I have studied and applied the Minervini method for two years now. Although I like the method, a few things don't add up in my opinion. We are of course blinded by the fact that he won the championship in 1997 and 2021 with returns of 155% and 334.8%. Even if he won this in a fair way these are still momentary recordings. We never get to see what he performs annually. A successful trading strategy is all about how you perform over the longer term. An important point is when it comes to trading is that there are relatively few perfect bull markets. Often it is a choppy market or a bear market. Even the best traders in history, failed to succeed in a bear market or even went down in a choppy market. His trading strategy works very poorly in a choppy market or bear market. So he would have to perform extremely well in the "good years" to achieve a good average. Anyway, even if he would be in cash during bear markets and his strategy would be so successful in bull markets or choppy markets, he should be a billionaire with such returns. He clearly isn't. And yes, with his strategy are a limitations in terms of liquidity but even then, he should be a billionaire. Then I wonder the following. If you have gold in your hands, why are you so busy selling yourself. Selling extremely expensive seminars, promoting books, tweeting daily and being endlessly interviewed by IBD, from which you also receive money because you have become a figurehead. If you compare it to well-known traders like Paul Tudor Jones, they are not involved in this at all. They have to work hard to make good returns. Minervini claims that you should always focus, but he himself is mostly busy selling himself to the world. Anyway, Minervini once tweeted the results of one of his best traders. Mark Ritchie II and I think those results are closer to the truth. His performance was as follows: 2021 41% 2020 140% 2019 -5% 2018 -6% 2017 75% 2015 -5% 2014 125% 2013 40% 2012 35% 2011 56% First of all I want to point out the huge gap between a fulltime professional trader like Ritchie II who achieved a 41% return in 2021 and Minervini in the same year realised a return of 334.8%. This difference raises my eyebrows. Again, if you can outperform professional traders with these kind of results, the rest are just amateurs. But if you analyze these figures, I think you can leave out 2020. In that year even a child could make such returns because of the free money that was given away and all stocks skyrocketed. In that case, you end up with an annual return of 40%. Not bad, but Minervini shared these figures without adding the figures from 2008-2010. And those were pretty depressing years. Would he have made no profit or a little loss in those years. Then the annual return comes out to 28%. In my view, that 28% is reality and not 100% plus returns who were advertised. Those 28% are good returns when it comes to money, but remember this method is labor intensive. You often have to scan for stocks and analyze fundamentals, take and sell lots of positions, often half of which go wrong. Is it worth all that time and energy? Then wouldn't you be better off investing with Warren Buffett with a little less return? In the case of Minervini, it seems to me that he made a huge hit in the early years. Then he had averaged returns between 20 to 40 percent. And he can, because he made a good hit in the past, sit out bad markets by not trading. But to make a very good living from it he needs more and that is promoting expensive seminars and selling himself. But returns of 100 percent or more is just nonsense. In my view, therefore, it is a dream sold to people with normal jobs that they can achieve such returns. You have to do a lot for those 30 percent returns. In which you also spend years trading like in choppy markets, with the end result being no returns or even losses. Reality is that investing with Warren Buffett would be a wiser choice for the average person as it less time consuming and Buffett generated annual returns averaging roughly 22%
%% Good points\ except Mr buffet noted SPY/S&P500\ + warned his returns were likely to less in the future. SO your bottom line is most likely wrong\ except dont be average as you last line noted LOL
No doubt he could trade by winning 2 championships, but nothing beat a risk free business like teaching people how to trade. At least he is much more legit than those youtube kids trading on thier cellphone showing off Ferrari everyday.
Minervini has admitted that he makes all his Money in Bull Markets, hence the Educational Empire to provide an Income at other times. He was teaching Institutions his methods back in the 90s, after his wins in the USIC 96 (abandoned) and 97 I assume.
Doesn't Warren Buffett only return about 19% per year? A Retailer shouldn't be trying to compete with Institutions on Fundamentals, they have a massive Informational advantage.
%% LOL SOUNDS like those punks are way out of line\ Dave rasmey says dont even buy a New car 'till you net 7 figures LOL. Much better risk reward is buyin' books; haven't bough mr Minervirni books \ not thru with his interview\ Jack schwager. WANT to buy me a bass boat + Z- 28/ guess that stuff will have to wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH,OH/ feel like a million bucks/ want to drive you around in armored truck/ John Anderson / MOney in the Bank Song, sung in a local bank. >1,177,777 video views
I had a look at his works, simple breakout strategy, contraction breakout stuff, it might work for small to medium cap stocks, especially in a strong trend market.
Since you've studied his method for over two years, would you be as kind as to summarize his approach and philosophy in a short paragraph? From what I understand already, he's a long only stock trader trading breakouts (?)? I agree that it does raise suspicion. On the other hand, if you're a famous Market Wizard from one of Scwager's books and can monetize that, it's essentially risk-free money and arguably much easier money than you'll get by putting your money at risk in the market - even if you know how to trade. If you did have a unique method and a massive edge, though, you'd be crazy to sell it to the public cheaply. So, the conclusion might be that it's not really that amazing. I've no idea about his returns, but tend to trust that Jack Schwager did his due diligence. A lot may have happened after that, though, and if I'm not mistaken I believe for example Marty Schwartz said in a later interview that he could no longer trade stock index futures successfully in today's markets. I do think many of the famous Market Wizards started out trading in very favorable conditions. I believe it was Michael Marcus who said something to the effect that everything was going up and it was virtually impossible not to make money and how there were tons of stories about people getting rich. And how in later periods trading was much more difficult. Richard Dennis, for example, was facing a 50 % drawdown on his publicly managed funds by the time of the interview as his trend following approach got whipsawed in a range bound market. Shortly after the interview he closed down his funds and retired from trading. On a comparable note, I know several people who got rich (not Market Wizards rich) simply by being invested in the recent bull market and continuing to invest. No brains required. Just buy and hold. If Minervini requires a bull market to make money, he may not be that much of a wizard after all. Just my two cheap cents on the subject.
It's pretty much a given that a long only trader needs a bull market to make money. What makes them wizards is the ability to sit on their hands when the market isn't moving in their favor, along with being able to make a lot of money during the bull runs.