Paul,
I'm hesitant to post this.
I admit that my criteria is a little tighter because I don't hold as many stocks - and I go for the VERY undervalued. I look at every stock I see mentioned by certain people on SI, but my most profitable have been the ones I've found myself. I've made a lot of mistakes and I've been lucky. I've only lost on one major position (out of 38 buys), but there's many that I sold far too soon.
I look to sector, then financial stability (very low D/E), strong working capital, and good history of performance by current management. If all of these things fit, is it at a good buy-in price? Usually this requires that the market has dumped it for the wrong reasons, occasionally because it hasn't been found yet. This does narrow down the stocks I would buy.
Two reasons for me to sell: usually because it has gone over value (my criteria) but sometimes because I've found something better.
I have found it difficult to keep track of a wide variety of stocks, so I own only 2-4 major positions at any one time. I keep small positions and continue to track most stocks I have owned in the past, updating my files on them in case they become 'buys' again.
I believe I do a lot more research than most. I've been preparing and reading financial statements for years and can catch most of the BS. (I've put enough into them myself) I also feel this let's me make judgements on management.
IMO - Market investing is a matter of finding a method that fits your ability and your risk tolerance. Based on past performance, I consider my investing moderate risk with high reward.
BTW - I feel it's hard to profit from investing if you let tax liability influence your decisions.
Except for a brief period years ago, I have only been investing in the market since Sept of '96. I realize that I am inexperienced and less educated compared to many that post on these lists and I respect their expertise. My posts too often reflect many years of being the 'boss'.
It's difficult.
Sorry this was so long,
Ron |
