Achieving wealth through shares...how?
- Thread starter dajackal
- Start date
I thought we were talking investment, not the ladies' knitting circle share club.
How much does your knitting club put on each speccie share? (no smilie)
Jeez JC. The heading is about achieving wealth through shares. With a grand capital how can I achieve wealth through property?
Dude, I was answering a question from a poster. And no I dont have a lot of money, sorry
Are you & I having a fight or soemthign ? Cause if we are, I didn't realise., in fact, I always thought your commetbns were pretty good.
Please let me know if I shoudl be taking up a different position, I'd hate to make more of a fool of myself than I apparently already have.
You are welcome to stay where you are, just as long as I don't have to move.Dude, I was answering a question from a poster. And no I dont have a lot of money, sorry
Are you & I having a fight or soemthign ? Cause if we are, I didn't realise., in fact, I always thought your commetbns were pretty good.
Please let me know if I shoudl be taking up a different position, I'd hate to make more of a fool of myself than I apparently already have.
Sorry. I've had a bad day. It was the post after yours which riled me. I just don't understand how penny punts entered a discussion on generating wealth.
'Cause it's an internet forum not a pay before you enter if your'e invited only club ensuring the riff raff is kept out.. ???
And also the example of trading $1k was used to anwser a previous poster's question about why someone would take a profit instead of jsut letting their profits run on & on & on & on...
Anyway, hope your day picks up.. let's keep in mind that this "not even debating" on the internet..so don't let your guard down and all that good *****
take it easy
Last edited:
The first thing to bear in mind is that very, very few investment professionals can beat the stockmarket on a consistent basis. One set of statistics said that 20% of investors could achieve this in the short term, but only 5% in the long term. Another was more optimistic, pegging it at 20% over the long term.
The suggestion above of low cost index trackers, above, is a good one. Reinvest dividends into the fund to keep it growing. Then leave it for a few years.
The second is that buy and hold is generally a better strategy than trading every five minutes. I believe that there are actually studies proving this.
And the third is that a lot of ETFs don't actually wrap the assets that they're tracking. This adds an additional layer of systematic risk, and after 2008 it should be blindly obvious that the financial services industry is very good at mismanaging this.
Not only that, but the profits generated in the ETF sector are largely down to financial derivatives sold against them.
There are a number of posts on the FT Alphaville blog that you should really look at, before doing your research.
If you want to stock pick there are a couple of strategies. High Yield Portfolios (pick ten or fifteen stocks in different sectors with the highest dividends) and the Dogs of the Dow / FTSE (selecting from the worst performing stocks in an index) are both proven alternatives.
I'm not convinced that investing in shares will make you rich quickly unless you take a risky strategy. I'd include Sunfish's punt on an exploration company in these. But a slow process of investing and not withdrawing cash could build a decent level of wealth over time.
The suggestion above of low cost index trackers, above, is a good one. Reinvest dividends into the fund to keep it growing. Then leave it for a few years.
The second is that buy and hold is generally a better strategy than trading every five minutes. I believe that there are actually studies proving this.
And the third is that a lot of ETFs don't actually wrap the assets that they're tracking. This adds an additional layer of systematic risk, and after 2008 it should be blindly obvious that the financial services industry is very good at mismanaging this.
Not only that, but the profits generated in the ETF sector are largely down to financial derivatives sold against them.
There are a number of posts on the FT Alphaville blog that you should really look at, before doing your research.
If you want to stock pick there are a couple of strategies. High Yield Portfolios (pick ten or fifteen stocks in different sectors with the highest dividends) and the Dogs of the Dow / FTSE (selecting from the worst performing stocks in an index) are both proven alternatives.
I'm not convinced that investing in shares will make you rich quickly unless you take a risky strategy. I'd include Sunfish's punt on an exploration company in these. But a slow process of investing and not withdrawing cash could build a decent level of wealth over time.
The only REAL money to be made (ie turning a small fortune into a large one which is what the OP asked, as I remember) will be in junior miners. If and when you jag one (yes it ain't guaranteed) you ride it, not trade it.
Nothing quite as satisfying as a 1,000% gain.
I should add that there is a small chance of a biotech making good, but that's not for me.
OK, this piques my interest. So of the 25? 50? or so listed junior minors (or are some of these apprentice or just-graduated?) how would one select where to sink one's money? I would think that $5-10k in EACH would be self-defeating.
This is a serious question, not having a go. Any perspective would be appreciated.
Check out www.hotcopper.com.au to get an idea.
Basically look for small miners that have a large tenement which is going to get big for either a) a takeover or b) to become a producer of the mine. Example of the market's wonderchilds are things like Karoon Gas (KAR), WPG Resources (WPG) and so on.
Just be aware of the peopel on hotcopper (like anywhere I guess) who will tell you that a share price is going to fly through the roof becuse er um er ah "I own some and I want it to"
Or spread your risk amongst a number of exploration companies.
If you pick ten randomly then you might expect six to go under, three to break even, and one to generate sufficient returns to cover the costs of the other nine.
I'm not sure if my numbers are correct, as that's the sort of split you'd see in the music or games industries, but I wouldn't be surprised if venture capitalists have a similar ratio.
If you pick ten randomly then you might expect six to go under, three to break even, and one to generate sufficient returns to cover the costs of the other nine.
I'm not sure if my numbers are correct, as that's the sort of split you'd see in the music or games industries, but I wouldn't be surprised if venture capitalists have a similar ratio.
geez it takes me a lot of work to earn money from my job that i would never put money on a random stock. Might as well go to the casino and put it on the red.50% chance i get lucky.
I would think that $5-10k in EACH would be self-defeating.
You are thinking like a property investor so I can't help you.
I said it wasn't easy. That implies time and study to pick winners, not a broad brush approach. But if I were to dump on property using some national averages you would quickly remind me that property is local. So is mining.
Actually, mining is global. The TSX and NYSE have thousands more juniors so you'll understand if I refrain from stock picking.
The chance is LESS than 50% because there is a 0 on the board -- house wins all. The game is rigged in the house's favour.
In Crown there are 2 zeroes now...0 and 00.
Oh yes, still better than a random stock imo!
Or a random house?
You don't buy random houses? Why do you believe I would buy random stocks?
But I may be tempted to buy a few different companies knowing that they weren't all going to succeed but a trend/cycle I see will help their sector. ATM there is no doubt in my mind gold has not peaked, not even close [but I'm a gold bug
] Besides, advisers tell us to diversify because even well known stocks can hit bad times. Stocks ARE different to houses. If you have no interest in learning the difference OK, but why make ill-informed comment?Is this a systematic approach?
It's not random. Does that mean it's systematic?
Systematic is repeating exactly the same process each time.
Often people think they are not making a random decision but it's more or less what it amounts to (not saying this is you btw).
