I carelessly invested in a stock on a spike near the peak price. How can I salvage my investment?
"Is there anyway to salvage my investment for short-term? No.  If by ""salvage"" you mean ""get back as much as you paid"", the only way to salvage it is to wait as long as you consider ""short-term"" and see if goes up again.  If by ""salvage"" you mean ""get some money back"", the only thing you can do to guarantee that is sell it now.  By doing so, you guarantee that you will get neither more nor less than it is worth right now.  Either way, there is nothing you can do other than sell the stock or hold it.  The stock price went down.  You can't make it go back up. Would it be better if I sell my stocks now and buy from other company? Or should I just wait for it's price to go up again? This depends on why you bought the stock, and what you think it will do in the future.  You said a family member persuaded you.  Does that family member still think the stock will go up again?  If so, do you still trust them? You didn't even say what stock it is in your question, so there's no way anyone here can tell you whether it's a good idea to sell it or not.  Even if you do say what stock it is, all anyone can do is guess.  If you want, you could look the stock up on Motley Fool or other sites to see if analysts believe it will rise.  There are lots of sources of information.  But all you can do with that information is decide to sell the stock or not. It may sound obvious, but you should sell if you think the stock will go lower, and hold it if you think it could still go back up.  No one can tell you which of those things is going to happen." "It would be useful to forget about the initial price that you invested - that loss happened, it's over and irreversible, it's a sunk cost; and anchoring on it would only cause you to make worse decisions. Getting ""back"" from a loss is done exactly the same as growing an investment that didn't have such a loss. You have x units of stock that's currently priced $46.5 - that is your blank slate; you need to decide wether you should hold that stock (i.e., if $46.5 is undervalued and likely to increase) or it's likely to fall further and you should sell it.   The decision you make should be exactly the same as if you'd bought it a bit earlier for $40." I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong.  Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it.  For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds.  If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope. You should be worried. You have made the mistake of entering an investment on the recommendation of family/friend. The last think you should do is make another mistake of just leaving it and hoping it will go up again. Your stock has dropped 37.6% from its high of $74.50. That means it has to go up over 60% just to reach the high of $74.50. You are correct this may never happen or if it does it could take a long, long time to get up to its previous highs. What is the company doing to turn its fortunes around? Take a look at some other examples: QAN.AX - Qantas Airways  This stock reached a high of around $6 in late 2007 after a nice uptrend over a year and a half, it then dropped drastically at the start of the GFC, and has since kept falling and is now priced at just $1.15. QAN reported its first ever loss earlier this year, but its problems were evident much earlier. AAPL - Apple Inc.  AAPL reach a high of just over $700 in September 2013, then dropped to around $400 and has recovered a bit to about $525 (still 25% below its highs) and looks to be at the start of another downtrend. How long will it take AAPL to get back to $700, more than 33% from its current price? TEN.AX - Ten Network Holdings Limited  TEN reached a high of $4.26 in late 2004 after a nice uptrend during 2004. It then started a steep journey downwards and is still going down. It is now priced at just $0.25, a whopping 94% below its high. It will have to increase by 1600% just to reach its high of $4.26 (which I think will never happen). Can a stock come back from a drastic downtrend? Yes it can. It doesn't always happen, but a company can turn around and can reach and even surpass it previous highs. The question is how and when will this happen? How long will you keep your capital tied up in a stock that is going nowhere and has every chance of going further down? The most important thing with any investment is to protect your current capital. If you lose all your capital you cannot make any new investments until you build up more capital. That is why it is so important to have a risk management strategy and decide what is your get out point if things go against you before you get into any new investment. Have a stop loss. I would get out of your investment before you lose more capital. If you had set a stop loss at 20% off the stock's last highs, you would have gotten out at about $59.60, 28% higher than the current share price of $46.50. If you do further analysis on this company and find that it is improving its prospects and the stock price breaks up through its current ranging band, then you can always buy back in. However, do you still want to be in the stock if it breaks the range band on the downside? In this case who knows how low it can continue to go. N.B. This is my opinion, as others would have theirs, and what I would do in your current situation with this stock. "You probably bought the stock near the peak because ""it's been up a lot lately."" That's the easiest way to lose money. You need to go back and do some basic research. The stock appears to have been expensive around 75. Why is that? The stock seems to be in a ""comfortable"" level around 45. Why is THAT? Maybe it's too expensive around 45 (based on the P/E ratio, or other measures); maybe you should buy more at 45, where it is cheap, even though 75 is too expensive. The key is to study the stock where it is today (45-47). Ask yourself what you would do at TODAY's price, and today's ""fundamentals."" That will also save you from paying 75 for a stock worth 45, and should save you from paying 45 for a stock if it is only worth 35." "If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all.  Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.)  The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say ""That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?"" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses.  Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have ""lost"" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to ""buy high, sell low"" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock." If you know you have picked a bad stock, the sooner you sell the better. There is a tendency to hold a bad stock in the hope that it will pick up again. Most of us fall into this trap. The best way one needs to look at things are; Ignore sunk costs and look to future returns.  Although it feels like a loss to exit an investment from a loss position, from a financial standpoint you should ignore the purchase price.  If your money could be better invested somewhere else, then move it there. You shouldn't look at it as though you'll be more financially secure because you waited longer for the stock to reach the purchase price.  That's psychological, not financial. Some portion of your invested wealth is stuck in this particular stock.  If it would take three months for the stock to get back to purchase price but only two months for an alternate investment to reach that same level, then obviously faster growth is better.  Your goal is greater wealth, not arbitrarily returning certain investments to their purchase price. Investments are just instrumental.  You want more wealth.  If an investment is not performing, then ignore purchase price and sunken costs.  Look at the reasonable expectations about an investment going forward. The market doesn't know or care why you bought.  What you are asking is effectively 'this share went down in price after I bought. Is there anything I can do?'. Consider what you are asking for - if there were anything you could do, then no one would ever make a loss. How do you suppose that would work? "Basically, your question boils down to this: Where and how do I squeeze the stock market so that within time period X, it will make me Y dollars. (Where I'm emotionally attached to the Y figure because I recently lost it, and X is ""as soon as possible"".) To make money on the stock market (in a quasi-guaranteed way), you have to adjust X and Y so that they are realistic. For instance, let X be twenty-five years, and Y be ""7% annual return"". Small values of X are risky, unless X is on the order of milliseconds and you have a computer program working for you. To mitigate some of the risk of short term trading, you have to treat trading seriously and study like mad: study the stock market in general, and not only that, but carefully research the companies whose stocks you are buying. Work actively to discover stocks which are under-valued relative to the performance of their corporation, and which might correct upward relative to the performance of similar stocks. Always have an exit strategy for every position and stick to it. Use instruments like ""trailing stops"": automatic tracking which follows a price in one direction, and then produces an order to close the position when the price reverses by a certain amount." Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card?  Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'.  It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades.  Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move. I am very surprised no one mentioned the Stock Repair Option Strategy which has real benefits and is one of the mainstream Option Strategies. Quote: Who Should Consider Using the Stock Repair Strategy? In a nutshell, you are buying call options with current strike price (at-the-money) and sell call options with higher strike price (out-of-the-money), all with the same expiry dates.  The only reason to also sell call options here is to recover your premium paid for the other call options. If you are comfortable paying that premium, you just buy the call options without selling the others. In case your stock will rise moderately to a price between the two strike prices, your call option will rise together with your stock, so you will be faster to recover your money. This is the main reason it is called Repair. If you have sold any call options, as the price rises, you have to be careful when it reaches the strike price of the options sold, as from there on you will begin incurring losses. It is however exactly the lucky outcome you were hoping for, your stock is higher, and you can buy back those loss making options - then or shortly before. If you didn't sell any options and payed your premium, you don't need to worry at all at this stage. WARNING It should be noted that the Stock Repair Strategy offers no protection for your stock price further falling down. In that case all those options will expire worthless or you can sell back the ones your bought but likely not for much. In order to have the downside protection for your stock, there are other strategies, the simplest one being buying a Put Option at-the-money or slightly lower. That will effectively cut your possible losses to the Option Premium (which is the main use of that option).  Again, if you hate to pay that premium, you can offset it by selling other options that you either hope won't be exercised or take steps to protect you against those. "You can do several things: After the fact: If you believe the stock will go up, you can buy more stock now, it's what's called ""averaging"". So, you bought 100 at $10, now it's at $7. To gain money from your original investment it needs to raise to over $10. But if you really think it'll go up, you can buy and average. So you buy, say, 100 more stock at $7, now you have 200 shares at $8.50 average so you gain money on your investment when the stock goes over $8.50 instead of $10.  