I think it should be mentioned that "risker" in this context generally means "a diversified, growth-focused, stock portfolio", and not "all in bets on a few stocks picked from /r/wallstreetbets".

I'm not sure I agree. I generally agree with Buffett on it: "diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing."

If a person is willing to spend time learning some the basics of finance, and learning about different companies, I think they would be fine with just picking a few stocks. They just need to be watched carefully. As they start to have more capital, they should look to diversify and look to take on less risk.

Plus, everyone wants different things. Many on /r/wallstreetbets see gambling on the stock market as a way to improve their lives, and I don't think it is the worst option. A risky stock investment is better than wasting money on a sports car or something.

In general, I think when you are very young a very risky investment is not a bad thing. As long as the money isn't needed for other things.

I'm not arguing about picking stocks as an investment option. I'm arguing that the "common knowledge" that younger people should pick risker investments is because they have the years to survive short-term bear markets. They don't need conservative parts of their portfolio to protect against short-term recessions.

I just feel like I'm starting to see more people throw around the "I'm young so I can make riskier investments" excuse when they put all of their investment money into a select few long shot stocks, and still make out worse than any simple fund.

Warren Buffett knew what he was doing, but the median Robinhood trader doesn't.

Plus no one says you have to be 100% conservative.

I do dumb stock purchases but I also own shares of indexes. There is nothing wrong with a "YOLO" into a stock or option you believe in as long as you can afford losing it.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with gambling, so long as the amounts are affordable. This is less of a defense of Robinhood than it might seem...

The human brain isn't done maturing until our mid-20s. Plus there is less experience to draw on. I do think 20 year olds will be less prudent with money than someone who is 40 or 60.

> I do think 20 year olds will be less prudent with money than someone who is 40 or 60.

And?

If you can trust them to get behind the wheel of a car with lives at their fingertips, to drink and smoke and do with their bodies as they wish, I don't see why we're wringing hands about their financial prudence.

> You really think 20 year olds are that immature?

You will think that too when you reach 40.

> Additionally, when you are young, your financial decisions should be riskier. It's actually the smart thing to do.

Only if you ended up winning. If you lost, then it was the stupid thing to do.

>You will think that too when you reach 40

Oh please, get off your high horse. I'm only a couple years away from 40, many of my friends have adult children, and I don't think the average 20 year old is some drooling idiot who can't handle life.

Most 20 year olds are smarter, have more self control, and more financially savvy than my parents, who are in well into their 60s.

I don't think there's a high horse here. It's just how life works. If you've truly managed your early twenties so well, that looking back now with more perspective you don't see anything you could have handled much better, you can congratulate yourself for being a rare specimen.

I, personally, am looking forward to my 60s to understand what I'm doing wrong right now.

> Most 20 year olds are smarter, have more self control, and more financially savvy than my parents, who are in well into their 60s.

This might be a regional thing. Around here, statistics show that more and more young people are getting their finances in a state that's difficult to recover from before they reach 30.

I started investing in my 20's too, fortunately had a few good mentors who taught me the basics. Am talking the general population.