Benjamin Graham: Minimum Size of the company
Smaller markets can actually be more volatile so it's not a good idea to lower Graham's criteria for them. The only real adjustment possible is inflation adjustment. $100 million in 1973 United States works out to $500 million today based on the difference in CPI/Inflation from 1973. This number will be different for other markets where the rate of inflation since 1973 has been different. So the real question to ask is - what is to $100 million in the United States in 1973 worth today in your market? Source: http://www.serenitystocks.com/how-build-complete-benjamin-graham-portfolio If you look at the value as a composite, as Graham seems to, then look at its constituent parts (which you can get off any financials sheet they file with the SEC): For example, if you have a fictitious company with: Compared to the US GDP (~$15T) you have approximately: Now, scale those numbers to a region with a GDP of, say, $500B (like Belgium), the resultant numbers would be: Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.
The Motley Fool's How to Invest How To Invest Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor The Intelligent Investor If you like The Intelligent Investor then try Benjamin's Security Analysis.  But that one is not a beginner book. "For starters, the risk-free rate has nothing to do with stocks.  It would be independent of anything.  It pays out the same return in all states of nature.  The definition of a risk-free asset is that regardless of how the universe turns out, including a meteor striking the Earth killing everyone but the recipient, then the payout would happen exactly as planned.  One could imagine a computer still being on, connected to a power supply and printing a check.  Most people use the 90-day t-bill as the risk-free rate.  A beta greater than one implies it is more volatile than the market, not that it moves more perfectly. The CAPM should not be used for this.  Cryptocurrencies should not be used with this model because they have valuation dynamics related to the new issue of coins.  In other words, they have non-market price movements as well as market price movements. In general, you should not use the CAPM because it doesn't work empirically.  It is famous, but it is also wrong.  A scientific hypothesis that is not supported by the data is a bad idea.  My strong recommendation is that you read ""The Intelligent Investor,"" by Benjamin Graham.  It was last published in 1972, and it is still being printed.  I believe Warren Buffett wrote the current forward for it.  Always go where the data supports you and never anywhere else, no matter how elegant. Finally, unless you are doing this like a trip to Vegas, for fun and willing to take the losses, I would avoid cryptocurrencies because you don't know what you are doing yet.  It is obvious from the posting.  I have multiple decades working in every type of financial institution and at every level, bottom to top.  I also have a doctorate, and I am an incredible researcher.  I am professionally qualified in three different disciplines. If you want to learn how to do this, start with the ""Intelligent Investor.""  Get a basic book on accounting and learn basic accounting.  Pick up economics textbooks at least through ""Intermediate"" for both microeconomics and macroeconomics.  Get William Bolstad's book ""Introduction to Bayesian Statistics.""  You will need them for reasons that go very far beyond this post.  Trust me; you want to master that book.  Find a statistician and ask them to teach it to you as a special topics course.  It will help you as both either a Marine officer or a Naval officer.  Then after that pick up a copy of ""Security Analysis.""  Either the 1943 copy (yes it is in print) by Benjamin Graham if you feel good about accounting, or the 1987 copy by Cottle under the Graham/Dodd imprimatur.  Then, if you are still interested in cryptocurrencies and they will be blasé by then, then pick up an economics textbook on money.  If I were you, I would learn about Yap money, commodity money, and prison money first, then you might understand why a cryptocurrency may not be an investment for you." There are several camps for stock valuation, and much of it boils down to your investment style.  A growth investor will not consider something with a 50x P/E ratio to be overvalued, but a value investor certainly would. I would recommend looking up the Fama-French n-factor model (it was 3-factor, I believe they have released newer papers which introduce other factors), and reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham.  Graham's methodology is practically canon for many investors, and the methodology focuses on value, while outlining quantitative factors for determining if a stock is under or over valued. "There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea ""you can't beat the market."" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: ""the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value"". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically:   As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns.  Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that  So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of ""SPY"" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation.  That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets.  A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the ""fundamental analysis"" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed.  Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders.  The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading.  Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't." thanks for the reply.  I just graduated and I'm having a lot of difficulty getting any solid job.  I guess I will pick firms in the area like MS, trowe, and see what would be best.  