Are We Doing Any Good?

[Palantir]

You may not individually provide for this, but by being an intelligent investor, you become part of a system that makes this possible. Otherwise, companies like Google and Walmart would have to rely on money that they were able to raise privately which probably wouldn't have been nearly enough for them to have generated the scale that they've achieved.

 

When has Google raised equity after its IPO though? I do not believe their IPO was driven by need for cash either...but the fact that you have to become a public company once the number of shareholders reaches a certain point.

 

 

Furthermore, value investors are not really investing in these fast growing young tech companies.

[Uccmal]

Here is what I think.  This money that I made came to me because I put my balls on the line.  I'm not some tycoon that exploited vulnerable workers.  I didn't get rich on crony capitalism.  I'm not a "fat cat" banker.  I didn't get rich while hiding behind a corporate veil.  I didn't inherit my money.  I'm not getting handouts for political influence. 

 

However, here is how I get treated by society going forward:

A)  I share 30+% on my gains. 

B)  If I lose a lot of money, nobody will share in my losses.

 

Somebody is getting one hell of free ride and it clearly isn't me.  Therefore, I must be a net benefit to everyone who gets something for no skin off their back.  If I win, so do they.  If I lose, too bad for me alone.

 

 

Amen Brother. Things didn't seem so easy when my FFH options were worthless, or my BAC options were worthless.  I generally take a pass on guilt.  It is not a productive emotion. 

 

After taxes in 2013 I worked at my day job as a volunteer.  I no longer have a choice in the matter.  My day job is simply not thrilling enough to do it for free. 

 

Now to be fair.  I was raised in a middle class family, that valued learning and education, and paid for most of my undergraduate degree.  I will in turn support my kids the same way. 

[rkbabang]

You may not individually provide for this, but by being an intelligent investor, you become part of a system that makes this possible. Otherwise, companies like Google and Walmart would have to rely on money that they were able to raise privately which probably wouldn't have been nearly enough for them to have generated the scale that they've achieved.

 

When has Google raised equity after its IPO though? I do not believe their IPO was driven by need for cash either...but the fact that you have to become a public company once the number of shareholders reaches a certain point.

 

 

Furthermore, value investors are not really investing in these fast growing young tech companies.

 

<edited> This is like saying the CEO of Starbucks doesn't play a role, because he doesn't make anyone coffee.  In order for fast growing young tech companies to have access to the capital markets, the capital markets have to both exist and function somewhat efficiently.  There is an important role for value investors, growth speculators, and short sellers in making this happen and keeping it running.  Many investors play more than one of those roles with different investments or at different times.  I've invested in companies such as Netflix, which has never been a good value investment, yet I've made money on it.  I've never shorted a stock, but I know some on this board do.  It is obvious to anyone who pays attention that the market that it isn't always efficient and rational.  Investors taking advantage of those inefficiencies when they show up is what helps make the market more efficient. Before you object and scream that I'm generalizing, notice I didn't say "efficient" I said "more efficient".  Efficient markets only exist in textbooks.

 

[rkbabang]

I just edited out the ad hominem attack from my last post.  That was uncalled for and I apologize.

 

I find many on this thread are not thinking things through past more than one step.  This is the same mistake Marx made thinking that management, capitalists, property owners were all unnecessary only workers mattered.  In reality the whole economy is intertwined and almost every job is necessary in someway.  The best way to know that is if it is profitable. Yes, of course government laws/regulations/protectionism/etc get in the way of this somewhat, but in general it is still the case.  Saying that value investors are not necessary because only venture capitalists give money to young startups and contribute to our society is not thinking things all the way through.  If there were no functioning stock market on earth, would there exist any venture capitalists willing to fund startups?    What would motivate them to do so?  Altruism?  It is the wheels that move the car, so are all the other components superfluous?

 

[mvalue]

At the end of the day you can argue polar opposite answers to this question with a lot of intellectual underpinning for either side. I'm someone who believes the markets would probably be just as good at turning the wheels of capitalism with a lot less liquidity/volume and that a marginal value investor (or marginal 10,000 value investors) should probably not credit themselves for being responsible for more efficient pricing.

 

I do it because I like it, but I believe it doesn't add a damn thing to society. You can believe something different and rationalize it all kinds of intelligent ways. To each their own.

