20% annual return - realistic?

[arae]

I'm a new investor in stocks and am asking for your opinion on what is a realistic goal for annual returns as a long term investor.

I know this question has a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' feel about it, but am genuinely interested in other's sharing their personal experience and opinions.

As for my strategy, I plan to have a mostly 'buy and hold' approach and select stocks on a ratio of roughly 75% solid/blue chips and 25% speculators.

My current portfolio is;

MBL
BHP
CBA
NMS
CBH
EMR

At present, I have $20 000 invested and plan to contribute $15000 a year. A 20% profit a year would equate to around $500 000 after 10 years. I am a non resident so wouldn't be paying any tax. For the same reason, dividends can't be included.

Is this at all realistic? Or am I being to hopeful?

[stoxclimber]

When you consider the historical return of the market is about 13%ish from memory, it's on the high side.


Not really sure what you're talking about re: divs and tax. I'm sure you're paying tax somewhere..and you get paid dividends even if you're an overseas investor.

[yonnie]

I hope you have a good stop loss on the speculators, otherwise you wouldn`t even make 13% a year.
also if you buy your blue chips at the height of the market you might have to wait awhile even to break even.

[martinhale]

You will get input that suggests all sorts of returns are achievable - you will rarely hear of the drawdowns that accompany such claims or of the time frames involved.

Over a 10 year period, if you achieve 10% pa on average go and pat yourself on the shoulder. You are a star.

[tasmanian]

Its realistic you can make alot more than that.

agree with what veten said if you buy at the height of the market u could be going negative for a couple of years.I personally dont believe in that buy and hold hope for the best theory.sure its been great last 4yrs or so but will it be for the next few??strongly strongly doubt it.

You should really learn to play both sides op the market both long and short and ride whichever way the trend is telling you to go.

last couple of years have been special hope it returns but not looking real positive atm

[nizar]

Is a 20% return realistic?
YES

But with a buy and hold strategy, You're making it very hard for yourself.

Jesse Livermore once said something along the lines of: Buy and Hold is the riskiest type of investing. Because if you get it wrong, you lose everything.

[nizar]

Over a 10 year period, if you achieve 10% pa on average go and pat yourself on the shoulder. You are a star.

It depends on the drawdowns and volatility IMO.

If you can acheive 10%pa with every year being positive and single digit drawdowns then yes, you are doing well.

[Ken]

I think you will find if a share trader is investing with $10,000, percentage wise they will probly make more than an investor with $50,000.

Purely for the reason they will let their profits run longer, and cut their losses shorter.

Just a theory when 10% shows a gain of $1000 and 5% shows a gain of $2500.

You're more inclined to take the 5% gain as $2500 is lot of money.

Not saying $1000 isnt but psychology of share traders is not always thought through.

Rash decisions in both upward and downward markets.

Just a theory I have.

[ROE]

I'm a new investor in stocks and am asking for your opinion on what is a realistic goal for annual returns as a long term investor.

I know this question has a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' feel about it, but am genuinely interested in other's sharing their personal experience and opinions.

As for my strategy, I plan to have a mostly 'buy and hold' approach and select stocks on a ratio of roughly 75% solid/blue chips and 25% speculators.

My current portfolio is;

MBL
BHP
CBA
NMS
CBH
EMR

At present, I have $20 000 invested and plan to contribute $15000 a year. A 20% profit a year would equate to around $500 000 after 10 years. I am a non resident so wouldn't be paying any tax. For the same reason, dividends can't be included.

Is this at all realistic? Or am I being to hopeful?

20% compound a year you can become a billionaire very quickly :-) so in another word no.

and if you can get 20% compound that easy you don't need $$$ you just use other people money ... borrow rate at 8% .. return at 20% you make 13% too easy :D

in a long run and you are an average investor and buy blue chip expect 8% a year return.

[Ken]

I think seriously long term earnings of 20 % per year will require stock rotation.

You will have your core stocks.

Then you will have to suss out some small caps for the short to medium term.

