Rating: 
Summary: Moments of Clarity, Moments of Comedy
Review: 'Adam Smith's' The Money Game presents the reader with some interesting musings on modern finance, as practiced in the late 1960s, and depressingly, today. The book's content actually came from a group of (in)famous essays submitted by the fictitious Mr. 'Smith' to a variety of financial publications during the Fabulous Go-Go Years which spanned from about the mid-1960s to early 1971.
In this book, we see the market revealed for what it truly is. All markets consist of people, and contrary to popular belief (and all common sense), not all people participate in financial markets to make money. Such insights make up the core theme of the book, and Mr. 'Smith' explores this theme in detail in the first part of the book. While it is true that many people do come to the market to make money and hopefully get (filthy) rich, and equally true that most people exit the market chastened, embarassed and with empty pockets, wallets and bank and equity accounts, most secretly approach the market as either a diversion from an otherwise staid and desultory life, a form of entertainment and excitement, or as some sort of perverse challenge. The truly successful in the marketplace, however, approach it as a game, like any other, and as such have acquired a philosophical outlook on the markets and life. As such, shades of Nasim Nicholab Taleb's remarkable financial book, Fooled by Randomness, resonate with particular force with this book. Thus, Mr. 'Smith' admonishes the reader to understand our reasons for participating in the market, and along the way, he divulges the real secret to getting rich in the stock market (besides either running the market or being some sort of middleman in the market). Mr. 'Smith' also admonishes potential players to look upon the market as a Game (with a capital 'g'), and this particular insight makes for the second major theme of the book. Here he relies on the words of Lord Keynes and the legendary founder of the Fidelity Group for support.
In Part Two of the book, he puts both ivory tower foolishness and market foolishness to the test, and as most intelligent readers might accurately guess, both fail spectacularly. Based on his treatment, we learn that the random walk theory and the Dow theory share opposite sides of the same coin. Adherents to one or the other champion them with equal fervor (and trash their counterparts with the zeal of religious fanatics), and while one says that prices can be predicted from the past moves, and the other says no such luck, both profess to be the one true path to riches. Part Two really gets to the heart of investing. Who has the best system? It turns out that nobody does, and that is the central message, along with the fallibility of numbers, trends and past data (and the slavish and potentially bankrupting reliance on computers and programmed trading). All 'systems' for money-making depend on the analysis of the past to determine the future, and though this works well in the controlled environment of the science lab, it fails spectacularly in the uncontrolled marketplace.
In Part Three, Mr. 'Smith' paints a disturbing picture of professional money managers. The reader gets to see the pros in action, and even though the pros have more money and information, they too often act as clueless as the Little Guy whose money they take and quite often berate. Part Four of the book allows us to partake in a little roasting of the financial doomsayers, ever-present then as they are now, and always seeing signs of the Apocalypse in every upward or downward movement in one or more economic indicators. Here, Mr. 'Smith' reminds us that goldbugs and other fear mongering speculators and opportunists will always be with us so long as there are marketplaces in which to trade.
Part Five winds up the book, and Mr. 'Smith' reminds the reader that in the end, the market and investing are best approached when looked upon as a Game. Whether it is the Go-Go Sixties or internet New Economy Nineties, the players and their passions, hopes, dreams and desires all remain the same. Change the names and the dates and you really couldn't say for sure if you were in one period or the other. The wise reader would do well to look inward first before making any outward financial moves going forward. Readers of this book who desire to learn more about the history and cyclical nature of business, industry, markets and money may want to read Devil Take The Hindmost by Edward Chancellor.
Rating: 
Summary: A Classical Gold Book
Review: A book written in the sixties, that just as well could have been written today (except for a few details). This is proof that most investment bankers and fund managers are complete morons, especially in the light that they haven't changed in over 40 years (same mistakes and bad attitudes year after year).This should be mandatory reading for anyone considering a glamorous career involving trading or any type of Exchange. If you are not into these kinds of fun, avoid it, as it probably will be very boring without some knowledge of how these markets works.