[rkbabang]

At the end of the day you can argue polar opposite answers to this question with a lot of intellectual underpinning for either side. I'm someone who believes the markets would probably be just as good at turning the wheels of capitalism with a lot less liquidity/volume and that a marginal value investor (or marginal 10,000 value investors) should probably not credit themselves for being responsible for more efficient pricing.

 

I do it because I like it, but I believe it doesn't add a damn thing to society. You can believe something different and rationalize it all kinds of intelligent ways. To each their own.

 

It depends on what "adds value to society" means to you.  It clearly adds value to you (and I'll guess) your family.  Again there are 7 Billion people on Earth, I have no delusions that anything I do will "move the needle" as far as value to society goes.  If I can add value to my own life and the lives of those in my family, without causing anyone else harm. Then at the end of the day, what I've done has been a net positive to society.  I'm not superman, Mother Teresa, or even Elon Musk.  The original question wasn't "Are value investors carrying the entire world on our shoulders and should everyone else humbly bow down to our greatness?"  It was "Are we doing any good?".

 

[randomep]

I believe that someone who gets to do what he enjoy in life, and this can take the form of investing full time, and not having to go out and do a work he doesn't like, is a happier human being. And I also believe that a happy man can make 10 persons around him happier.

 

+1

 

very very interesting point, never thought of it that way!

[randomep]

Here is what I think.  This money that I made came to me because I put my balls on the line.  I'm not some tycoon that exploited vulnerable workers.  I didn't get rich on crony capitalism.  I'm not a "fat cat" banker.  I didn't get rich while hiding behind a corporate veil.  I didn't inherit my money.  I'm not getting handouts for political influence. 

 

However, here is how I get treated by society going forward:

A)  I share 30+% on my gains. 

B)  If I lose a lot of money, nobody will share in my losses.

 

Somebody is getting one hell of free ride and it clearly isn't me.  Therefore, I must be a net benefit to everyone who gets something for no skin off their back.  If I win, so do they.  If I lose, too bad for me alone.

 

There is a fallacy to what your saying Eric, you are saying you produced this money and the government gets a cut, as well as those who produce goods that you buy. But what about the capacity that you took it away from. What you said could apply to playing poker. I don't think poker is doing good in the sense of the title of this thread, although it seems to be digressing.

 

Now I am not saying you aren't doing any good. I just asked you and all here what they think of themselves. It is subjective. I just find your argument puzzling.

 

I mean, you could have taken it away from some hedge fund that manages some old lady's pension. Mind you still in a perverse way I feel that hedge fund and even that old lady deserved it!

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Here is what I think.  This money that I made came to me because I put my balls on the line.  I'm not some tycoon that exploited vulnerable workers.  I didn't get rich on crony capitalism.  I'm not a "fat cat" banker.  I didn't get rich while hiding behind a corporate veil.  I didn't inherit my money.  I'm not getting handouts for political influence. 

 

However, here is how I get treated by society going forward:

A)  I share 30+% on my gains. 

B)  If I lose a lot of money, nobody will share in my losses.

 

Somebody is getting one hell of free ride and it clearly isn't me.  Therefore, I must be a net benefit to everyone who gets something for no skin off their back.  If I win, so do they.  If I lose, too bad for me alone.

 

There is a fallacy to what your saying Eric, you are saying you produced this money and the government gets a cut, as well as those who produce goods that you buy. But what about the capacity that you took it away from. What you said could apply to playing poker. I don't think poker is doing good in the sense of the title of this thread, although it seems to be digressing.

 

Now I am not saying you aren't doing any good. I just asked you and all here what they think of themselves. It is subjective. I just find your argument puzzling.

 

I mean, you could have taken it away from some hedge fund that manages some old lady's pension. Mind you still in a perverse way I feel that hedge fund and even that old lady deserved it!

 

Perhaps I'm a better capital allocator than that hedge fund manager and I've done society a favor by boosting the return on that capital?

 

Therefore, society will get an inproved return on capital if I keep the money rather than having it taken from me by the tax authorities.

[rkbabang]

Here is what I think.  This money that I made came to me because I put my balls on the line.  I'm not some tycoon that exploited vulnerable workers.  I didn't get rich on crony capitalism.  I'm not a "fat cat" banker.  I didn't get rich while hiding behind a corporate veil.  I didn't inherit my money.  I'm not getting handouts for political influence. 