You may also have to hold some 6-12 month stocks in your port folio to get you that extra 4-5%

Risk management.

It has been easy to make 20% the last few years.

But the good times do end.

With the financial instruments out there the market doesn't have to keep rising. If its volatile the fundmanagers with the best analyst always win.

Example

During the correction 1 fund manger made 130%, 1 fund manager lost 100%.

Short selling is being very popular. This will mean more volatilty in years ahead I would have thought.

[Trembling Hand]

Please what ever happens come back on August the 29th of 2008 and tell us how it is going. This kind of question pops up all the time. It would be a magnificent story no matter what the out come is.

[nizar]

Please what ever happens come back on August the 29th of 2008 and tell us how it is going. This kind of question pops up all the time. It would be a magnificent story no matter what the out come is.

Do you mean 2017?
He did mentioned a longterm outlook and wanted 20%pa.
20% in one year once off hell yes it can be done by just about anybody.

[nizar]

I think you will find if a share trader is investing with $10,000, percentage wise they will probly make more than an investor with $50,000.

Purely for the reason they will let their profits run longer, and cut their losses shorter.

Just a theory when 10% shows a gain of $1000 and 5% shows a gain of $2500.

You're more inclined to take the 5% gain as $2500 is lot of money.

Probably not.
Letting profits run and chopping dogs should apply to everybody -- not those with limited capital eg. 10k.

As to 5% profit or 10% profit, its all relative.
$1000 is alot of money to those with 10k.

[arae]

Thanks for the replies so far. I should've elaborated a little more on my strategy. By being more inclined to 'buy and hold' I was referring to the blue chips or solid growth stocks eg. BHP, CBA, NMS. Whereas the speculators would be a more play it as you go type scenario and certainly with a stop loss. This strategy seems to have the most logic to me at the moment. Ask me in a year or 5 and my collective wisdom will surely have a different opinion than my current sprouting bud in the stockmarket self.

The stocks I listed are just what I have in my portfolio at present. I will certainly be adding and replacing stocks as I see fit.

As for the prices, I picked all of these up during the recent correction ie.

BHP $34, CBA $52, MBL $63, NMS $0.74, CBH $0.51, EMR $0.17

So not too bad as far as long term for the first 3 and short/medium for the other 3 I think.

[arae]

Stoxclimber - If the Stockmarket has historically returned an average of 13% then wouldn't it be reasonable for someone that has put in the time to carefully research and hand pick certain stocks which they see as superior to expect higher than 13% over the long term? Perhaps not as high as 20%, but higher than the average surely? If not, then what's the point of researching and analysing? Likewise Martinhale, if I achieved 10% returns over 10 years how would that be 'pat myself on the back' worthy? When in fact a list of all ASX stocks and a few darts would in all probability produce better returns...

[tech/a]

I think you will find if a share trader is investing with $10,000, percentage wise they will probly make more than an investor with $50,000.

Purely for the reason they will let their profits run longer, and cut their losses shorter.

Why would they be any different?
Just because you have 5 x larger capital base doesnt mean you would be reckless.


Just a theory when 10% shows a gain of $1000 and 5% shows a gain of $2500.

You're more inclined to take the 5% gain as $2500 is lot of money.

Not to a trader with a $50000 capital base.

Its all relative.

ARAE.
Of course its possible.

However it aludes most.

[Polaris]

Yes it's possible.
Yes it alludes most in the long run.
Patience, persistence, stick to your strategy and refine it as you learn.

On another note, I thought you still pay taxes as a non-resident.. Isn't that what non-resident tax rates are for? 29% or so?

[theasxgorilla]

On another note, I thought you still pay taxes as a non-resident.. Isn't that what non-resident tax rates are for? 29% or so?

Income, yes, capital gains, no. But your country of residence will most likely have its own capital gains tax laws which cover gains on overseas assets. So getting around capital gains tax by investing in Aust from abroad isn't a complete no-brainer.

