![]() Now, years later, Jim trades full-time-and lets independent-minded investors follow the exact approach he’s now perfected. His nest egg began to grow exponentially, and before long he had turned a mere $50,000 into a massive $5.3 million. So Jim started experimenting with the approach he learned…īefore long he was generating extra monthly income like $1,200, $1,800, and $2,100… and all in a matter of weeks! One day he ran into a “trader” who shared an approach that would go on to change Jim’s life forever. Luckily Jim worked at an office building in Chicago, close to the financial district. The piddly returns he was making that way seemed like a waste of time. He had a good job, was squirreling away money in his IRA, and investing in stocks-but wasn’t really getting anywhere. ![]() It’s a similar problem a lot of Americans are dealing with as they approach retirement. Years ago, Jim Fink knew he’d need to make a change if he was ever going to retire. Members of the editorial and news staff of USA TODAY were not involved in the creation of this content.One Man’s 9-Minute Secret to Retiring Rich *"Look Who's on Top Now" appeared in The Wall Street Journal which references Hulbert's rankings of the best performing stock picking newsletters over a 5-year period from 2008-2013. And the history of Tom and David's stock picks shows that it pays to get in early on their ideas.Ĭlick here to be among the first people to hear about David and Tom's newest stock recommendations. And the good news for you, is that these two investing mavericks are about to reveal their next stock recommendations any moment now. That's better than Buffett's own company has done over the same period. Together, their stock picks have tripled the stock market's return over the last 13 years. There's something big happening this Friday.Īnd when it comes to finding wonderful companies, there may not be anyone better than Motley Fool co-founders David Gardner (whose growth-stock newsletter was the best performing in the world as reported by The Wall Street Journal)* and his brother, Motley Fool CEO Tom Gardner. Instead always remember that "it's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price," and, much like Buffett, hope to hold it forever. In Buffett's own words, "If you're right about the business, you'll make a lot of money," so don't bother about attempting to buy stocks based on how their stock charts have looked over the past 200 days. It is absolutely important to understand the relative price you are paying for that business, but what isn't important is attempting to understand whether you're buying in at the "right time," as that is so often just an arbitrary imagination. Individuals need to see that investing is not like placing a wager on the 49ers to cover the spread against the Panthers, but instead it's buying a tangible piece of a business. This type of technical analysis - watching stock movements and buying based on short-term and often arbitrary price fluctuations - often receives a lot of media attention, but it has proven no more effective than random chance. So often investors are told they must attempt to time the market - to start investing when the market is on the rise and sell when the market peaks. If you're right about what, you don't have to worry about when" ![]() You don't want to focus on when, you want to focus on what. With a wonderful business, you can figure out what will happen you can't figure out when it will happen. Yet as Buffett has noted continually, it's terribly dangerous to attempt to time the market: And there have been countless other things over the past 100 years that would cause someone to question whether their money should be in stocks, much less the stock of a consumer-goods company like Coca-Cola. World War II resulted in sugar rationing. The Great Depression happened a few years later. Put differently, would you rather have an Apple Watch, or almost $11 million? But the thing is, it isn't even as though an investment in Coca-Cola was a no-brainer at that point, or in the near century since then. Sugar prices were rising. However, even after factoring for inflation, it turns out to be $542 in today's dollars. I know that $40 in 1919 is very different from $40 today.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |