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.
"First, I'd recommend that you separate ""short-term"" assets from ""long-term"" assets in your head.  Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund.  These should be kept in cash or short bond funds.   Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years.  Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon.  These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less.   Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks.  I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation.  Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards.  Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity.  The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation.  Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is." "Off the top of my head, I don't know of any publicly-traded companies that routinely earmark distributions as return of capital, but theoretically, it's certainly applicable to any publicly-traded company. The Wikipedia article gives one situation in which a publicly-traded company may use return of capital: Public business may return capital as a means to increase the debt/equity ratio and increase their leverage (risk profile). Since return of capital is a distribution, it shrinks the firm's equity, thus increasing its leverage. Investopedia also has an article, Dividend Facts You May Not Know, that gives an example of when return of capital might be used: Sometimes, especially in the case of a special, large dividend, part of the dividend is actually declared by the company to be a return of capital. In this case, instead of being taxed at the time of distribution, the return of capital is used to reduce the basis of the stock, making for a larger capital gain down the road, assuming the selling price is higher than the basis. For instance, if you buy shares with a basis of $10 each and you get a $1 special dividend, 55 cents of which is return of capital, the taxable dividend is 45 cents, the new basis is $9.45 and you will pay capital gains tax on that 55 cents when you sell your shares sometime in the future. A company may choose to earmark some or all of its distribution as return of capital in order to provide shareholders with a more beneficial tax treatment. The IRS describes this different tax treatment: Distributions that qualify as a return of capital are not dividends. A return of capital is a return of some or all of your investment in the stock of the company. A return of capital reduces the basis of your stock. These distributions don't necessarily count as taxable income, except in some instances: Once the basis of your stock has been reduced to zero, any further non-dividend distribution is capital gain. The IRS also states: A distribution generally qualifies as a return of capital if the corporation making the distribution does not have any accumulated or current year earnings and profits. In this case, the firm is lowering its equity because it's paying distributions out of that equity instead of accumulated earnings/profits. A company may use return of capital to maintain a distribution even in times of financial difficulty.  In the context of closed-end funds, however, return of capital can be much more complicated and can affect the fund's performance and reputation in numerous ways. Also, JB King is correct in cautioning you that ""return of capital"" is not the same thing as ""return on capital*. The latter is a method for valuing a company and determining ""how efficient a company is where it comes to using its resources."" (to quote JB King's comment again)." If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account.  It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible.   If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds.  These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts.   You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries.  Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred.  There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys.  For most people, this is too much work.  For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases.  You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper.   If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them.  For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing.  But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price.  The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after.   Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals.  That way you can share some of the research duties.  Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys.   Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors.  Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it.  There's considerable work involved.  And don't forget diversification.  You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does.  Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices.  You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move.   There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions.  If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure.  Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others.  Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be.  Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions.  I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa. I think that author does a disservice by writing such seemingly sensible articles without actually knowing how things work. If I didn’t know better, I would think this guy was teaching me something. It’s a shame he did not do research before he started writing.  Let’s say you buy a classic car. You take super good care of it, all original, mint condition. You paid cash for it out of your savings. This is a balance sheet transaction that has nothing to do with income. You traded your cash asset for a classic car asset.  Now let’s say this car is so rare and you keep it in such good condition that it gains value every year. Maybe it was worth $15k when you bought it, but this year it’s already worth $17k. Great job on making a great purchase! But is that $2k gain counted as income to you? No, it is not. The value of that asset on your balance sheet went up, but you did not make anything off of that increase in value because you have not sold it.  If you had to pay taxes on the increase in value every year, those taxes would essentially force you to sell that car to pay the taxes just because you took care of it. Additionally, in the long term, no one would want to own anything, so this would destroy the value of everyone’s stuff, but I digress.  