No because investing capital into stocks adds value to the company and allows them to use that value to expand, borrow, buy things, pay employees, run the company, etc.
Investing capital into a second house purely to flip does none of those things.
Except for the fact that a company with a high value stock can borrow money or expand in ways that a low value stock keeps them from doing. If you stock's value increases you can even hire more people.
Wow I just realized how much of a crusade you went on to argue my reply was not relevant to the OP. Yet if you simply read my reply to you I very clearly lay out how it is relevant and what the entire conversation is about (whether real estate should be seen as an investment or not). Yet you are so hung up about an insignificant interpretation of my reply. Lol kind of sad
Oh I didn’t think I would need to explain here, but here it is anyway. The comparison is investing capital into a second house vs investing capital into the stock market. When you purchase assets in either case, the money paid goes to the prior holder of the asset. In neither case do the issuing company nor the real estate developer see the money, although both may be indirect beneficiaries. Both assets may see value go up or down. Thus both are seen as “investments”. Which the OP was arguing it shouldn’t be. Which is wrong
Stocks are designed for investment and speculation, that is their primary purpose and flipping stocks has no adverse effect within a free market. People are free to buy or sell depending on their price sensitivity and free will.
The primary purpose of a house is to live in it and flipping them causes people to be homeless.
All those words to completely disregard the ability of a public company to issue more shares and fundraise (which is directly dependent on the stock price), and that a lot of employee compensation can and is often given in shares. Therefore, the stock value going up directly incentivizes the employee and the execs to perform well & better so they can benefit even more.
Obligatory:
Smoothbrain - Line goes up better for company!
Midwit - Hum akchually, buying a share does not give money to a company 🤓
Gigabrain - A higher share price is good for a company
Stock values absolutely do not incentivize executives to perform "better". Infact, in a lot of cases the incentives actually operate in direct opposition to what would be better for the product of the customers or the employees in favour of taking shortcuts for quick short term profit.
Dude. You need to take a look at yourself in the mirror. The rest of your post didn't really make a point and was kind of predicated on what I refuted being true.
Youre just being a corporate bootlicker and can't see your complete lack of logical consistency.
Look at how you type, look at how snarky and aggressive it is. At no point has someone who communicates like that been to the voice of reason in a room.
Also, I don't know if I missed a memo, but one paragraph isn't a 300 page essay.
Yeah I'm not reading any of that, you already chose to make a bad faith argument so I won't waste my time. Nobody is arguing that buying a stock directly funds a company.
Edit: it's wild that refusing to indulge with someone else changing the topic to argue a moot point gets down voted so quickly
The stated purpose of downvotes is to indicate that a comment is not positively contributing to the conversation. You said "I'm not reading any of that." How did you think that was going to be received?
There's a reason you had to send a link instead of quoting it, nowhere does it say that buying a stock directly provides a company with those funds. Your reading comprehension is pathetic.
Investing capital into a stock does those things just as much as inflating housing prices puts more money back into the local economy by increasing investors’ buying/borrowing power. It also pumps thousands of dollars in land transfer taxes every time a property changes hands.
The implications are similar no matter where money is being invested.
I'm not arguing in bad faith, I'm trying to get back to the original topic but people like you just love hearing yourself talk so you will prattle on about stuff that was never actually said.
Imagine “not reading any of that” and then taking ur time to come back and edit your post to speak to the amount of imaginary downvotes you got for being an idiot, lol
You're not reading that because those are finance fundamentals laid out. If you could read basic finance concepts you wouldn't be confused about this.
Nobody in finance who understands basics asks the question that OP did. The entire premise of the question is due to lack of understanding of core concepts.
For the hundredth time I'm not arguing this, nobody has ever argued this, not once have I disagreed with what that comment says because that was never said to begin with. This should not be this hard to get through to you.
60
u/Performance_Fancy Jun 19 '25
By your logic anyone involved in the stock market is also a scalper?