School me on individual stock investments (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/1/2026 11:08:36 AM EDT
|
Friend of mine is up 60%+ for the year. He’s been making a killing over the past year. I generally stick to Sp500 index funds but he’s getting into a lot of the AI related stocks, energy, chip companies, hardware etc. I know it can be volatile but I feel like I am making chump change comparatively speaking. Seems like old ways are no longer relevant in this environment. Sure it’s still relevant long term and slow and steady but just wonder what am I missing out on (information wise) on how to get better with individual stock purchases. Thank you. |
Member
Joined:
May 2024
Posts:
3463
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Download the Robinhood app and start there. Once you get comfortable you can open a brokerage account at a firm of your choice when you want to start playing with big money. Robinhood is great for learning the ins and outs, and is actually pretty good for a casual investor. |
|
Play with individual stocks if you must. Just remember, for everyone who gets rich quick doing it, lots more people get poor doing it. If you do, don’t use a large portion of your invested money. I wouldn’t use more than maybe 5-10% of your money. And, better be mentally prepared for big losses. And if you do well, don’t get greedy. Slow and steady wins the investing race. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
| Motley Fool has some good material on individual stocks. As mentioned, many lose money trying to pick fast growth individual stocks. Losers will typically outnumber your winners if you’re going for fast growth, but a few winners overshadows the losers. Decide how much you want to gamble with that you don’t mind losing and go for it. Your other investments will continue to grow while you look for a big winner. |
|
Originally Posted By RandyLahey01: Friend of mine is up 60%+ for the year. ...... I know it can be volatile but I feel like I am making chump change comparatively speaking. .... If you like the results your friend is getting why not just follow his lead? 60% annual returns are not sustainable - if they were sustainable then everybody would be filthy rich. Anything that generates 60% return will also exponentially increase your losses during a recession. Remember that a X% loss hurts more than an X% gain helps. sp500 has averaged around 15% annually for the last decade. If you can't work with that then you need financial help. |
|
Individual stocks are a roulette wheel. For everybody who's up 60% for the year, there is somebody else who's down 80%. Keep in mind that capitol gains tax is a thing. Some guys will do their trading in their roth account. If thats not you, then you will need to remember to set aside taxes from your big earnings, assuming you earn anything at all. Good news for the losers, losses aren't taxed. Then the hard parts are knowing when to buy and knowing when to sell. You have to sell both the winners and the losers at the right time. Most people hold on to both of them too long. |
|
As I expected, you have received a lot of advice to stick to index funds. Even I will tell you that limiting your single stock investments to a small part of your portfolio is a wise way to start. You shouldn’t be afraid to try, however. Maybe you have the temperament for it, maybe you don’t. Only one way to find out and that is to try it. If you don’t like it you can go back to index funds. Your friend’s 60% returns are nice, but, as already mentioned not sustainable. It is possible to beat the market, but it is not easy or simple. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try if you want to. |
| Beating the S&P isn’t necessarily that difficult IMO but it becomes exponentially more difficult the more you’re trying to beat it by. It’s really just a function of discipline, mathematical ability and how much effort you’re willing to put into it. I’ve done well sticking to a goal of 25% per year, it’s kept me from trying to hit a home run every time and just focusing on getting on base. My main trading account is all individual stocks and options except for some QQQM I inherited. |
|
These gains are not year over year but the total time I have been in them. I have JNJ total gain 174%, Merck 149%, Con ED 132%, Lennox 1,393%, PM 73%, NVS 65%, SDZNY 63%, REDCAT 30%, ABBV, 28%, LLY 669%, Firefly -28%, HD up 81%, Amazon 63% and FLNA, which I was sure was going to bring an ALZ drug to market when I first bought it several years ago burned my ass when it popped to 130 or so and I just had to buy more. I am down 97.58% in that POS I sold most of it but still hold a little as a lesson to my self. Probably down $30,000 all told in that. If you don't understand it, don't buy it. All told that is about 10% of our stuff. Pick them carefully and in my case pick stuff that pays a dividend and watch them. If they start tanking tax loss harvest them and buy more ETFs and funds. |
|
Originally Posted By Procat: Beating the S&P isn’t necessarily that difficult IMO but it becomes exponentially more difficult the more you’re trying to beat it by. It’s really just a function of discipline, mathematical ability and how much effort you’re willing to put into it. I’ve done well sticking to a goal of 25% per year, it’s kept me from trying to hit a home run every time and just focusing on getting on base. My main trading account is all individual stocks and options except for some QQQM I inherited. LOL. If you could consistently get returns of 25% annually you would be running a hedge fund, not posting on ARFCOM. The overwhelming majority of professional money managers underperform the S&P every year. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
147606
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks: Keep buying the S&P500 index. Your friend brags when he makes money. You won't hear from him when he loses money. Getting rich quick very seldomly works over time. Yup. I'm old enough to remember when "everyone" was getting rich quick off the ".com" boom. Then it was Enron. Then bitcoin. Plenty of folks will get rich, sure. Fortune favors the bold. But there's a lot of bold broke people as well. I did move a 100k a bit ago to SPMO as I like its strategy and costs. It has significantly outperformed the S&P 500, and it's... quite a bit more than 100k in there now. That's about as wild as I get. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By RandyLahey01: Friend of mine is up 60%+ for the year. He’s been making a killing over the past year. I generally stick to Sp500 index funds but he’s getting into a lot of the AI related stocks, energy, chip companies, hardware etc. I know it can be volatile but I feel like I am making chump change comparatively speaking. Seems like old ways are no longer relevant in this environment. Sure it’s still relevant long term and slow and steady but just wonder what am I missing out on (information wise) on how to get better with individual stock purchases. Thank you. Welcome to ARFCOM, the home of the best financial, marital and medical advice on the internet. Your friend isn't skilled, he simply got lucky and you are confusing possibility with probability. It's possible, but not probable, to beat the index. Read the SPIVA report and you will find that the overwhelming majority of professional fund managers are unable to beat the S&P in a given year. Over longer periods of time (15 years) only about 15% are able to outperform. These are professionals with access to information that you don't have access to and who do it on a full-time basis. Do you really think you are more informed than the collective markets? If you believe your friend is that smart, let him manage your investments  .Tune out the noise and be the tortoise and not the hare. |
|
Originally Posted By hammer1995: LOL. If you could consistently get returns of 25% annually you would be running a hedge fund, not posting on ARFCOM. The overwhelming majority of professional money managers underperform the S&P every year. He said his goal was 25% not that he achieved it consistently. My goal trading 0DTE SPX options is also 25%. I achieve it quite often, (sometimes higher), but one bad day can set you back pretty bad. Having goals is good, but don’t extrapolate that into ridiculous growrh. |
|
No guts, no glory. I switched to individual stocks years ago if for no other reason than to avoid fund expense/management fees when I could just buy the stocks myself. Last time I posted this someone said how much could the fees be when some funds have expense ratios of 0.05% or less? Answer: several thou/yr. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
Originally Posted By KILLERB6: No guts, no glory. I switched to individual stocks years ago if for no other reason than to avoid fund expense/management fees when I could just buy the stocks myself. Last time I posted this someone said how much could the fees be when some funds have expense ratios of 0.05% or less? Answer: several thou/yr. Back in the day, when expense ratios were much higher, there were several stocks that offered dividend re-investment plans where your dividends bought stock at a 3 to a 5% discount. Several people told me this wouldn’t amount to much. But it did, took a few years, but it did make a difference. |
|
Originally Posted By hammer1995: LOL. If you could consistently get returns of 25% annually you would be running a hedge fund, not posting on ARFCOM. The overwhelming majority of professional money managers underperform the S&P every year. I’ve posted extensively in this sub forum in the past several years about the companies I was trading and the strategy behind the moves I was making. You’re free to go check my work, read the threads on PLTR, RKLB and Options to start. |
|
Originally Posted By KILLERB6: No guts, no glory. I switched to individual stocks years ago if for no other reason than to avoid fund expense/management fees when I could just buy the stocks myself. Last time I posted this someone said how much could the fees be when some funds have expense ratios of 0.05% or less? Answer: several thou/yr. Fidelity has zero expense ratio funds if the expense ratio bothers you. SPYM has an expense ratio of .02% so that would equate to $1000 on a $5,000,000 investment. Expense ratios on modern day ETF's are not really an issue. |
|
Originally Posted By hammer1995:Fidelity has zero expense ratio funds if the expense ratio bothers you. SPYM has an expense ratio of .02% so that would equate to $1000 on a $5,000,000 investment. Expense ratios on modern day ETF's are not really an issue. Look at the S&P500: it’s all big tech plus a triple helping of Amazon so you’re really buying the Mag 5; the other 493 stocks contribute nothing to return. One could just buy NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, GOOFL, AVGO, GOOG, META and TSLA, get a better return that the full S&P and, wait for it, pay no “management” fees. Plus the hidden “feature” of Fid’s “zero expense ratio” funds is that they loan out “your” stocks for extra $$$…something which you could (again) do on your own. Additionally, by not tracking industry standard indexes, historically, the Fid zero funds have trail d standard indexes by more than the expense ratio sav d. IOW, nothing is free and in fact free is less than free. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
Another advantage of single stocks is tax harvesting. You can sell a loser and buy it back a month later. When selling puts implied volatility of single stocks is higher than implied volatility of indices. Same thing for calls. Index funds are convenient, and they work fairly well, but they are not the only way to go. |
