>>60840767
>you should set a stop loss around 10%
okay, so you sold your whole portfolio at a loss when we flash crashed 20% in April? That would make you the retard, not me.

>the 5 year rule is retarded because you could end losing 99% of your investment
if you're investing in companies that might go bankrupt within 5 years then you're picking shit companies. "Only invest in companies with positive earnings and growing revenue" practically guarantees that none of your investments will go to zero within five years. This is a non-issue.

>Saying "2k" makes no sense. It should be based on a percentage of your portfolio
this is a reasonable criticism, however if you're a 22-year-old who just got his first paycheck and has $2,000 to invest, it would be silly to assemble a portfolio of tiny $100 positions in various stocks. You're taking on extra risk compared to investing in an index fund, but in absolute terms you're not going to be meaningfully compensated for that risk, because even if one stock does a 20x, that's only ~$2,000 in profit.

It's more reasonable for such a person to invest the whole $2,000 in one stock and then invest their subsequent paychecks in other stocks. That way, if one stock does a 20x, the return is actually meaningful.

People on this board are in their 20s and 30s so they have many future paychecks coming, and they can afford to take on the risk of investing $2,000 in one company, in order to benefit from the potential asymmetric returns.

Finally, if you're investing in companies based on % of portfolio, then you're tasked with constantly re-evaluating whether you should add to your positions that are less than X% of your portfolio, and that's bad because 1) it's a waste of your mental bandwidth and distracts you from researching new opportunities, and 2) it's going to encourage you to chase losses and throw good money after bad.