[stoxclimber]

Stoxclimber - If the Stockmarket has historically returned an average of 13% then wouldn't it be reasonable for someone that has put in the time to carefully research and hand pick certain stocks which they see as superior to expect higher than 13% over the long term? Perhaps not as high as 20%, but higher than the average surely? If not, then what's the point of researching and analysing? Likewise Martinhale, if I achieved 10% returns over 10 years how would that be 'pat myself on the back' worthy? When in fact a list of all ASX stocks and a few darts would in all probability produce better returns...

Well it obviously depends on the person's knowledge, experience, skills etc, but I agree with you that you should be able to put in enough time and outperform the market...although 20% is definately on the highside of outperformance.

My main point was to say that 10% a year..or beating the bank account etc. might seem like good returns, but you're actually not doing that well. For reference, according to ComSec the All Ords has returned 10.44%p.a. over the last 10 years (excluding dividends..so it's probably up near 15ish...? maybe more, not sure what the div yield has been on index over the last 10 years. Of course, you do get the late 90s bull run and the resources in there)

[Polaris]

Income, yes, capital gains, no. But your country of residence will most likely have its own capital gains tax laws which cover gains on overseas assets. So getting around capital gains tax by investing in Aust from abroad isn't a complete no-brainer.

That makes sense. It's why people can invest in Aust shares and live in a non-CGT country to avoid CGT.

[nizar]

Thanks for the replies so far. I should've elaborated a little more on my strategy. By being more inclined to 'buy and hold' I was referring to the blue chips or solid growth stocks eg. BHP, CBA, NMS. Whereas the speculators would be a more play it as you go type scenario and certainly with a stop loss. This strategy seems to have the most logic to me at the moment.

Logical to have a stop only on the specs and not the blue chips?

Why?

[martinhale]

Arae

I think you might find that the annualised returns quoted for the ASX have a survivorship bias.

Throw in a couple of "blue chips" like HIH - or even TLS, to some extent (depending on your timing) - and you may struggle with your 20% target.

You may jump on to a couple of Speccie rockets but these can be elusive.

Best of luck!

[stoxclimber]

They are indicies..its incorporated

[Student]

Isn't it all about the risk you take?

20% annual return after averaging can be realistic in theory even if markets were efficient and the guy was no expert if the guy was willing to take enough of [non-diversifiable] risks ala CAPM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Asset_Pricing_Model)


You'd just have to buy some diversified portfolio with double beta.

(Although I'd probably not do that - too risky, and CAPM is really just in theory)

[tech/a]

Isn't it all about the risk you take?

I'd say its the exact opposite.

[professor_frink]

Logical to have a stop only on the specs and not the blue chips?

Why?

why should they have one if they are investing and not trading?

[happytrader]

I'm a new investor in stocks and am asking for your opinion on what is a realistic goal for annual returns as a long term investor.

I know this question has a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' feel about it, but am genuinely interested in other's sharing their personal experience and opinions.

As for my strategy, I plan to have a mostly 'buy and hold' approach and select stocks on a ratio of roughly 75% solid/blue chips and 25% speculators.

My current portfolio is;

MBL
BHP
CBA
NMS
CBH
EMR

At present, I have $20 000 invested and plan to contribute $15000 a year. A 20% profit a year would equate to around $500 000 after 10 years. I am a non resident so wouldn't be paying any tax. For the same reason, dividends can't be included.

Is this at all realistic? Or am I being to hopeful?

Yes its realistic if you focus on buying when your stocks drop below their years opening price.

Cheers
Happytrader

[tech/a]

why should they have one if they are investing and not trading?


Minimise loss---maximise opportunity.
Particularly important when taking your initial position.
Imagine having your newly formed SMSF ready to go and you buy your brand new portfolio and immediately see 10% whiped off your initial capital.Then 20% in 3 of your held stocks and then 40% in one.

Having atleast an initial stop even in a longterm portfolio will give an investor peace of mind,PLUS the ability to minimise his chances of holding stock which could take years to claw back to even money.---Opportunity cost.