Rating: 
Summary: Useless book
Review: Despite glamorous reviews from nobel prize winner Paul Samuelson and a NY Times reviewer on the covers, do not read this book if you are hoping to learn how to make money in the stock market. The book doesn't offer a hint. The author tells about what technical analysts do, what fundamental analysts do, and how the random walk behavior of stocks thwarts both types of analysts. After reading this book, one would think the succesful investors just have a feel for "the game," but the author does not do a good job telling the reader how the succesful investors apply technical and fundamental analysis. To be fair, he does mention some anecdotal reports of some investors, but he does not publish the record of these investors in a way that would make me respect their philosophies. If you want to learn how to apply analysis for making money in the stock market read Peter Lynch's books Beating the Street and One Up on Wall Street, read Malkiel's book A Random Walk Down Wall Street, read Jack Bogle's new book on mutual funds, read all of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway reports, and subscribe to Outstanding Investor's Digest. The one interesting point in The Money Game worth learning is that corruption has ALWAYS been a part of Wall Street. All earnings reports should be taken with a grain of salt unless you're an expert in analysing them! Companies have been managing their earnings for decades! Wall Street is like any other market: Caveat Emptor
Rating:
Summary: Essential Reading for anyone who thinks they know investing
Review: I have recently been reading books about investing written (or revised) before 1980. It is amazing what you can learn from history. Let me tell you, nothing is new in the investing world, at all, and this book really shows that. This is a great book that can really help provides perspective for thinking about contemporary issues, you should read it.
Rating:
Summary: Essential Reading for anyone who thinks they know investing
Review: I have recently been reading books about investing written (or revised) before 1980. It is amazing what you can learn from history. Let me tell you, nothing is new in the investing world, at all, and this book really shows that. This is a great book that can really help provides perspective for thinking about contemporary issues, you should read it.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute Classic!
Review: I studied finance in college and I think I could have just read this book instead of most of the finance classes I took. First of all, "The Money Game" starts out with the thesis that the stock market and all other equity markets are just a game. It is not long-term investing that wins in this game for most. This would be heresy for most finance professors and financial planners out there. One example from the book involves a family that passed IBM stock down from generation to generation, it was only sold to cover estate taxes. Many members in the family became very wealthy. However, they worked just hard as their cohorts with no money, and the buy and hold stretagy profited them almost nothing despite the fact that they were "wealthy." Another example is a man who died in the late 1800s with a portfolio worth over $1,000,000. By the time the inheretence was passed down, the portfolio was worth 0, as the companies had gone out of business. "The Money Game" gives a great explanation of crital issues such as technical analysis, fundamental analysis, mass psychology, mutual funds and their managers, "performance" vs. more conservative funds, accounting practices, random walk theory, "valuation" of equities, and most importantly the money game itself. Ever wonder how a company like Priceline.com could be worth more than the market capitalization of all the airline stocks put together? This book explains how something so out of whack can happen and gives many examples. In this game, money is how you keep score. When someone is making lots of money, they are winning the game. When they are loosing money, they are loosing the game. But the game is there to be played, win, lose, or draw. For the players, it's just too tempting to stay in, it is vital, it is life for many.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic
Review: I've read hundreds of investing books; skimmed hundreds more; even written one myself. But dare it be said: This beautifully written work may well be the best book on the subject ever written. Not because it covers everything, or promises to make you rich. But because it offers timeless insights into how players, amateur and professional, really do play the game, and thereby gives you rich food for thought on how, or whether, you should play. Sure, you won't find anything on program trading, IRAs, 401k's, the great fund boom, or dot com stocks. However, that just goes to show that you needn't read today's papers to truly learn today's market. A bestseller in its day, there is still something for everyone here. Simply put, The Money Game is a classic, the first book on investing you should read.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic
Review: I've read hundreds of investing books; skimmed hundreds more; even written one myself. But dare it be said: This beautifully written work may well be the best book on the subject ever written. Not because it covers everything, or promises to make you rich. But because it offers timeless insights into how players, amateur and professional, really do play the game, and thereby gives you rich food for thought on how, or whether, you should play. Sure, you won't find anything on program trading, IRAs, 401k's, the great fund boom, or dot com stocks. However, that just goes to show that you needn't read today's papers to truly learn today's market. A bestseller in its day, there is still something for everyone here. Simply put, The Money Game is a classic, the first book on investing you should read.