 

However, here is how I get treated by society going forward:

A)  I share 30+% on my gains. 

B)  If I lose a lot of money, nobody will share in my losses.

 

Somebody is getting one hell of free ride and it clearly isn't me.  Therefore, I must be a net benefit to everyone who gets something for no skin off their back.  If I win, so do they.  If I lose, too bad for me alone.

 

There is a fallacy to what your saying Eric, you are saying you produced this money and the government gets a cut, as well as those who produce goods that you buy. But what about the capacity that you took it away from. What you said could apply to playing poker. I don't think poker is doing good in the sense of the title of this thread, although it seems to be digressing.

 

Now I am not saying you aren't doing any good. I just asked you and all here what they think of themselves. It is subjective. I just find your argument puzzling.

 

I mean, you could have taken it away from some hedge fund that manages some old lady's pension. Mind you still in a perverse way I feel that hedge fund and even that old lady deserved it!

 

Perhaps I'm a better capital allocator than that hedge fund manager and I've done society a favor by boosting the return on that capital?

 

Therefore, society will get an inproved return on capital if I keep the money rather than having it taken from me by the tax authorities.

 

I agree completely.  Maybe we should all be buying property in Detroit while it's still cheap.

 

"Economic Freedom Zones would see federal income and corporate taxes cut to 5%, and federal payroll taxes reduced to 2% for employers and employees...  areas designated Economic Freedom Zones would carry no capital gains taxes"

 

Sen. Rand Paul makes good on Detroit promise, unveils plan for hard hit cities

[LongHaul]

A few comments:

 

Buffett does a lot more than just concentrating wealth by passively buying stocks.  He has at times acted as an activist, provided counsel on boards and encourages his major holdings to have long term perspectives.  He started Berkshire Re by Hiring Ajit Jain.  He has and currently owns a bunch of businesses as part of Berkshire and he fits the great operator mold for how he likes his businesses run.  Geico accelerated its spending after he bought it even though there was income statement hit as an example.  Great operators have a very significant benefit for society.  When he was young he was extremely entreprenurial. 

 

As a passive investor I think it is almost entirely concentrating wealth.  Your gain is someone else's loss on any stock.    The exception to that is that I think financial markets are more efficient with value investors.  How bad would the Great Recession have been without value investors stepping in?  We'll never know.  So it probably does lessen the troughs - especially for debt markets - which is good thing.  Less wasted human potential.

 

Personally - I feel guilty just investing passively.  I think it gnaws at me at times.  And I think Uccmal made a great comment - it isn't a productive emotion at all.  Sometimes I think I should of been a doctor but I just love business/investing too much.

 

Time for me to go work at McDonald's!

 

Maybe there is some way we can take action to change this - perhaps if a lot of us own shares in a company we can encourage the mgmt to be long term oriented.  So many are not.

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

Just to stir the pot ..

 

If you just buy/sell paper you contribute squat. You may win or lose, but it is a zero sum game.

 

If you buy new paper/stock you do something useful. Your $ got spent generating some economic activity.

 

If you used wealth to build something you did something useful. That new mine in what was a cow pasture.

 

But if you work on Wall Street, 90% of you add zero value  :D .... except to maybe some fine clothes sellers.

If you have the brains to be a top analyst or quant, you also have the brains to set up/run companies or design new & better products. So why did you settle for being a waiter, & reliance on a bonus (tip).

 

Needless to say .. not a terribly popular view!

 

SD

 

[rkbabang]

<sigh>  It is a lucky thing for all of humanity that markets do not require its participants to even begin to understand them in order to positively contribute.  The reason capitalism works is that people can act in their own self interest and the vast majority of the time society's interests are aligned with it.  This alignment of interests is crucial, since people in general will act in their own self interest anyway, regardless of the position they are in or the system they live under. Which is why socialism/communism/or any other statism can't work, those in power will always act in their own self interest rather than in the interest of those they "serve" ("It's a cookbook!").  Anyway, this lack of understanding, and lack of ability to think more than one or two steps through a process, however does put the entire system in constant jeopardy in any democracy.