|
Originally Posted By KILLERB6: Why would I buy a find when the funds contain a bunch (as in 90%+) stuff that’s just a drag in the return? Look at the S&P500: it’s all big tech plus a triple helping of Amazon so you’re really buying the Mag 5; the other 493 stocks contribute nothing to return. One could just buy NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, GOOFL, AVGO, GOOG, META and TSLA, get a better return that the full S&P and, wait for it, pay no “management” fees. Plus the hidden “feature” of Fid’s “zero expense ratio” funds is that they loan out “your” stocks for extra $$$…something which you could (again) do on your own. Additionally, by not tracking industry standard indexes, historically, the Fid zero funds have trail d standard indexes by more than the expense ratio sav d. IOW, nothing is free and in fact free is less than free. I don't care what you buy or don't buy. But claiming that the extremely low expense ratio on many ETF's cost "thousands" is simply not true for the overwhelming majority of investors. Also, implying that the other 493 stocks in the S&P contribute nothing to returns is patently false. |
|
Originally Posted By hammer1995: I don't care what you buy or don't buy. But claiming that the extremely low expense ratio on many ETF's cost "thousands" is simply not true for the overwhelming majority of investors. Also, implying that the other 493 stocks in the S&P contribute nothing to returns is patently false. And when S&P500 stocks 1-10 account for about 40% of the index, yeah, the remaining stocks are far less than 1% each and are nothing but drag. Patently false? You stick with what you (don’t) know if (you think) it works for you. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
The thing about musical chairs is sometime the music stops. You better be sitting down when it happens. Not a perfect analogy, but when you're riding a stock climb be aware it's probably going to end sometime. It could be ugly when it does. Investors mitigate risk for a reason. Steady 5-10% growth doesn't feel verry exciting when a few individual stocks are posting big gains but when those high flyers crash -- which they inevitably do -- the slow-and-steadies start looking pretty good. If you get out of the high performing stocks at the right time you're a freaking genius. If you ride them to the bottom, you're a chump. What's that they say about time in the market vs. timing the market? |
|
Originally Posted By bondryan: I have a bunch of nvidia and a few others. Fselx is a good one. It’s up 40%+ this year. I bought it years ago for their gaming chips…then it was crypto mining…now it’s AI. I originally had several hundred shares; 5 splits later…yeah, I’m overweight NVDA but no more overweight than “sleepers” like AAPL, MSFT, HD, QCOM, WMT, etc. that I bought decades ago. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
Originally Posted By KILLERB6: It’s true for me, so I care. And when S&P500 stocks 1-10 account for about 40% of the index, yeah, the remaining stocks are far less than 1% each and are nothing but drag. Patently false? You stick with what you (don’t) know if (you think) it works for you. Im probably wrong since I’m only up 84.25% over the last two years. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: The thing about musical chairs is sometime the music stops. You better be sitting down when it happens. Not a perfect analogy, but when you're riding a stock climb be aware it's probably going to end sometime. It could be ugly when it does. Investors mitigate risk for a reason. Steady 5-10% growth doesn't feel verry exciting when a few individual stocks are posting big gains but when those high flyers crash -- which they inevitably do -- the slow-and-steadies start looking pretty good. If you get out of the high performing stocks at the right time you're a freaking genius. If you ride them to the bottom, you're a chump. What's that they say about time in the market vs. timing the market? It is not inevitable that a high performing stock will crash during an investor’s lifetime. If it does, it is not inevitable that it won’t recover. It is true that there are examples of stocks crashing and burning, but it is not that common. |
|
Originally Posted By grendelbane: It is not inevitable that a high performing stock will crash during an investor’s lifetime. If it does, it is not inevitable that it won’t recover. It is true that there are examples of stocks crashing and burning, but it is not that common. It doesn’t have to crash in order to underperform |
|
Originally Posted By hammer1995: Im probably wrong since I’m only up 84.25% over the last two years. S&P vs. equal weight:  |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
Originally Posted By KILLERB6: Lol, sure you are, just like the other stocks in the S&P add value. S&P vs. equal weight: RSP actually outperformed SPY for a long time, (around 2 decades). Both with and without dividends re-invested. So, I would say those other stocks can add value. It just hasn’t worked that way lately. I don’t know what the future will bring. |
|
Originally Posted By grendelbane: It is not inevitable that a high performing stock will crash during an investor’s lifetime. If it does, it is not inevitable that it won’t recover. It is true that there are examples of stocks crashing and burning, but it is not that common. If your going to love but the adage buy low, sell high, then you have to be willing to buy what others don’t want and sell them what they do want. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