It makes sense to have as many stocks in your portfolio in profit and performing.Without an initial stop you run the risk of getting stuck in no mans land between your buy price and a price below that!

[professor_frink]

Minimise loss---maximise opportunity.
Particularly important when taking your initial position.
Imagine having your newly formed SMSF ready to go and you buy your brand new portfolio and immediately see 10% whiped off your initial capital.Then 20% in 3 of your held stocks and then 40% in one.

Having atleast an initial stop even in a longterm portfolio will give an investor peace of mind,PLUS the ability to minimise his chances of holding stock which could take years to claw back to even money.---Opportunity cost.

It makes sense to have as many stocks in your portfolio in profit and performing.Without an initial stop you run the risk of getting stuck in no mans land between your buy price and a price below that!

There are other options for a long term investor that don't involve a stop loss. Hedging is fairly easy to do, especially with cfd's being pretty popular these days.

When you buy will obviously have an impact on how important having a stop is. The next time I can buy one of the big 4 banks yielding 8%+ I will most definitely be doing it without even thinking of a stop loss.

[nizar]

Prof in my opinion.
Not using stops = disaster.
Not using stops and using CFDs. Well i have to think of a stronger word.

[professor_frink]

Prof in my opinion.
Not using stops = disaster.
Not using stops and using CFDs. Well i have to think of a stronger word.

I'm not talking about trading with cfd's, hedging with them is a whole different kettle of fish IMO.

[bepra1]

Hi
I am a newbie myself but I think 20% return given your choice of shares will be pushing hard to achieve.
However, If you choose other shares (such as small cap, of course with greater risk), I believe that you have achieve 20% return easily given you choose right!

[tech/a]

I'm not talking about trading with cfd's, hedging with them is a whole different kettle of fish IMO.

You know you often hear of hedging with options or CFD's.
Often from longterm holders of stock.

Who frankly wouldnt know how to time a golf swing let alone a short play on a stock.Particularly to minimise loss.

Bob.
When you next think its time to short a longterm hold would you post it up here.
Why
Because I think its harder in practice than thinking about it in theory.

[julius]

I would say forget about setting performance goals for yourself – no matter which school of thought you subscribe to it is ultimately the market which will dictate your returns.

I’ve gone 15% - 20% for the last 5 years using a buy & hold strategy and much the same stocks you listed earlier, so yes it is possible, but I have no doubt this will soon come to an end and it will be time to employ a new approach.

[Junior]

If you gear into a buy and hold strategy(perhaps via a margin loan) and the market returns it's long term average then you should be able to achieve close to 20% pa.

[mime]

I think it would be hard to archive 20% pa return on a buy and hold strategy. It's defiantly achievable if your an active trader though. good luck.

[nioka]

I think it would be hard to archive 20% pa return on a buy and hold strategy. It's defiantly achievable if your an active trader though. good luck.

I don't agree with you there. There are plenty of developing companies that will do better than that. If you look at some of the companies that are about to commence production they have big increases as they prove their level of future income. I hold AGM which I initially bought at 35c and hold now at an average price of around 64c which does not show a profit but they will commence production next year and I am looking to a price of around $2 before I will sell. I base that on other nickelers such as SMY. I did well with SMY buying in the 30c range and selling in the $3+ range.I hold LYC which I bought at 35c, sold enough at better than $1.30 to recoup my outlay and expect to do well when they start production next year. I have done well with ADI and AUT as specs and hope to do better yet. AOE is returning me 207% at todays price. There have been some failures too but they have not dragged the average down much. YML was not a success for me as I held mainly options and chickened out as the conversion date approached but plenty of YML holders are grinning ( not the ones who were a bit late getting set)
It can easily be done. Research is the answer and keep looking at the fundamentals.

[tech/a]

These are the results of techtrader after 5 yrs of live trading on Radges Site "The Chartist".

Its a Longterm/Long System based around trading on Margin and pyramiding profit when available. For those intersted (once you register on Radges site) there are 100s of pages on the method.

