Is this a viable lifelong strategy? And A New Definition For Risk

Today someone close to me asked if this is a viable lifelong strategy and it has left me feeling a little bit deflated. Not because I don’t believe that I can make it but more so because it feels like your goal/lifelong dream is being questioned.

Now, I am not under any delusion as to how hard it will be to generate a living from the market, nor how long it will take for the companies I invest in to reach their full potential. I also don’t want to lie and say that if one of my stocks goes up ten times I’ll be a multi-millionaire, because that is simply not the case. To turn this goal into a reality I really need one ten bagger from which I can then enter another couple of stocks with three to four times what I put in my first few (OBJ, MHM & KGL). This is the value of compounding and each successive win means I have more capital to put into my next stock.

Right now the risks are the greatest because I already have three stocks and only room for maybe one or two more. From those five companies one or maybe two will fail but the gains from the others should more than offset those losses. If this occurs then I will have a larger capital base and my future portfolio could probably accommodate up to six stocks, with a bit of cash for short term opportunities and a cash buffer to protect against more than 50% of the portfolio crashing to zero (i.e. ensure I have money to come back in the event of a worst case scenario).

Finally I don’t necessarily classify my portfolio as “high risk” because if you have conducted the research and understand the fundamentals of the company then it should be “known risk”. High risk to me sounds like some useful catchphrase from which people can justify poor investment decisions. Why would anyone invest is something that is “high risk” unless they are gambling. It is a non-sense saying made to satisfy the demands of the ignorant. I apologise if I have used the words “high risk” in relation to my stocks in the past, but it was probably to make sure people understood what I was taking about in a general sense. From now on I will use my new phrase (not sure if it’s been used in investment terminology before or along these lines) but I propose the following definition:

“known risk in relation to a stock (or portfolio of stocks) that are anticipated to generate a high rate of return refers to the ability of an investor to understand the fundamental components of the company, the industry in which they operate and other external factors which may affect their future performance. Taking all these factors into consideration the investor calculates a future share price or market capitalisation that is likely to be five to ten times that of the company’s current value.

If the share price then falls by a considerable margin this is not an unpredicted event, but one of the considerations accepted by the investor when making their investment decision. I.e. The Investor chose to invest based on the likely return, but with knowledge that the return was conditional on a set of targets or objectives.

Known risk should not be used when referring to any investment that involves “hit and hope” exploration, companies with poor management or no/limited future of financial performance or security. These should be classed as poor investment decisions. I.e. there is no risk because they will only ever go one way, down”