Originally Posted By grendelbane: RSP actually outperformed SPY for a long time, (around 2 decades). Both with and without dividends re-invested. So, I would say those other stocks can add value. It just hasn’t worked that way lately. I don’t know what the future will bring. The fractional %ers can no longer move the needle, regardless of their performance. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
Originally Posted By KILLERB6: Was true decades ago; no longer due to the huge market caps of NVDA, AAPL, soon to be Spacex, etc. The fractional %ers can no longer move the needle, regardless of their performance. Timing is everything. RSP has out-performed SPY some of the time in 2026. Because the Mag 7 dropped in price. If that goes on long enough, guess who can make a comeback? Doesn’t matter much to me, though. |
|
Timing, if you choose to attempt it, is everything…and nearly impossible. Not only do you have to be right twice (in and out), you also have to be extremely accurate ant both guesses, else you don’t make any more than a buy and hold. Betting on equal weight is just a bet on (relative) small caps coming into favor…and that much anticipated (i.e. strong economy with low interest rates) rotation has yet to occur. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
Originally Posted By KILLERB6: Timing, if you choose to attempt it, is everything…and nearly impossible. Is it though? Time in the market beats timing the market is a phrase that gets parroted a lot, especially on this site. While catchy is omits the inconvenient fact that you don’t actually have to buy the bottom or sell the top to be successful. All that really matters is the spread between entry and exit as well as the time horizon it took to achieve and if that works for you. Looking through my recent trading history Intuitive Machines / $LUNR is a perfect example. I bought some around $9 last year and it’s recently got up to around $30. I bailed when it hit $20 and moved on. Plenty of people would cite that as a perfect example of not being able to call a top. I’m not losing any sleep though cause I made over 100% in less than a year on the trade. Someone’s opinion who’d be tickled if their VOO returned 10% in the same timeframe doesn’t even show up on my radar. |
|
if you're going to buy individual stocks, the first question you ask yourself is "is this a good entry point" ? The second thing you have to do is train yourself to not hold on to a losing position. Set stops. it's OK to sell. 80% of my portfolio is individual stocks. I usually only hold 6-8 that I've settled on. I'll sometimes take positions in a few more but I don't think I've ever held more than 10. I live by two rules. 1. Don't lose money. 2. Make money. I dump any new position that falls below my entry point. Bad trades, bad timing happens. Refer to rule #1. |
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it..
| Trading individual stocks with the goal of beating the market is gambling. Gambling is risky. It sometimes does pay off. It often does not. If you are risk adverse….don't do it. If you like the excitement of risk/volatility, go for it. But, don’t risk a lot. Keep your reliable, steady investments and don’t try to “bet all on black”. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By Procat: Is it though? Time in the market beats timing the market is a phrase that gets parroted a lot, especially on this site. While catchy is omits the inconvenient fact that you don’t actually have to buy the bottom or sell the top to be successful. All that really matters is the spread between entry and exit as well as the time horizon it took to achieve and if that works for you. Looking through my recent trading history Intuitive Machines / $LUNR is a perfect example. I bought some around $9 last year and it’s recently got up to around $30. I bailed when it hit $20 and moved on. Plenty of people would cite that as a perfect example of not being able to call a top. I’m not losing any sleep though cause I made over 100% in less than a year on the trade. Someone’s opinion who’d be tickled if their VOO returned 10% in the same timeframe doesn’t even show up on my radar. How much money do you put into this stock in the initial investment in your scenario and what percentage was it of your total portfolio? |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: Trading individual stocks with the goal of beating the market is gambling. Investing can be gambling, but if you do your due diligence there is skill involved so it’s more like poker - there is some chance that can’t be predicted but skill is also required and you can opt to only play when the odds are in your favor. It has been very easy to beat the sp500 for over a decade now - just buy any tech/software/ai fund and you’ve beaten the sp500. Even a boring nasdaq fund has significantly outgrown the sp500. But that is only the case for recent history and who knows how much longer it will last. |
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: How much money do you put into this stock in the initial investment in your scenario and what percentage was it of your total portfolio? I don’t have set rules for how much I allocate initially. How deep I go in depends on a variety of factors but mainly what do I think the company is capable of. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: I don’t think so. Gambling to me is playing roulette, throwing the dice, or playing the lottery. Ie. An odds-based game where the house always win in the long run. Investing can be gambling, but if you do your due diligence there is skill involved so it’s more like poker - there is some chance that can’t be predicted but skill is also required and you can opt to only play when the odds are in your favor. It has been very easy to beat the sp500 for over a decade now - just buy any tech/software/ai fund and you’ve beaten the sp500. Even a boring nasdaq fund has significantly outgrown the sp500. But that is only the case for recent history and who knows how much longer it will last. Your definition of gambling is very close to mine. I am willing to listen to other people’s definition of gambling, but only rarely do I get a reasonable answer. If you can’t provide a decent definition you definitely shouldn’t accuse any one of doing it. |