Anyway it started with $30,000 on Margin (approx $70000 from the lender) and as can be evidenced here with both open and closed profit is now near enough to $400,000.

Ther return then on the original $30,000 is 1080% over the 5 yrs.
A little better than 20% compounding/Year.

You can also see that some of the buy and hold times have been YEARS. Many hit their exits over the last corrective move.

So yes it can be done I and many have and are doing it,this is simply one example that can be RATIFIED.

All here if you have further interest (you need to register on The Chartsist) http://www.********************/forum/ubbthreads.php

[mime]

I don't agree with you there. There are plenty of developing companies that will do better than that. If you look at some of the companies that are about to commence production they have big increases as they prove their level of future income. I hold AGM which I initially bought at 35c and hold now at an average price of around 64c which does not show a profit but they will commence production next year and I am looking to a price of around $2 before I will sell. I base that on other nickelers such as SMY. I did well with SMY buying in the 30c range and selling in the $3+ range.I hold LYC which I bought at 35c, sold enough at better than $1.30 to recoup my outlay and expect to do well when they start production next year. I have done well with ADI and AUT as specs and hope to do better yet. AOE is returning me 207% at todays price. There have been some failures too but they have not dragged the average down much. YML was not a success for me as I held mainly options and chickened out as the conversion date approached but plenty of YML holders are grinning ( not the ones who were a bit late getting set)
It can easily be done. Research is the answer and keep looking at the fundamentals.

I'm talking about stocks in the asx 200. Sure spec stocks can rockets above 20% pa but I feel that for every successful spec stock there is maybe 5 that have gone backwards or sank. I now leave spec stocks alone after I got burned on NEO and have never looked back. I feel that consistent large volume trades of larger companies is the way to go.

[nioka]

I'm talking about stocks in the asx 200. Sure spec stocks can rockets above 20% pa but I feel that for every successful spec stock there is maybe 5 that have gone backwards or sank. I now leave spec stocks alone after I got burned on NEO and have never looked back. I feel that consistent large volume trades of larger companies is the way to go.

Why on earth would you want to restrict yourself to the ASX200. There are plenty of companies that are as sound, or better than a lot of those in the ASX200. There are plenty knocking on the door and when in production will get in the door. That is where the real returns can be made. The only problem comes with margin borrowing but I have a goal to live up to the motto "neither a borrower or a lender be". Sometimes slower but not as slow as the ASX 200. Check the fundamentals and keep a check on the fundamentals. There is no need to borrow, just save and invest wisely.

[austek]

Just a word of warning using a buy & hold strategy.
I held CBH last year and although it grew 100% in profit rather swiftly, it became my biggest loser for the year over $5000.

I made 51% last year but over 5 years my average would be under 20% per annum. So I think profit taking & stops are a must, in some form.

Keep the risk down & learn how let profits run.

austek

[Shane Baker]

Why on earth would you want to restrict yourself to the ASX200

One word. Liquidity.

[nizar]

Why on earth would you want to restrict yourself to the ASX200

One word. Liquidity.

You can also make the whole market your universe BUT with a filter so that you can only buy stocks with X dollars of turnover per day.

[mime]

As the saying goes. There is more then one way to skin a cat. I trade what works for me.

[exberliner1]

hmmm interesting comments....I started with about $10k to play with in the Aussie market last July.

I followed a plan of buying speccy mining stocks and ... the first 3 were CDU (AUM) CQTO and THXO these gave me 100%, 400% and 350% respectively.

Since then every time a stock I held doubled in price I sold half and went free carried... net result here was that after about 6 months I had acquired a free carried portfolio of 9 stocks.

Along with a few useful punts like JMSO at 2c (sold at 20c a few days later) and MPOOA - 3c to 13.5c in a couple of months. I have easily beaten your 20% by a vast margin.

I have invested for about 20 years on and off so I have a rough idea what I am doing but surely if you cant make 20% as an absolute minimum then something is seriously wrong.