In this example, amazon stock is the car. The author is seeing the increase in stock value adding to the balance sheets of the investors who bought the stock and confusing that with income.  Back to our example, let’s say your car increased in value $2k a year for two years and you decide to sell it for $19k - now we are about to realize some income! Since you bought it for $15k and sold for $19k, you earned an income of the difference, or $4k.   Your income wasn’t $19k, because you originally put $15k in cash into the car. That cash was already saved from income you made in the past, and it is not counted again as income in this sale.  Because you did not work for this new car sale income, but it was derived from asset growth, the income is called capital gains. You invested your capital ($15k) into the asset (car), and that asset appreciated. When you sold it, you received capital (money) back in exchange for that asset. The capital you received is more than what you invested, which is to say you gained $4k of capital by investing in and then selling your  asset (car).  Because you held the car for two years, you qualify for lower long term capital gains tax rate on that $4k. Had you sold it after year 1, you would’ve paid your regular normal income tax rate on those capital gains. Either way, you owe the tax when you sell the asset, not when it appreciates.  I’m sure you realize this already, but if we change the car to amazon stock in my story, this is exactly how it works with investors.  The author gets several things wrong   1 - amazon profits are not passed through to shareholders for income tax purposes. If amazon paid dividends, those dividends would be taxed at payout at the long term capital gains rate, and they would be paid out of cash amazon has left after it already paid corporate taxes on profits.   Amazon has decided they can add more value to investors by using cash to grow instead of paying dividends. When the investors sell the stock, they will owe capital gains on the growth of that stock. If amazon is correct that using cash to grow, then investors will effectively pay more when they sell the stock than they would pay today if dividends were paid.  2 - asset appreciation is not income. Those investors will realize the income when they sell the stock, and they will pay the tax then.   3 - he is missing the point entirely on why amazon runs a low profit or how business strategy translates into financials. Low prices are not a function of low profitability. Low profitability could be an adverse result of low pricing, but being low profit in order to be low price is a ridiculous and failing strategy. Amazon’s low pricing is a function of their unparalleled buying power, unparalleled consumer and product data, amazing logistics prowess, clever loyalty programs like amazon prime, and many other brilliant things they’ve done. Their low profitability is a function of their investment in things like amazon fresh, amazon Alexa, drone delivery, automated convenience stores, building out cloud computing infrastructure, and many other R&amp;D projects, $4 billion in original content spending for amazon prime video, and all kinds of expenditures years ahead of when they become profitable. By the time consumers want it, amazon already built it three years ago - this is the power of amazon. Sometimes multi billion dollar experiments fail, and all that money was for nothing. Sometimes they lose money for a few years and then become the infrastructure that runs a third of the internet. Amazon does not let fear of failure stop them, they invest in growth with their cash. This is how Bezos thinks - how do we build the future, not how can I avoid tax    I do need to make a disclaimer here - there could be special tax treatment of classic cars that makes my example not work. Also classic cars may not appreciate in value. I don’t know anything about classic cars, I just picked a politically neutral thing to put in my story and made some assumptions to illustrate how capital gains work. My story is definitely how stocks work, and probably cars, but I just want to point out that I don’t know shit about car collecting. 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. "It will depend somewhat on the rules where the company is formed, and perhaps how much you're talking about investing. I don't know about Canada, but when I've formed businesses in the U.S., I've been advised to invest some of the money as an equity investment, and the bulk of the remainder as a loan. You say ""more shares"", so it sounds like you've already invested some money and need to inject another round. If you make a loan to the company, make sure everything is done at arm's length -- you'll need to wear the hat of the Company Management and sign a contract with yourself, use a market-based interest rate, and make sure the company is paying you back with interest. An alternative which may work if you expect cash flow soon is to pay for certain expenses personally and then submit an expense report to the company, which will pay you back. Overall, a quick consultation with your accountant should be a relatively inexpensive way to get the best answer for your specific circumstances." The goal of the kelly criterion strategy is to find a balance between preservation of starting capital and returns. One of extreme you could bet the entirety of your account on one trade, which would maximize your returns if you win, but leave you unable to further invest if you lose. On the other extreme, you could bet the smallest amount of capital possible over the course of several trades to increase the probability that you'll even out to 70% accuracy over time. But this method would be extremely slow.  So for your case, investing 40% each time is one way to find an optimal balance between these two extremes. Use this as a rule of thumb though, because your own situation and investing goals may differ from the goal of  optimal growth. "Previously (prior to Capital One acquisition -- it's kind of like K-Mart buying Sears) Sharebuilder offered 12 automatic (i.e. pre-scheduled) stock purchases per month if you subscribed to their $12/mo ""Advantage"" plan. So, 12 trades for $1 a trade. Great deal. Except then they flattened their pricing to everyone's acclaim (that is, everyone except for the non-millionaire casual investors) and jacked it up to $4 per automatic investment. As far as I know, Sharebuilder's 12 no-fee investments for $12/mo was rather unique in the online trading world -- and now it's very sadly extinct. They do have no-fee mutual fund investing, however, for what it's worth."