Say I'm business A. I'll offer a portion of my business (say 40%) with the offer that you will reap 40% of my profit. (Assuming one person pays in for that whole value).(edit: I offer this as the income will allow me to expand where as otherwise I'd have to wait longer depending on profit)
At what point does almost anything else you mentioned help the business?
Everything else seems likes gambling, imho, and I still can't wrap my head around why it's allowed.
If you need $100m, it matters whether you're giving up 10% or 20% of the business for that money.
(A major benefit to the public of financial markets is diversified pension funds with good returns, btw)
*At what point does almost anything else you mentioned help the business?*
To create the market place, you must understand that different investors and different businesses have use cases that you don't need, such as "almost anything else" I mentioned.
*Everything else seems likes gambling, imho*
The reason why folks must be confused is that, non Stock market gambling is seen as a vice and/or crime by much of human society. There are religious edicts and/or laws against this practice in most places. The Stock Market getting a free pass from this view - and most people (including myself) not knowing about the nature of this system until they dig a bit deeper - seems unfair.
Las Vegas is looked upon as lascivious even when some of the gambling requires skill (Poker / Blackjack) - derivates trading is instead marketed as a great career where the people doing are superheroes.
I’m not bitter about this even if the message sounds so. Just fascinated by the asymmetry of perception.
Then I learned it's all about risk management and absolutely technical analysis trading is gambling. I agree with you, blew my mind!
Let's even suppose you're right, and it is only gambling -- why should it be disallowed?
The market (in general) rewards companies who show a prospect of increasing profits. In other words, they reward healthy company behavior the same way that a calendar would reward an effectively competing company or a biological entity (with continued survival and thriving).
It's an imperfect mechanism for sure, but in general, healthy companies get rewarded and unhealthy companies get pressure to become healthy or to die. I don't see that the problems outweigh the benefits.
This allows you, as a business, to not have to turn a profit and still be in business.
Investors have capital, and want to see somebody produce something extra with that capital. The main variables are the size of the capital, and the risk profile the investor is prepared to accept.
Businesses require funding to grow[1]. The main variables are the nature of the reparations, and the control they are willing to concede.
The scale of the four dimensions above means that there is no one size fits method to transfer capital from investors to businesses and vice versa. For instance, Capital: $2 to $2bn; Risk: I'm prepared to lose it all, to I want guaranteed, fixed returns; Reparations: I'll pay 20% interest, to you can have non-negotiable dividend; Control: you can own debt, or you can have a seat on my board.
The evolutionary nature of the finance industry has gone from age old future contracts ("I'll give you $100 next October for your crop of wheat") to other more exotic derivatives e.g. Snowball Swap. Even if you as an individual do not need complex options like that, you may invest in a 401k that does.
[1]not limited to pure funding. Consider a manufacturer that makes a product that takes a year to make. If they sell to a foreign market, they cannot risk working and consuming raw materials for a year in one currency to be paid in another currency at the end of the order that varies. Thus, an FX Future gives the manufacturer the confidence to agree a deal and concentrate on the business fundamentals, not global currency markets.