Am I lucky? Is this normal?

[Just a Guy]

I would say, for the majority of people who continue to invest, you're results are normal. Does that discount the chance of you being lucky? Not in the least. There is always chance involved in investing, good investors know how to lower the odds, maybe even into their favor.

That bein said, if you'd had the results reversed 13 losses out of 15, chances are you'd have given up on investing.

[GoldStone]

I don't want to discourage the OP - not in the least. This is for educational purposes only:

13 winners out of 15 is not a proper metric. The only number that matters is total portfolio return.

Suppose you are 10% up on the year, while broad market is up 15%. Is it a good result?

[kcowan]

I would say, given what you have told us, that you were lucky Kaitlyn. At a minimum, you need to develop an exit strategy for individual holdings. Your losses in YLO and FB will never be recovered.

[Kaitlyn]

I would say, given what you have told us, that you were lucky Kaitlyn. At a minimum, you need to develop an exit strategy for individual holdings. Your losses in YLO and FB will never be recovered.

Once FB skyrockets and YLO returns to the glory days of $10, I'll be rich!

Yes... when that happens...

[Toronto.gal]

1. 13 winners out of 15 is not a proper metric.
2. Suppose you are 10% up on the year, while broad market is up 15%. Is it a good result?

1. Not proper, I agree.
2. Depending on the type of portfolio selected/tolerance risk of such & investment objectives, 10% could definitely be an acceptable return!

How many relatively new investors have 13 winners out of 15 stocks [in 2012]? Not pure luck IMHO.

kcowan: I'm not so sure that FB losses will never be recovered [I'm thinking close to IPO price].

I must say that it annoys me to constantly be hearing: follow us on:

[MrMatt]

If you considered FB an "investment" it's luck.

[Ethan]

Over what time frame has this been achieved, and what is your alpha relative to the TSX?

[KLR650]

Judging by your questions, you are likely lucky. Very easy (and quite common) to confuse luck with skill. Some thoughts for not just you, but all investors (myself very much included):

If you can give solid reasons and numbers indicating why you bought what you did, why you continue to hold, and why and when you would sell, that shows skill. As does having a plan and the discipline to follow it through the market's ups and downs.

To label yourself a truly skillful investor, you need to show consistency. If you beat the index for 1 year, so what? Beat the index every year for 10 years, then I'm impressed.

Do you know your rate of return? If not, how can you keep score? Don't forget to factor in fees and taxes when calculating returns.

How would you feel and more importantly what would you do if your investments suddenly dropped in value by say 30%? 50%?

A skilled investor must display consistency of reason, the ability to quantify, and unwavering discipline. To quote Graham/Dodd: "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative".

[Sampson]

Over what time frame has this been achieved, and what is your alpha relative to the TSX?

^ this.

[Causalien]

Even though KLR's criteria sounds stringent. The reality of the world is such that there's a great numbers of investors who meet the criteria and only a small number of them can make it big.

For example a 50% return per year sounds impressive, but with 100k original investment, you need 6 years of consistent 50% return to become a millionaire. How many of us can say with certainty that we can achieve this? In my life time, it only happened to me once.

The stock market is not your get rich quick road.