For example I currently hold a large holding in EXM and EXMO ... I fully expect that one to be around 10c by Christmas....so another 400 - 500% there.

In a market such as we have at the moment 3 figure percentage gains should be the target. They will be writing history books about the period we are going through.... the golden age of massive gains in resource stocks.

All the recent market sell off did was create a huge buying opportunity. Buy companies with JORC assets and mining plans... its worked for me so far... even with complete write offs in JPR and GEDO.

EB

[tech/a]

ex


Since then every time a stock I held doubled in price I sold half and went free carried... net result here was that after about 6 months I had acquired a free carried portfolio of 9 stocks.

A great strategy one I was introduced to 12 yrs ago but have never used.
Your the first I have seen in many years who actively adopts it.

For interest what is your exit strategy?

[wayneL]

I have invested for about 20 years on and off so I have a rough idea what I am doing but surely if you cant make 20% as an absolute minimum then something is seriously wrong.
That does depend on a whole bunch of things.

*Trading/investing style
*Risk appetite.
*Size of Bank.
*The Business Cycle

I agree that a private active trader with a small to moderate size pot should kick 20% in the @rse, otherwise give the dosh to a fund.

But... we are talking > 20% consistently here. That's a bigger ask than a few freakish years when everybody is a freakin' genius.

Remember that Buffett runs at ~14% compounded.... there are a few reasons why a small private trader can well and truly outperform that, but it ain't easy over the long term for most.

[kennas]

But... we are talking > 20% consistently here. That's a bigger ask than a few freakish years when everybody is a freakin' genius. here, here. I need to keep reminding myself of this. One of the reasons specs have run has been commodity prices, liquidity and risk taking, adding significant momentum in short time, creating these massive gains. Not sure if conditions are heading that way. Perhaps the hay has been made, or there's a short window left? Brings me back to the old Chindia story unfortunately (sorry) which is in part way driving the specs. etc etc. 20% ++ on resource specs over the next 20+ years may not be in the bag.

[martinhale]

I believe that the original query was whether you could make a reliable 20% pa using 75% Blue Chips, 25% speccies, no leverage and receiving no dividends.

I would still be impressed if you could do half that.

[prawn_86]

A great strategy one I was introduced to 12 yrs ago but have never used.
Your the first I have seen in many years who actively adopts it.



tech,

I know this is off the topic, but I too adopt this strategy, mainly for the preservation of capital due to my small portfolio size.

[exberliner1]

Agreed guys... I have only been active in the Aussie market for a little over a year....long term even 20% may be difficult...but at the moment we have so much positive underway in Australia that it may be worth running 2 brokerage accounts...one for the long term blue chips and one for the 25% you have in speccies.

With good research 100%+ pa on the speccies should be attainable in the current market....especially if you used the recent market drop to accumulate bargains.

Anyway best of luck....each to their own... I only invest in the speccy end of town but even there one can mitigate risk. For example CVI and EXM/O both of which I hold large positions in have big asset backing...they are not just explorers. It is here one can find value...companies that have pospects and some JORC'd reserves or very prospective Angolan oil in the case of CVI.

Anyway best of luck to all

EB

[It's Snake Pliskin]

here, here. I need to keep reminding myself of this. One of the reasons specs have run has been commodity prices, liquidity and risk taking, adding significant momentum in short time, creating these massive gains. Not sure if conditions are heading that way. Perhaps the hay has been made, or there's a short window left? Brings me back to the old Chindia story unfortunately (sorry) which is in part way driving the specs. etc etc. 20% ++ on resource specs over the next 20+ years may not be in the bag.
If one understands the science, one can practise the art.

[juw177]

exberliner, I have similar views to you despite common sense saying that if it was so easy, nobody will put money into funds. That is because I have not experienced any difficult times (until now).

The reason why we can do this in the last year is because of the strong bull market and people willing to take leveraged risk. You only needed to pick one or two good spec trades and you meet your target for the year. But will you be able to do this when the market conditions change?

[exberliner1]

I probably would not be able to achieve the results I have recenty if we were in a sustained bear market. I am old enough to remeber the 1987 crash... the negative equiry problem in housing in the UK (where I lived at the time) and a few other busts that have come along to taunt us.

But Australia is in a special position... it has huge quantities of resourcs - most fo which are just waiting to be discovered. So as long as China, India and in years to come places like Vietnam keep buying this stuff that comes out of the ground in Oz then there are opportunities for large SP gains.

I don`t see a sustained bear market ahead of us - however I still mitigate my risk by doing loads of research and only buying undervalued speccies.

So to go back to our original question. with 75% in blue chips and 25% in speccies is 20% pa a good target. Lets presume the Blue chips are paying dividends and the speccies not. It would still be quite easy to achieve a 20% gain overall taking dividends and gains across both classes of holding.

For example in the speccy portfolio I would certainly expect MPO, CVI, EXM, YML, RWD amongst others all too double over the next year. I have posted on all of them in the relevant threads both here and on HC.

On the Blue chip side I would certainly include (at current prices) RIO, BHP, MBL amongst others.

It doesnt look too difficult to me.

Finally out of the stocks I have mentioned hold positions in MPO (free carried) :-) , CVI, RWD, EXM but not YML .... not plugs just a statement of interest as I wrote I have posted on them before.

Best of luck with your 20% target

EB

[martinhale]

Back to the original question...

75% blue chips, 25% speccies. No dividends. No leverage.

20% pa return.

Still easy?

[Nyden]

Yeah, 20% P/A is easy, heck - I already did it this year ...

Oh, wait, no. There's a minus symbol infront of my 20 :p:

[CATAPILLAR]

Yeah, 20% P/A is easy, heck - I already did it this year ...

Oh, wait, no. There's a minus symbol infront of my 20 :p:

LOVL
Cheers CATAPILLAR and dito:banghead:

[explod]

Yeah, 20% P/A is easy, heck - I already did it this year ...

Oh, wait, no. There's a minus symbol infront of my 20 :p:

Yep with care. Just got my audited spread sheet back from my DIY Super Fund trading for 06/07. Had 25 winning trades and 42 losers. Clear gain of 75% which includes all fees brokerage etc.

Notable winners, CTO - BGF - JRV (he he, quick and perhaps some luck) - GDR - OXR - and SAU.

Worst loser BDG - ouch, stop loss dont' work sometimes and never in gap downs. Other losers, AND (can you believe that), LHG now LGL - and RNG.

Method, simple stupid,---- fundamentals with chart trend following, and whenever in doubt GET OUT.

I am sure others would be doing better but with my super have to be conservative. On top of that I never have more than 30% of my Super in shares at any one time; buuuutt... some times the 30% can be on one trade. Increase on strength and decrease on the first wavers of weakness.

Motto again "keep it simple stupid" for better than 20% IMHO

[youngone]

Method, simple stupid,---- fundamentals with chart trend following, and whenever in doubt GET OUT.

When in doubt GET OUT doesnt sound like a strategy. When trading one should never be emotional. Having a system or an exit plan would be efficient then to relies on doubt.

[kingcarmleo]

I have heard of one guy that has averaged 23% over the last 2 years which is pretty amazing, but I'm still sceptical that these types of returns can be done over say a 5 year period.

[tothemax6]

When in doubt GET OUT doesnt sound like a strategy. When trading one should never be emotional. Having a system or an exit plan would be efficient then to relies on doubt.
Aye, if my strategy was 'if in doubt get out', I would never be able to hold a position :D.

[pavilion103]

When we talk about say, 20% return pa.

If I have $50,000 and I leverage at 50% to $100,000. Does that mean a return of $10,000 profit or $20,000?
Does the leverage in this case increase the return from 20% to 40% technically? Or are we simply talking 20% on the original investment?

[tech/a]

10,000

[pavilion103]

10,000

Thanks Tech, thought that must have been the case but good to have it confirmed.