 

[APG12]

Should the standard of what's "good" be helping other people or making your life a happy/successful/ flourishing one? If the former, there are probably better ways than good investing. If the latter, I think a lot of the people on this board are doing a whole lot of good.  :)

[Palantir]

At the end of the day you can argue polar opposite answers to this question with a lot of intellectual underpinning for either side. I'm someone who believes the markets would probably be just as good at turning the wheels of capitalism with a lot less liquidity/volume and that a marginal value investor (or marginal 10,000 value investors) should probably not credit themselves for being responsible for more efficient pricing.

 

I do it because I like it, but I believe it doesn't add a damn thing to society. You can believe something different and rationalize it all kinds of intelligent ways. To each their own.

 

This.

 

 

 

Just to stir the pot ..

 

If you just buy/sell paper you contribute squat. You may win or lose, but it is a zero sum game.

 

If you buy new paper/stock you do something useful. Your $ got spent generating some economic activity.

 

If you used wealth to build something you did something useful. That new mine in what was a cow pasture.

 

But if you work on Wall Street, 90% of you add zero value  :D .... except to maybe some fine clothes sellers.

If you have the brains to be a top analyst or quant, you also have the brains to set up/run companies or design new & better products. So why did you settle for being a waiter, & reliance on a bonus (tip).

 

Needless to say .. not a terribly popular view!

 

SD

 

This too. I think it is natural for investors to attribute a "higher purpose" to their work, sometimes its healthy, but sometimes it borders on narcissim where you elevate your field because you see yourself in it, like Mr. Blankfein, "I'm doing God's work", or Larry Page, "Better give money to Musk than charity". Why? Because he sees himself in Musk, no surprise giving it to Musk is a great idea.  :)

 

*runs away and hides* :-X

[cubsfan]

This is an interesting conversation. Not sure where I come down on it.  Maybe it just depends...

 

In my case, 5 years ago, I can't find a job - and now I do this full time. By checking out of the tech workforce,

like Eric says, I leave a space (high paying job) for someone else. That seems like a good thing. And I don't

clog up the unemployment rolls.

 

For myself, I eventually get to the point where I am paying a hell of a lot in taxes and supporting my

family. I'm taking no government support. This seems like a double win to me.

 

Plus I am helping several other people make a lot of money with some above average (index beating) returns.

 

All this seems like a net-net-net positive to me. Plus I'm way happier than I was working for other people.

 

It sure feels like I'm doing good.

[randomep]

This is an interesting conversation. Not sure where I come down on it.  Maybe it just depends...

 

In my case, 5 years ago, I can't find a job - and now I do this full time. By checking out of the tech workforce,

like Eric says, I leave a space (high paying job) for someone else. That seems like a good thing. And I don't

clog up the unemployment rolls.

 

For myself, I eventually get to the point where I am paying a hell of a lot in taxes and supporting my

family. I'm taking no government support. This seems like a double win to me.

 

Plus I am helping several other people make a lot of money with some above average (index beating) returns.

 

All this seems like a net-net-net positive to me. Plus I'm way happier than I was working for other people.

 

It sure feels like I'm doing good.

 

Thanks for your sincere response. That is very interesting how you got started full time. I truly recommend "Free Capital", it talks about how 12 people in Europe got started investing full time.

 

So are you saying you manage money for other people?

 

For me one thing is the opposite though, I hated trying to invest full time. I just couldn't deal with the pressure and the apparent idleness. I find that working at least helps me be more patient and take my mind off it, esp. when there is a market pullback.

 

 

[turar]

Some weekend reading on the subject:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_cassidy?currentPage=all

[MrB]

Another viewpoint:

Most of us on this board compound wealth because we fundamentally believe in two things,

a) there is nothing theoretical about buying a $1 for 50 cents and wait it out until you are proven correct, and

b) owning 1% or 100% of a company should be though of as the same.

 

Having said that, I think most will agree Dell, Microsoft, Google, etc did great things for humanity and credit should go to Michael, Bill, Larry, etc. Well in light of the above, if you own 0.0001% of Google, how about taking 0.0001% of the credit ;-)

 

There is a real world connection between your ownership and what happens on the ground. If we did not have this system, what else would have distributed wealth more evenly? Its not perfect, but boy does it work!

[cubsfan]

This is an interesting conversation. Not sure where I come down on it.  Maybe it just depends...

 

In my case, 5 years ago, I can't find a job - and now I do this full time. By checking out of the tech workforce,

like Eric says, I leave a space (high paying job) for someone else. That seems like a good thing. And I don't

clog up the unemployment rolls.