Rating:
Summary: The very definition of a classic.
Review: It is difficult to express in words what a joy reading this little gem was. Very little escapes Smith's survey of the market, its nature, its winners, its losers and (importantly) its dreamers. Smith's keen observations combined with his wry wit make "The Money Game" a pure pleasure. No, it didn't make me millions (it's not designed to), but the understanding I gained about "the game" makes it hands down the best work on the stock market I've ever read.
To "useless book": come back to this book in a few years. What seems useless now will be gold by then.
Rating:
Summary: equal parts humor and wisdom
Review: Much to my surprise, I find myself in agreement with a prize winning economist (Paul Samuelson has dubbed the book a "modern classic," and it is). A brief but insanely great read, Adam Smith made me laugh out loud at least half a dozen times with his dry sarcasm and sardonic wit. If 'Reminiscences of a Stock Operator' is the all time ultimate classic for traders, then 'The Money Game' is the all time ultimate classic for investors. Written almost a decade before I was born, the book is just as relevant today as it was in the latter half of the sixties. The high flyers Smith writes about are so similar to those of the 1990's bubble, it is literally as if nothing but the symbols have changed (and perhaps the clothing styles). Sixties screamers like Brunswick and Solectron were bid up to hundreds of times earnings, then flamed out and fell through the floor with spectacular declines of 90% or more- just like the JNPR's and CMGI's and JDSU's of our more enlightened age. The Great Winfield, master tape reader of his day, is the perfect 1960's equivalent to the modern daytrader banging bids on Island or Selectnet. The technical analysts of the sixties, with their punch cards and their vacuum tube computers, are in perfect harmony with the high powered number crunchers and stochastics trackers of today. And when Smith discusses the complete and utter wackiness of corporate accounting methods, complete with a hundred and one ways to massage earnings statements six ways to Sunday while technically remaining within the law, you would swear he is foreshadowing the fall of Enron. And of course there is good old John Jerk, proud representative of the general public, buying high, selling low and getting taken behind the woodshed by the smarter players, just as he still is today (but don't worry John, you'll come out okay in the "long term," really truly you will, snicker). Smith also takes some time near the end of the book to roast the gold bugs, who were the same bunch of pessimistic doom mongers back then as they are today (surprise!). The uber-pessimists had their brief moment in the sun in the early 80's, but of course 99% of them gave it all back too. What self respecting bug would have cashed in with gold at $800 an ounce when it was surely going to infinity? ... The old hands are always saying that the game is the same. Young gunslingers and wet behind the ears traders nod and smile, because they know the old timers are wise- yet the youngsters are still naïve enough to harbor doubts in the back of their minds as to whether it is true. Is the game always the same? Couldn't it be different this time? Couldn't it? 'The Money Game' really, seriously puts the issue to rest. There is no way a book written in 1966 could sound perfectly suited to 2001, no way that bowling stocks and fiber optic packet switching stocks could give the exact same performances under mania circumstances, unless the game is always indefinitely, immutably the same. And why shouldn't it be? We can put a man on the moon, but we certainly aren't any more humble or mature than we were yesterday. Our knowledge may increase but our greed and our fear stay the same. Bravo Adam Smith (or should I say George Goodman). I don't know if you are even still alive to read this praise, but your book is as fresh today as it was on the day you wrote it.
|
