Follow-up Financing 2030 Prepare Now Building Savings Contract/Special Repayment/Fixed Deposit

It is clear to say, however, that the chance of a price gain in stocks is just as high as a price loss (50%/50%).

That is nonsense, because the distribution is not 50/50 but more like 3:1 for the S&P 500, meaning 3 positive years are opposed by one negative. And even if the chances were 50/50, that still says nothing about risk and payout. Here's a striking example. You play Russian roulette. In 5 cases you get 10 million, in one case you are six feet under. With dubious math, you are very likely a multimillionaire and should play the game. With an individual stock, you actually have the problem that you leave the game in the worst case. But through diversification, on the one hand, the possible loss of each position is limited and it does not knock you out of the game. And that is the real magic behind results like this one here (S&P500, 1926-2017): I don't want to sugarcoat anything either, 50% loss in one year is certainly no fun, the 20% this year isn't either. But in total, that's clearly better than 50/50 or locking in interest income far below the inflation rate. PS: It is also advisable to apply the same pro/con arguments for stocks to real estate.

Yes, you can lose 90% of your assets, but also gain 90%. However, you can never be sure that your stocks will rise in price; they can just as well fall… And anyone who bought a used, poorly insulated, overpriced property a year ago, which they would now get for half the price, is probably very annoyed too. But that’s life. What is really safe for investing your money? Nothing. Everyone has to know for themselves what their personal risk assessment is in that case. However, it is clear to say that the chance of a price gain in stocks is just as high as a loss in price (50%/50%).

Wrong. Since prices always rise over the long term, the probability is significantly higher. Just look at the DAX return triangle. In 50 years, there have only been 2-5 periods where there was actually a negative return over 7-8 years of investment duration. So it tends more towards 90:10.
Although this is not entirely accurate because there have tended to be somewhat more periods with negative returns within the year, the 90:10 ratio is unlikely to change much because of that.

It is clear to say, however, that the chance for a price gain in stocks is just as high as a loss in price (50%/50%).

So generally speaking, without predicting how much increase or loss we are talking about, that might even be true (although I am sure it is not supported empirically), but realistically that is not the case. 1. Our entire system is designed for growth. That means the credit system alone ensures that companies have to grow -> rising prices 2. You do not invest all your money in one stock. has already written that... 3. You invest over a longer period exactly for that reason. Generally, 15 years is considered a good time frame.

It is clear to say that the chance for a price gain in stocks is just as high as a loss of the price (50%/50%).

I am refining the calculation and say that in the end I can also get exactly the same amount out. That is the third possible outcome. Thus, the probability is one third or 33.3% each. ;)

I believe Sunshine is somewhat lacking in differentiation here between individual stocks and ETFs/funds.

Even with individual stocks, a blanket statement like "the chance is 50/50" is nonsense. We are talking about economic developments in publicly traded companies here, not a roulette ball that can land on black or red.

But it is simply wrong to say that on average you have a higher chance of winning than losing something. You also just have to be lucky to have invested in the right stocks. Because just tell the investors of [wirecard] that you only have such a low risk of loss. With [Wirecard], investors even lost -99.9% of their assets. That worked out well...