Of course, you risk losing even more money if the stock keeps going down. Before the fact: When you buy stock, set 'triggers'. In most trading houses you can set automatic triggers to fire on conditions you set. When you buy 100 shares at $10, you can set a trigger to automatically sell the 100 shares if it drops below $9, so you limit your losses to 10% (for example)." "Yes, you could sell what you have and bet against others that the stock price will continue to fall within a period of time ""Shorting"".  If you're right, your value goes UP even though the stock price goes down. This is a pretty darn risky bet to make.  If you're wrong, there's no limit to how much money you can owe.  At least with stocks they can only fall to zero!  When you short, and the price goes up and up and up (before the deadline) you owe it! And just as with stocks, someone else has to agree to take the bet.  If a stock is pretty obviously tanking, its unlikely that someone would oppose your bet. (It's probably pretty clear that I barely know what I'm talking about, but I was surprised not to see this listed among the answers.)" Just get out. If the investment isn't going up, you are losing money to inflation, as well as the opportunity cost of not having the money somewhere more profitable. These things happen to the best of us. Just learn from it and move on. Some valuable lessons: Just keep trying. Mistakes like this are all part of the learning process. Best of luck. Stocks go down and go back up, that's their nature... Why would you sell on a low point? Stocks are a long term investment. If the company is still healthy, it's very likely you'll be able to sell them with a profit if you wait long enough. The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith.  Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2.  If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2.  The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more.  If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away.  You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back. If the company is stable. I like to recoup losses by buying in the valley and selling it all at the plateau and then learning as all beginners do, don't  buy stocks because there's a feeding frenzy...or because Joe told me too. Pick your strategy in stocks and learn to stick with that. If you have no strategy, buy land.
"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a ""crash"" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your ""trigger"", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever." "He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the ""short"" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your   position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed   diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the   margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this   increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses   become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, ""Devastated"" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully   tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe   Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the   RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a ""dummy"" E-trader, Joe   Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO ""and now owes $ETFC a   wonderful $106K.""" "I think that pattern is impossible, since the attempt to apply the second half would seem to prevent executing the first. Could you rewrite that as ""After the stock rises to $X, start watching for a drop of $Y from peak price; if/when that happens, sell."" Or does that not do what you want? (I'm not going to comment on whether the proposed programmed trading makes sense. Trying to manage things at this level of detail has always struck me as glorified guesswork.)" Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value. Based on that logic, go to a casino and bet it all on black...you have a better chance of being right...certainly it will minimize the duration of the pain...   I hope to gonzo that you have better research behind this decision than a simple feeling...don't forget that with options it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong as to if gold will drop or go up in price...what matters is WHEN that will happen...options have a limited life...If you think this is a bubble then so be it, but make sure you have done your homework with regard to TIMEFRAME! I suggest to just invest in index funds, these are low risk with high reward stocks that can survive even the worst of stock crashes but are still extremely profitable when the stock market is booming "To summarize, there are three basic ways: (3) is the truly dangerous one. If there is a lot of short interest in a stock, but for some reason the stock goes up, suddenly a lot of people will be scrambling to buy that stock to cover their short position -- which will drive the price up even further, making the problem worse.  Pretty soon, a bunch of smart rich guys will be poor guys who are suddenly very aware that they aren't as smart as they thought they were.  Eight years ago, such a ""short squeeze"", as it's called, made the price of VW quadruple in two days.  You could hear the Heinies howl from Hamburg to Haldenwanger. There are ways to protect yourself, of course.  You can go short but also buy a call at a much higher price, thereby limiting your exposure, a strategy called a ""straddle"", but you also reduce your profit if you guessed right. It comes down to, as it always does, do you want to eat well, or to sleep well?" A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured  out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks.  That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters).  Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight.  A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it.  Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own.  These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types:  event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015. "Eventually, you'll end up buying a stock at or near a high-water mark.  You might end up waiting a few years before you see your ""guaranteed"" $100 profit, and you now have $5K to $10K tied up in the wait.  