What do you believe to be an acceptable yearly return? I dont mean what is your ideal return, I mean what return would you consider "acceptable" meaning not ideal but not disappointing. My acceptable return rate would be 25%. At that rate, it takes a little over 3 years to double your cash. It would be acceptable to myself to double my cash in a 3 year period.
It all depends on the risk you are willing to assume to get this return. I am fairly conservative, so if I could make even 15% consistently, knowing that I have low risk, I would be very happy.
This would depend on several factors: - how much investment money you have ($100 - $100,000,000) - how much risk you expect to take - factors like age (how long do you have to make it) If you have a large investment capital then growth is not as important as safety so you would dial the risk down and tend towards safety. If you are closer to the $100 side of the wealth then you want full tilt growth or it isn't worth it. If you doubled, a 100% gain, on $100 in a year it would not be worth the effort. So, at this level you want to go for agressive gains and know that your risk is high. Younger people can take more risk but they can also benefit from a slower and steadier method of gain. Youth can be implusive and reckless. With age we get more concerned with limiting risk.
after how much time expended? If I spend 5 minutes a day at trading, how much would be acceptable? How much risk is there? Too much missing for me to answer the poll... here is the answer...the only answer... the most per second, with the least risk. we are not newbies anymore, we read ET....we need to think differently. Do not just be thrilled that you are able to sit in your living room in the boxer shorts and click buttons and make money...fine tune it...get better...challenge yourself. If you do not grow...you stifle your future... acceptable?...well its to improve in efficiency. First with yourself then to others. use everything you know...How many people helped Bill Gates become wealthy? I have four computers, two notebook computers and 5 monitors in total and use everyone of those tools and other tools to keep my mind nimble and discovering...Pick up books and trade magazines to get new ideas...
more than that. I would say minimum 200% returns P.A on starting capital of 20k up to 300k. Otherwise its not worth the risk of trading. after that you can tune down the risk meter to about 30% p.a
so far the majority class "over 100%" ROI as acceptable, but what about 80 or 60 or 40 in that case, unacceptable ROI?
15-20% is good. 20-25% is very good. I did some research years ago on ALL vehicles for trading.... stocks, mutual funds, futures, options. The number of traders who could document 40% average for 10 years [reliably audited], you could count on your fingers. Anyone who is talking 10% per month or 200% per year is either a bold-faced liar or wack.
There are some years where you can get a 100% return. In recent years that has been easy to achieve as the market had been depressed by the tech crash some years ago. 2002-2005 was a great time to ride some small cap depressed cap stocks up, trade oil or gold, etc. Now things are starting level out and we are getting back to the old times when large cap ruled the street. The last few years was a inefficency in history that has now worked itself it. We must turn to new strategies and ways of thinking. If you end the year with 20% more then when you started, yes, you are doing well. If you believe that you can obtain 100+% returns year after year then you are dreaming. The last few years have been good, but I honestly dont know how it will be in the next few years. The people who posted that an "acceptable" rate of return is 100% are only fooling themselves and demonstrates that they are truly naive.
I did some research years ago on ALL vehicles for trading.... stocks, mutual funds, futures, options. The number of traders who could document 40% average for 10 years [reliably audited], you could count on your fingers. Anyone who is talking 10% per month or 200% per year is either a bold-faced liar or wack. Wrong assumption. Fund managers cannot make 100+% annual due to several reasons: extremely low leverage by choice, trading not-to-lose, etc. There are lots of traders who average more than +100% annual returns for a decade or more. They have no reason to post = audit any public returns, they live off annual income versus leaving the equity to multiply endless, etc. Common misconception. Money-manager returns and top-flight individual traders are a long ways apart on the performance scale.