 

For myself, I eventually get to the point where I am paying a hell of a lot in taxes and supporting my

family. I'm taking no government support. This seems like a double win to me.

 

Plus I am helping several other people make a lot of money with some above average (index beating) returns.

 

All this seems like a net-net-net positive to me. Plus I'm way happier than I was working for other people.

 

It sure feels like I'm doing good.

 

Thanks for your sincere response. That is very interesting how you got started full time. I truly recommend "Free Capital", it talks about how 12 people in Europe got started investing full time.

 

So are you saying you manage money for other people?

 

For me one thing is the opposite though, I hated trying to invest full time. I just couldn't deal with the pressure and the apparent idleness. I find that working at least helps me be more patient and take my mind off it, esp. when there is a market pullback.

 

In terms of my getting started - I consider it "fate meets luck" - it was not planned, but worked out well that I was sort of forced to make a decision.

 

Investing full time leaves me plenty of time to work on other peoples portfolios, friends and family. Since that can occupy plenty of time, and I like it,

I am less likely to do I something stupid, like trade. I agree with you - the idleness can be filled up with something really dumb - like trying to

"make things happen". Idle time is better spent reading, thinking, going over models a second/third time, and research. Patience and good decision

making is a critical element. So I spend lots of time attending conferences as well - there is a lot of time for learning.

 

But I agree - the people I have seen "blow up" are the ones that try and make things happen by trading when they get bored.

 

I'll check out Free Capital - thanks.

[randomep]

This is an interesting conversation. Not sure where I come down on it.  Maybe it just depends...

 

In my case, 5 years ago, I can't find a job - and now I do this full time. By checking out of the tech workforce,

like Eric says, I leave a space (high paying job) for someone else. That seems like a good thing. And I don't

clog up the unemployment rolls.

 

For myself, I eventually get to the point where I am paying a hell of a lot in taxes and supporting my

family. I'm taking no government support. This seems like a double win to me.

 

Plus I am helping several other people make a lot of money with some above average (index beating) returns.

 

All this seems like a net-net-net positive to me. Plus I'm way happier than I was working for other people.

 

It sure feels like I'm doing good.

 

Thanks for your sincere response. That is very interesting how you got started full time. I truly recommend "Free Capital", it talks about how 12 people in Europe got started investing full time.

 

So are you saying you manage money for other people?

 

For me one thing is the opposite though, I hated trying to invest full time. I just couldn't deal with the pressure and the apparent idleness. I find that working at least helps me be more patient and take my mind off it, esp. when there is a market pullback.

 

In terms of my getting started - I consider it "fate meets luck" - it was not planned, but worked out well that I was sort of forced to make a decision.

 

Investing full time leaves me plenty of time to work on other peoples portfolios, friends and family. Since that can occupy plenty of time, and I like it,

I am less likely to do I something stupid, like trade. I agree with you - the idleness can be filled up with something really dumb - like trying to

"make things happen". Idle time is better spent reading, thinking, going over models a second/third time, and research. Patience and good decision

making is a critical element. So I spend lots of time attending conferences as well - there is a lot of time for learning.

 

But I agree - the people I have seen "blow up" are the ones that try and make things happen by trading when they get bored.

 

I'll check out Free Capital - thanks.

 

 

I don't understand how is managing other's portfolio work? If you trade for them don't you just shadow your own porfolio? Trading is zero work.

 

 

[rukawa]

I think value investors do zero good for society. Generally social utility comes from innovation like for instance driverless cars, or the airplane. And often these are horrible investments.

 

I also think making a lot of money and then donating it to charity is kind of ridiculous. Its basically the equivalent of government taxing people and then using it to fund social programs except that it is a far greater waste of time and energy from the social point of view. Its seems stupid to me.

 

I came to terms with all of this awhile ago. I invest because I want to be free to live my life the way I want.

 

 

[Kiltacular]

I first got the investing itch when I had to read Marx / Engels in college.  My reaction, I guess, similar to the people that read Liar's Poker and made a bee line to Wall Street.  Marx told "me" that I wanted to own the means of production or else I was a worker and that the value of my work would exceed my pay.  I only fully appreciated what capitalism was when he told me what it shouldn't be.  Now, there was no way I thought the system would change so where was I going to be in our capitalist system...that's all I could think about during that reading.

