How much of my capital should I spend on subscribing to a stock research company?
"You should spend zero on your stock research company.  If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars.  They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something.  Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock ""research"" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks.  They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price.  Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem.  The research company knows that its recommendations will ""make good money"" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people.  To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing ""dumb"" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period.  And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck.  I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck.  Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value.  Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal ""stock research"" enterprise." To complement farnsy's answer, I want to warn people against market prediction scams. If they give uniformly distributed buy/sell predictions to 256 people, one of them will get eight correct predictions in a row. They are trading a few cents of Amazon server time for 3% of your capital.
This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company. It's hard to say for smaller cap firms because they are all so different. Take a look at SandP or other rating agencies at about the BB range. Then decide how much of a buffer you'd like. If all goes to hell, do you want to be able to cover all you salaries, debt etc for three months? Six? What kind of seasonal volatility does your industry face? Do you plan on any significant investment or FTE uplift any time soon? This will all play into how much retained earnings you will chose to have. The idea is you would also have a cash allowance in the portfolio originally - say 25%. So in this scenario, 375K in stock and 125k in cash. and assuming the goal is 1K increase in stock value you would buy 38.5K of stock at the now lower price. Why not figure out the % composition   of the index and invest in the   participating securities directly? This isn't really practical.   Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity. "RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that ""you believe these will continue"" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market.  In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this).  Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits.  Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous." I mean some VCs focus on technology companies, that's a sector focus, but a very broad one. Are you saying you don't want to be limited to one sector?   Also keep in mind that series B investments are much more expensive then A rounds, just because there is more proof and less risk.   I know of some angel investors that invest by size rather than industry, maybe you could partner up with them. All depends on how much capital you have/ how much involvement you want to have with the company. I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg.   I wish you the best of luck finding something,  but I wasn't able to.   S&amp;P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site,  but I wasn't able to make use of it.  Edit: Also,  Bloomberg allows shared terminals.  Depending on how much you think as a firm,  these questions might come up,  it might be worth the 20k / year "I find the question interesting, but it's beyond an intelligent answer.  Say what you will about Jim Cramer, his advice to spend ""an hour per month on each stock"" you own appears good to me. But it also limits the number of stocks you can own. Given that most of us have day jobs in other fields, you need to decide how much time and education you can put in. That said, there's a certain pleasure in picking stocks, buying a company that's out of favor, but your instinct tells you otherwise. For us, individual stocks are about 10% of total portfolio. The rest is indexed. The amount that ""should be"" in individual stocks? None. One can invest in low cost funds, never own shares of individual stocks, and do quite well." If you hold at least $2,000 of a company's shares for at least a year you can submit a proxy filing -- a stockholder proposal at the  shareholders' meeting.   Then you can use the media to agitate around that proposal.  (See Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, mentioned here as well). Companies have been known to bow to media pressure around minority shareholder proposals.  The guidelines for proxy filings are here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&amp;sid=47b43cbb88844faad586861c05c81595&amp;rgn=div5&amp;view=text&amp;node=17:3.0.1.1.1&amp;idno=17#17:3.0.1.1.1.2.82.201  Buying enough shares to assume control of a major money center bank is not possible, regardless of the amount of money you can raise (remember: there are poison pill provisions, not to mention the fact that the more shares you want to buy, the higher the price will be).   tl;dr: The way to do what you're trying to do is not by accumulating shares but by using the media. You need $2,000. It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market.  There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share.  Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share.  There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000.  Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams.  Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power.  But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment.   There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue.  Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue.  While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares.  For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock.  Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why?  Did you open another store?  Did you open another sales office?  Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation?  If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected?  Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks.  XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000.  This is a really unlikely event...  Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets.  Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest.  One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research?  What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance. Thanks for the advice. I will look into index funds.   The only reason I was interested in this stock in particular is that I used to work for the company, and always kept an eye on the stock price. I saw that their stock prices recently went down by quite a bit but I feel like I've seen this happen to them a few times over the past few years and I think they have a strong catalogue of products coming out soon that will cause their stock to rise over the next few years.   After not being able to really understand the steps needed to purchase it though, I think I've learned that I really don't know enough about the stock system in general to make any kind of informed decisions about it and should probably stick to something lower-risk or at least do some research before making any ill-informed decisions. Don't start by investing in a few individual companies. This is risky. Want an example? I'm thinking of a big company, say $120 billion or so, a household name, and good consistent dividends to boot. They were doing fairly well, and were generally busy trying to convince people that they were looking to the future with new environmentally friendly technologies. Then... they went and spilled a bunch of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, it wasn't a pretty picture if BP was one of five companies in your portfolio that day. Things would look a lot better if they were one of 500 or 5000 companies, though. So. First, aim for diversification via mutual funds or ETFs. (I personally think you should probably start with the mutual funds: you avoid trading fees, for one thing. It's also easier to fit medium-sized dollar amounts into funds than into ETFs, even if you do get fee-free ETF trading. ETFs can get you better expense ratios, but the less money you have invested the less important that is.) Once you have a decent-sized portfolio - tens of thousands of dollars or so - then you can begin to consider holding stocks of individual companies. Take note of fees, including trading fees / commissions. If you buy $2000 worth of stock and pay a $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money. If your question is truly just  What is good growth? Is there a target return that's accepted as good?   I assumed 8% (plus transaction fees). Then I'd have to point out that the S&P has offered a CAGR of 9.77% since 1900. You can buy an S&P ETF for .05%/yr expense. If your goal is to lag the S&P by 1.7%/yr over the long term, you can use a 85/15 mix of S&P and cash, sleep well at night, and avoid wasting any time picking stocks. "I'd start with a Google search for ""best backtesting tools."" Does your online brokerage offer anything? You already understand that the data is the important part.  The good stuff isn't free. But yeah, if you have some money to spend you can get more than enough data to completely overwhelm you. :)" "Simple answer: Yes  A better question to ask might be ""Should I invest all my savings to buy 4 shares of a single stock."" My answer to that would be ""probably not"". If this is your first venture into the world of owning publicly traded companies, then you're better off starting with some sort of mutual fund or ETF. This will start your portfolio with some amount of diversification so you don't have all your eggs in one basket. If you really want to get into the world of picking individual stocks, a good rule of thumb to follow is to invest $1 in some sort of indexed fund for every $1 you invest in an individual stock. This gives you some diversification while still enabling you to scratch that itch of owning a part of Apple or whatever other company you think is going in the right direction."