The more frequently you trade, the faster your money gets trapped. There are two ways to avoid this problem: 1) Do it during strong bull markets.    If everything keeps going up you don't need to worry about peaks...but then why would you keep cashing out for $1 gains? 2) Accurately predict the peaks.    If you can see the future, why would you keep cashing out for $1 gains? Either way, this strategy will only make your broker happy, $8 at a time." "It's tough to share exactly what happened. Go to yahoo and look at the chart for Cisco from 1990 to 2003 or so. From a split adjusted 8 cents a share, it peaked at just under $80 in March 2000, up by a factor of 1000. People were buying in thinking this stock would continue to rise at this pace, but logic says that's preposterous. By April of 2001, it was down to $14, 80% off its high, and later to drop below $10.  This was a classic bubble and should be studied so you don't get caught in them. A book titled Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds was published in 1841, yes is still an interesting read. Bubbles in markets are not new, but can be recognized and avoided. Cisco at $80 had a market cap of $438B. Had it risen 1000 fold over another decade, it would have been worth $438T, but all the wealth in the US isn't even $75T, so something was wrong, very wrong. This is one story, one stock. A remarkable time.  Yes, many companies went under, and the employees lost their jobs. And those who were heavy into the ""dotcom"" stocks lost as much as 80% (or more) of their wealth. Entire 401(k) accounts dropping this amount due to bad decisions. Those who bailed out in time survived, some doing better than others." I'm going to have to take you to task for this post. If someone is incapable of determining the implied current P/E in the IPO price then they should not be buying stocks. You cannot blame Wall Street for the greed and stupidity of the public. "I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea.  Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown.  For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, ""The Big Short,"" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the ""short-term"" part.  If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment.  This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term ""leverage"" for the term ""margin"".  Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff.  Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money.  Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging.  This is why you should view leverage with great caution.  It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells.  But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this!  Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make.  Be careful, my friend." "There are obviously lots of complexities here, and there are rules against price or market manipulation that are somewhat interpretive due to the rules' inclusion of the manipulator's intent, but: Generally speaking, you can publicly promote the value of a company whose stock you own provided that you: Now, if you extol the value of a company publicly, and sell it immediately thereafter, ""pump and dump,"" the regulators might suggest that your actions imply that you didn't believe it was so wonderful, and were misleading the public to move the price.     That said, a fair retort might be that you loved it for all the reasons you said at [lower price], but thought it had run its course once it got to [higher price].   Again, if it can be demonstrated that your reason for praising it was to push the price higher, your intent may land you in hot water. This isn't legal advice or a full analysis, but if Fitty essentially declared his honest reasons for loving a stock in which he is invested, and discloses that investment, letting others know he is biased, he's probably ok, especially if he intends to hold it long term." "My broker offers the following types of sell orders: I have a strategy to sell-half of my position once the accrued value has doubled.  I take into account market price, dividends, and taxes (Both LTgain and taxes on dividends).  Once the market price exceeds the magic trigger price by 10%, I enter a ""trailing stop %"" order at 10%.  Ideally what happens is that the stock keeps going up, and the trailing stop % keeps following it, and that goes on long enough that accrued dividends end up paying for the stock.  What happens in reality is that the stock goes up some, goes down some, then the order gets cancelled because the company announces dividends or something dumb like that. THEN I get into trouble trying to figure out how to re-enter the order, maintaining the unrealized gain in the history of the trailing stop order.  I screwed up and entered the wrong type of order once and sold stock I didn't want to. Lets look at an example. a number of years ago, I bought some JNJ -- a hundred shares at 62.18.  - Accumulated dividends are 2127.75  - My spreadsheet tells me the ""double price"" is 104.54, and double + 10% is 116.16.  - So a while ago, JNJ exceeded 118.23, and I entered a Trailing Stop 10% order to sell 50 shares of JNJ.  The activation price was 106.41.  - since then, the price has gone up and down...  it reached a high of 126.07, setting the activation price at 113.45.  - Then, JNJ announced a dividend, and my broker cancelled the trailing stop order.  I've re-entered a ""Stop market"" order at 113.45.  I've also entered an alert for $126.07 -- if the alert gets triggered, I'll cancel the Market Stop and enter a new trailing stop." Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof.  No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping.  Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing.  This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond.  Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions.  Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond.  You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries.  If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value.   But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.