 

The next question was how to get in the owner of capital position and stay there with the least amount of risk (of having being locked into the non-owner position).  My Grandpa clued me into the market.  Then, I read Lowenstein's book and straight after that, all the Berkshire Letters....I was obsessed not with getting really rich but with getting in the position that my capital could support me and that I could feel safe I could grow it with inflation+ and not lose it, etc.

 

Is any of this "good" for society.  Sure or maybe not.  It's great for me.  My wife is a physician and loves what she does and the help she provides her patients seems more valuable than what I do.  But even though I have a front row seat watching a physician's life, I still feel what investors do isn't a waste.  I supported her while she got her degrees, passed the boards and whatnot by making money investing...this idea can be analogized to all kinds of things.  We're doing good with what we have and we're able, hopefully, to provide something for those we love who may go on to do something "good".

 

We're not making money running drugs and then using the money and power to destroy lives and corrupt society. No Cali cartel or Organized crime.

 

We're doing our best and the very best among us do make obscene amount of money.  But, the vast fortunes made in the U.S. in the last 100 years plus have done an overall admirable job of giving back to society in major way.  There are a few wealthy political families in the U.S. but we don't really have oligarchs.

 

Overall, I like our system and think we should be proud we went green instead of red.

[cubsfan]

I don't understand how is managing other's portfolio work?

If you trade for them don't you just shadow your own porfolio? Trading is zero work

 

Random - that's not exactly what I meant. Trading is no work - correct. Frequent trading is destructive, as

we are all investors on this board. You mentioned idleness, and some will see trading as filling idleness.

I'm saying you have to fight that tendency.

 

As you say, managing a portfolio is pretty easy. The work is in the front end - defining goals and reviewing the

current portfolio they are in, and coming up with a plan that allows them to see the difference between

an asset allocation model and a value investors approach. That has been significant work. Once accomplished,

yes - portfolios are quite similar.

[ERICOPOLY]

This is an interesting conversation. Not sure where I come down on it.  Maybe it just depends...

 

In my case, 5 years ago, I can't find a job - and now I do this full time. By checking out of the tech workforce,

like Eric says, I leave a space (high paying job) for someone else. That seems like a good thing. And I don't

clog up the unemployment rolls.

 

For myself, I eventually get to the point where I am paying a hell of a lot in taxes and supporting my

family. I'm taking no government support. This seems like a double win to me.

 

Plus I am helping several other people make a lot of money with some above average (index beating) returns.

 

All this seems like a net-net-net positive to me. Plus I'm way happier than I was working for other people.

 

It sure feels like I'm doing good.

 

Thanks for your sincere response. That is very interesting how you got started full time. I truly recommend "Free Capital", it talks about how 12 people in Europe got started investing full time.

 

So are you saying you manage money for other people?

 

For me one thing is the opposite though, I hated trying to invest full time. I just couldn't deal with the pressure and the apparent idleness. I find that working at least helps me be more patient and take my mind off it, esp. when there is a market pullback.

 

In terms of my getting started - I consider it "fate meets luck" - it was not planned, but worked out well that I was sort of forced to make a decision.

 

Investing full time leaves me plenty of time to work on other peoples portfolios, friends and family. Since that can occupy plenty of time, and I like it,

I am less likely to do I something stupid, like trade. I agree with you - the idleness can be filled up with something really dumb - like trying to

"make things happen". Idle time is better spent reading, thinking, going over models a second/third time, and research. Patience and good decision

making is a critical element. So I spend lots of time attending conferences as well - there is a lot of time for learning.

 

But I agree - the people I have seen "blow up" are the ones that try and make things happen by trading when they get bored.

 

I'll check out Free Capital - thanks.

 

 

I don't understand how is managing other's portfolio work? If you trade for them don't you just shadow your own porfolio? Trading is zero work.

 

I've decided that I do not want to manage money for anyone else.

 

1)  It's work to communicate with lawyers, accountants, etc... to setup and maintain the fund structure

2)  It's work communicating with people who want to join the fund

3)  It's work communicating to people who are already invested in the fund

4)  It's work when you get worried that you may lose their money and how angry they would be

5)  The phone rings a lot when the market is down.

 

Sounds like work to me.