> It makes me laugh when people say stocks are risky.

I agree 100% with your thought.

However, I've come with an explanation: people save $100k and the amount in itself will not budge unless they use that money. This, of course, is a flawed argument as the amount doesn't matter; what you can buy with it does. With stocks—I prefer ETFs but I digress—you do not know the amount you will have in 40 years (even if, historically, you would have made money in absolutely all cases).

This uncertainty, coupled with lack of economics knowledge, is why people qualify stocks as "risky". However, instead of "risky", I think they mean "volatile". Cash is absolutely the riskiest of assets as it loses value in 100% of cases despite being more stable than stocks.

And my cynic mind tells me that the banking industry has all to gain from telling people that "stocks are very risky", instilling fear and, instead, selling them over-complicated products where the bank is guaranteed to make a profit on the back of their clients. Of course, they tell them it's "100% safe".