[dternyak]

I think this is true, but only to a point. It's certainly true when the comparison is 10K to invest vs 10M, as liquidity of markets is not yet a concern and the investor with 10M is suddenly "accredited", can afford to pay a financial advisor, etc.

However, at 10M vs 10B, the 10M investor is much better off. Liquidity becomes a real concern - there's just not that many assets or stocks that can support that kind of allocation.

Small, nimble investors can usually outperform large funds simply by being able to fully enter into positions where larger funds couldn't.

[chii]

That's just another way of expressing the concept that opportunities are limited.

Large investors (like those with $10B) can certainly take advantage of small opportunities, but just not with their full amount. But because they are large, there may be multiple small opportunities which they participate in, and diversify on, rather than a small investor who must commit to a single small opportunity (which forces them to take on individual/concentrated risk).

So it's not true that the $10M investor is better off.

[username90]

You are only one person, taking on more opportunities takes more of your time and subcontracting investments can only do so much. Jeff Bezos turned 300k start to 100 billions, a 300 000 times return on investment. Do you think he could have turned 100 billion to 30 quadrillions? Obviously not, it would be something like 100 billion to 1 trillion at best.

Investing in yourself or projects you run is the main way to get rich, otherwise you just get average returns but if you invest in yourself you can bet on you being much better at doing things than the rest of the world expects.

[BoiledCabbage]

> I think this is true, but only to a point.

This comment here is kinda incredible at being "technically correct". The argument is "That's not always true, it only hold for 99.99% of the time".

As in even if you're in the 99.99% OPs reasoning still holds. And yet so much time on this site is spent arguing on behalf of the .001% Ie people with way above $400 million in net worth.

You realize you're talking about fewer than 3000 people in the entire USA. Why is this even worth discussing? And that's still assuming they're putting all of their net worth into a single investment which they aren't.

This is so far from the point of being discussed it's a complete distraction. The epitome of "well actually...".

[dternyak]

Nice! My first internet fight. Exciting.

It's not just 3000 people. My comment is relevant for entities like pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, insurance companies that have to allocate their float, conglomerates like Berkshire hathaway, and those "negligible" 3000 people that account for probably a quarter or higher of personal investment.