I'm thinking of starting a portfolio with 50 random stocks.

just take some good stocks that gives the best yearly target% and gamble your money.
and put some of the money (30%) on stocks you want to invest.
dividends is just a bonus,,
(it's a risky thing,, but I've made 400% profit in 6 months and dividends are not included)

>>1667006

>random

do what you want

>>1667006
Its not a bad idea op, let us know how you did vs the SP500 next year

File: 1472828716565.jpg (40KB, 680x492px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 680x492px

>>1667006
>no value stocks

enjoy watching your money dwindle slowly.

>>1667006
I did similar to what you suggested for a couple years, the cut out the "gambling" portion because it was underperforming everything else. Those micro caps seem promising until you just get burned by one after another. 20% work out well but you're lucky if you break even.
>inb4 some <$1k RHfag tells me I don't know what I'm doing

>>1667006
why do this vs just putting it all in one stock or an index?

it could be a great idea for all i know, but do you know why you are doing it or did you just think of it?

just in case the reason is "diversification":
is there a high correlation between the items you picked in terms of movement? If so, it defeats the purpose.

>>1667018
>implying anything anyone does on the market isn't random

live in your illusion

>>1667006
Too diverse. You should just put all your money into VOO and let it be. The more stocks you have, the more your profile will follow the S&P and thus will be less likely to outperform it, so at that point you would be better off putting it in the index. If you have your heart and soul set on picking stocks, then you should concentrate your efforts on a small number of stocks that you know very well, inside and out. Read this:

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/invmgmt/ch6/dontdiv.htm

>>1667398
>Recommends focusing on fewer stocks and not going for something that follows the S&P-500
>"But go ahead and put all your money into this highly diversified index fund that follows the S&P-500"

>>1667006
The top yielders in are really unstable and often cut dividend the next year, though.

Why don't you just find some sectors you enjoy studying?

>>1667406
The large majority of actively managed funds underperform the S&P. If OP has no idea what he's doing, he would be FAR better off just indexing.

However, if he has his heart and soul set on being a stock picker and outperforming the market, then he should pick fewer stocks, not 50. Instead, focus on 10 of your best ideas. That's all I'm saying.

>>1667006
Damn, kylie is a semen demon isnt she?