|
Originally Posted By Procat: I don’t have set rules for how much I allocate initially. How deep I go in depends on a variety of factors but mainly what do I think the company is capable of. That’s pretty critical information if you are recommending someone buy and sell individual stocks. Not saying anyone should not buy individual stocks. But there is a big difference between playing with 5-10% of your invested money and investing 100% of your money on one stock. Everyone always wants to tell you about their big wins but almost no one will tell you about their big losses. That creates a false sense of security for new investors. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: I don’t think so. Gambling to me is playing roulette, throwing the dice, or playing the lottery. Ie. An odds-based game where the house always win in the long run. Investing can be gambling, but if you do your due diligence there is skill involved so it’s more like poker - there is some chance that can’t be predicted but skill is also required and you can opt to only play when the odds are in your favor. It has been very easy to beat the sp500 for over a decade now - just buy any tech/software/ai fund and you’ve beaten the sp500. Even a boring nasdaq fund has significantly outgrown the sp500. But that is only the case for recent history and who knows how much longer it will last. Poker is also gambling……. I’d agree there is skill and research involved with individual stock purchasing (and the gambling known as poker)….. or should be if you don’t want to lose your entire investment. But, all the fund managers out there who want to create reliable income for their investors, stick to tried and true investing methods. If you believe you can consistently and reliably beat people who do investing for a living, you are delusional (not saying the poster I’m quoting believes that…just a general comment). Some people do very well with individual stocks. Some lose a lot/everything. To the OP: what’s your risk tolerance? If you like excitement and risk/volatility….go for it. If you like stability and steady but moderate gains….probably rethink it. If you want to play with a little, go for it. Just keep your core retirement money safe. Note how people seldom post “I’m going to put money into this shiny thing right now. Who is with me?” and then post their results. Well, they always post their wins but they usually keep their losses secret. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: That’s pretty critical information if you are recommending someone buy and sell individual stocks. Not saying anyone should not buy individual stocks. But there is a big difference between playing with 5-10% of your invested money and investing 100% of your money on one stock. Everyone always wants to tell you about their big wins but almost no one will tell you about their big losses. That creates a false sense of security for new investors. Do you honestly think active traders / stock pickers are going all in 100% on single stocks? There might be some YOLO folks on WSB doing stuff like that but no one I know IRL does stuff like that. I’m managing around 50 positions on 15-20 tickers currently and I don’t know that even my largest holding of more than 25% of the portfolio. |
|
Originally Posted By hammer1995: LOL. If you could consistently get returns of 25% annually you would be running a hedge fund, not posting on ARFCOM. The overwhelming majority of professional money managers underperform the S&P every year. Originally Posted By hammer1995: Originally Posted By Procat: Beating the S&P isn’t necessarily that difficult IMO but it becomes exponentially more difficult the more you’re trying to beat it by. It’s really just a function of discipline, mathematical ability and how much effort you’re willing to put into it. I’ve done well sticking to a goal of 25% per year, it’s kept me from trying to hit a home run every time and just focusing on getting on base. My main trading account is all individual stocks and options except for some QQQM I inherited. LOL. If you could consistently get returns of 25% annually you would be running a hedge fund, not posting on ARFCOM. The overwhelming majority of professional money managers underperform the S&P every year. Actually, getting 25% realized gains isn't that hard if you spend some time on it and play options. |
|
Originally Posted By Procat: Do you honestly think active traders / stock pickers are going all in 100% on single stocks? That may indeed be the case. Seems that some people do believe that. I once informed an index fund advocate that his favorite fund had 500 individual stocks in it, and he quickly informed me that I was wrong. Not sure how he thought index funds worked. |
|
Timing entries and exits into individual stocks (or anything for that matter) sound great…at first: “I’ll take the middle 80% and let someone else have the first and last 10%”…doesn’t work. You need that first and last 10%. As stated, not only do you have to be correct twice and extremely accurate, if you’re going to play that game, you need to do it a) consistently and b) forever. Good luck. Better (and far easier) to just buy something like Home Depot, Walmart, AAPL, TSLA or SpaceX for something more contemporary and hold them basically forever. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
