thinking of investing as entertainment is that U.S. productivity has been sufficient to finance a 6.5 percent real return for many, many years and any return higher than that is cotton-candy nothingness that is being borrowed from your future returns. Stop taking the nominal returns reported in the newspapers as serious numbers (always adjust for valuations) and the game aspect of investing goes &quot;Poof!&quot; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rob</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe that this problem has its roots in the idea that stock returns come from a giant Random Number Generator in the Sky. If stock returns are unpredictable, as we are so often told (the claim that timing doesn&#39;t work suggests this, does it not?) then isn&#39;t stock investing really just gambling? Aren&#39;t we all just putting our money down in the hope that a good number happens to pop up? If that is the attitude with which we begin, how can we fail to come to see investing as an entertainment (one that often shifts from comedy to tragedy)?</p>
<p>I reject the Passive model, which is what gets us thinking this way. My starting premise is that <i>of course</i> returns are largely predictable at least in the long run, that <i>of course</i> long-term timing always works even if short-term timing never does. When you start with this idea rather than the Passive idea, some amazing things happen to your attitude to investing over time. </p>
<p>For investors with this attitude, it&#39;s not an entertainment anymore. Rational Investors are not surprised by the price changes we see. We ignore the short-term changes because we know on a deep level that they are inconsequential. And we anticipate the long-term changes years in advance (because they have played out the same way over and over again since the market first opened and always must continue to do so if the market is to continue to function). We are not surprised by the stock market&#39;s tricks. So they don&#39;t make us laugh or cry. For us, it&#39;s not entertainment anymore.</p>
<p>The key to getting over the idea that investing is entertainment is seeing the reality that is the cause of stock returns. It is the productivity of the U.S. economy that determines long-term stock returns. All that you need to know to avoid thinking of investing as entertainment is that U.S. productivity has been sufficient to finance a 6.5 percent real return for many, many years and any return higher than that is cotton-candy nothingness that is being borrowed from your future returns. Stop taking the nominal returns reported in the newspapers as serious numbers (always adjust for valuations) and the game aspect of investing goes &#8220;Poof!&#8221; </p>
<p>Rob</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cover to Cover: The Hype Machine</title>
		<link>http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/comment-page-1/#comment-478</link>
		<dc:creator>Cover to Cover: The Hype Machine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behaviorgap.com/confusing-investment-with-entertainment/#comment-478</guid>
		<description>[...] talked before about the danger of confusing investing with entertainment. As this cover story highlights, this practice becomes even more dangerous when combined with our [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] talked before about the danger of confusing investing with entertainment. As this cover story highlights, this practice becomes even more dangerous when combined with our [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
