If I have $1000 to invest in penny stocks online, should I diversify risk and invest in many of them or should I invest in just in one?
I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return.  In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost. If you want to put in $1000 into penny stocks, I wouldn't be calling that investing but more like speculation or gambling. You might have better odds at a casino. If you don't have much money at the moment to invest properly and you are just starting out as an investor, I would spend that $1000 on educating yourself so that by the time you have more money to invest you can come up with a better investment strategy. There's a grey area where investing and speculating cross. For some, the stock market, as in 10% long term return with about 14% standard deviation, is too risky. For others, not enough action.  Say you have chosen 10 penny stocks, done your diligence, to the extent possible, and from a few dozen this is the 10 you like. I'd rather put $100 into each of 10 than to put all my eggs in one basket. You'll find that 3 might go up nicely, 3 will flounder around, and 4 will go under. The gambler mentality is if one takes off, you have a profit.  After the crash of '08, buying both GM and Ford at crazy prices actually worked, GM stockholders getting nothing, but Ford surviving and now 7X what I bought it for.  Remember, when you go to vegas, you don't drop all your chips on Red, you play blackjack/craps as long as you can, and get all the free drinks you can. "I've never invested in penny stocks. My #1 investing rule, buy what you know and use.  People get burned because they hear about the next big thing, go invest! to just end up losing everything because they have no clue in what they're investing in. From what I've found, until you have minimum of $5k to invest, put everything in a single investment. The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that commissions eat up just about all your profits.  My opinion, don't put it in a bond, returns are garbage right now - however they are ""safe"". Because this is $1000 we're talking about and not your life savings, put it in a equity like a stock to try and maximize your return. I aim for 15% returns on stocks and can generally achieve 10-15% consistently. The problem is when you get greedy and keep thinking it will go above once you're at 10-15%. Sell it. Sell it right away :) If it drops down -15% you have to be willing to accept that risk. The nice thing is that you can wait it out. I try to put a 3 month time frame on things I buy to make money.  Once you start getting a more sizable chunk of money to play around with you should start to diversify. In Canada at least, once you have a trading account with a decent size investment the commissions get reduced to like $10 a trade. With your consistent 10% returns and additional savings you'll start to build up your portfolio. Keep at it and best of luck!" These stocks have no value to them, are just waiting for paper work to liquefy and vanish. The other gamblers are bots waiting for some sucker to buy so they can sell right away. So maybe a fresh new penny stock that hasn't been botted yet gives some higher chance of success, but you probably need to be a bot to sell it quickly enough. All in all not that much different from buying regular stocks...
"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track ""the market"" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up." he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance.  It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work.  Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion.  Period. It says nothing about your age.  Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone.  In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case.  At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable.  With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio.  Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing. "Is investing a good idea with a low amount of money? Yes. I'll take the angle that you CAN invest in penny stocks. There's nothing wrong with that. The (oversimplified) suggestion I would make is to answer the question about your risk aversion. This is the four quadrant (e.g.,  http://njaes.rutgers.edu:8080/money/riskquiz/) you are introduced to when you first sit down to open your brokerage (stocks) or employer retirement account (401K). Along with a release of liability in the language of ""past performance is not an indicator..."" (which you will not truly understand until you experience a market crash). The reason I say this is because if you are 100% risk averse, then it is clear which vehicles you want to have in your tool belt; t-bills, CDs, money market, and plain vanilla savings. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Don't let anyone make you feel otherwise with remarks like ""your money is not working for you sitting there"". It's extremely important to be absolutely honest with yourself in doing this assessment, too. For example, I thought I was a risk taker except when the market tumbled, I reacted exactly how a knee-jerk investor would. Also, I feel it's not easy to know just how honest you are with yourself as we are humans, and not impartial machines. So the recommendation I would give is to make a strong correlation to casino gambling. In other words, conventional advice is to only take ""play money"" to the casino. This because you assume you WILL lose it. Then you can enjoy yourself at the casino knowing this is capital that you are okay throwing in the trash.  I would strongly caution you to only ever invest capital in the stock market that you characterize as play money. I'm convinced financial advisors, fund managers, friends will disagree. Still, I feel this is the only way you will be completely okay when the market fluctuates -- you won't lose sleep. IF you choose this approach, then you can start investing any time. That five drachma you were going to throw away on lottery tickets? transfer it into your Roth IRA. That twenty yen that you were going to ante in your weekly poker night? transfer it into your index fund. You already got past the investors remorse of (losing) that money. IF you truly accept that amount as play money, then you CAN put it into penny stocks. I'll get lots of criticism here. However, I maintain that once you are truly okay with throwing that cash away (like you would drop it into a slot machine), then it's the same whether you lose it one way or in another investment vehicle." First, as Dheer mentioned above, there is no right answer as investment avenues for a person is dicteted by many subjective considerations. Given that below a few of my thoughts (strictly thoughts): 1) Have a plan for how much money you would need in next 5-7 years, one hint is, do you plan you buy a house, car, get married ... Try to project this requirement 2) Related to the above, if you have some idea on point 1, then it would be possible for you to determine how much you need to save now to achieve the above (possibly with a loan thrown in). It will also give you some indication as to where and how much of your current cash holding that you should invest now 3) From an investment perspective there are many instruments, some more risky some less. The exact mix of instruments that you should consider is based on many things, one among them is your risk apetite and fund requirement projections 4) Usually (not as a rule of thumb) the % of savings corresponding to your age should go into low risk investments and 100-the % into higher risk investment 5) You could talk to some professional invetment planners, all banks offer the service Hope this helps, I reiterate as Dheer did, there is truely no right answer for your question all the answers would be rather contextual. "I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. ""Throwing good money after bad"" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect.  However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock." "This sound like a very bad idea. If you invest exclusively in silver, your investment is not diversified in any way. This is what I would call risky. Have a look at index funds and ETFs and build a diversified portfolio. It does not take much time, and you don't need to let it do by someone else. They are risky too, but I see ""silver only"" as much riskier. You reduce the risk by holding on to the funds for a long time." I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage. If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging).  The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly.  The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what.  If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect.  It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now.  But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows.  (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)