[kimchi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the more you concentrate your investments, the higher the chance of getting 50% return would be, but obv at the same time the chance of losing would equally increase. If money managers could get you 50% return why would they waste theri time with you and not get 50% on their own money year after year DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you know how to get 50% per year does not mean you have the funds to fully take advantage of that 50% per year. You can invest your own money, and after you run out of your own money, continue to invest others for a fee. DUCY?

Not everyone who can beat the market is rich, and not everyone who is rich can beat the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.... how famour is Peter Lynch (and how [censored] rich) and he didnt beatthe market for 50%.... if you could beat the market for 50% even for a few years before your portfolio grows too bg you be set and then trade ur own money no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, even if you scrap together $10,000 (a lot of money for most people -- maybe not you) it will take years of 50% returns before that money becomes significant enough to move the market -- in the mean time you could manage a fund (kind of like peter lynch did) to make more money as you go along.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a portfolio of $10K, then your fixed costs are going to kill much your profits.

I find all these % stats pretty unhelpful when comparing performance. I could tell you a simple way to get 50% annual returns - as long as you can weather 90% drawdowns and a ROR approaching 1.