My contact who told me to do this said it's very important to be passionate about it though...perhaps even if I pick a more targeted stock it won't be too valuable given my inexperience? I went to undergrad at Cal.  3.0 wont get you into any large company on campus in business (budge brackets, top 3 consulting, big 4 accounting).  you won't even get an interview unless you are 3.5+.  Isn't the ratio career services typically quote like 13:1 students applying to interview or something? The Motley Fool's How to Invest How To Invest Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor The Intelligent Investor If you like The Intelligent Investor then try Benjamin's Security Analysis.  But that one is not a beginner book. "Actually that statistic (whether it is 9/10 or 95% or 99%) is often VERY misquoted AND it is both overstated AND extremely misleading.  * First of all the ratio/percentage of even the ""urban myth"" that ""everyone knows"" is purportedly **over a 5 year period of time** not a single year.  * Secondly, just because a business has closed down or ceased to exist sometime prior to the 5 year mark, does NOT necessarily mean that it was a ""failure"" (and definitely not necessarily a ""bankruptcy"").  * Third, it does not mean that all of the initial investment went ""poof"" -- **that may be true for high-tech startups** (especially the dot-com/dot-bomb con operations whose business ""plan"" resembles the [South Park Underpants Gnomes ""plan""](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Gnomes_plan.png) more than anything else) -- but that is NOT necessarily true of the rest of the business world.  Consider by contrast how many EMPLOYEES are still in the same JOB five years later (per data [the *average* job tenure in the US is now 4.6 years](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-less-likely-to-change-jobs-now-than-in-1980s-2014-01-10), which is actually UP from 3.7 years in 2002, and 3.5 years in circa 1983).  The vast majority of small businesses (and the sheer volume\* skews the totals) are essentially that: they are job *replacement* (or even job *supplement*) businesses, which chiefly consist of the owner/operator being ""self-employed"" (or part-time self-employed ""on the side"") for a year, two years, and possibly longer.  Occasionally they will then (often temporarily) employ others as well; but the primary goal is to provide a simple ""income"" for the owner/operator.  **And there is nothing WRONG with that.**  Nor is there anything wrong with the person then ENDING that ""business"" and moving on... to another (different name, different field) business... or taking a job with some company (which they may have previously worked for on a contract basis with the ""business"", etc).  The idea that ALL businesses somehow *should* ""endure forever"" and continue to grow forever (as if they were all destined to be Giant Sequoia trees) is actually *rather warped and delusional...* it ignores the real world, and the fact that most flora is NOT ""giant trees"" but rather small bushes and plants -- and for small businesses, being ""nimble"" (and profitable) often means the opposite: knowing when to get OUT of a market or business is just as important (indeed can be MORE important) than knowing when to get INTO it.  \*EDIT: As a further note on the ""volume"" you have to also add in the large number of *business ""ideas"" that spawn an LLC, but then went nowhere* companies (especially these days when starting an LLC in many states is simply filling out a form online and paying a filing fee) -- IOW the ""business"" may have had a temporary ""legal"" existence (name, probably a reserved domain name, maybe even a logo, etc.), but when it comes to reality -- actual investment in assets and conducting business operations (of any type) -- well, a lot of the ""horses"" never even make it past the gate... and that too skews the numbers in many studies.  ---  Note that here is another take on the point:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/27/do-9-out-of-10-new-businesses-fail-as-rand-paul-claims/  &gt;As far as we can tell, **there is no statistical basis for the assertion that nine out of 10 businesses fail.** It appears to be one of those nonsense facts that people repeat without thinking too clearly about it. Here are some basic questions to ask when assessing such a factoid:  &gt;1. What’s the time frame? Two years, five years, 10 years? That can make a big difference. &gt;2. Does “fail” mean that it goes out of business because it was not financially viable? Or does that also include data about successful enterprises that merge with another company? &gt;3. Wouldn’t failure rates be different for some industries than others? Does it make sense to lump all businesses together?  &gt;There have been a number of studies that have looked at this issue. This chart, from Web site designer smallbusinessplanned.com, summarizes the results of three different studies. Basically, after four years, 50 percent of the businesses are open. As time goes on, the success rate decreases, but it never gets to a failure rate of “nine out of 10.”  &gt;[...]  &gt;Even this does not show the whole picture. As Brian Headd, an economist at the Small Business Administration, demonstrated in a 2002 study for Small Business Economics, **about one–third of closed business were actually successful when they “failed.”**  &gt;“The significant proportion of businesses that closed while successful calls into question the use of ‘business closure’ as a meaningful measure of business outcome,” the study says. “It appears that **many owners may have executed a planned exit strategy,** closed a business without excess debt, sold a viable business, or retired from the work force.”  Now that doesn't necessarily mean that Rand Paul's point is WRONG (he is chiefly talking about government investing in HIGHLY LEVERAGED, HIGH-RISK, HIGH-TECH businesses, which are a different story) -- but it does mean that the statistic he is citing (general business failure rate) is an urban-myth-falsehood, however commonly-believed, or commonly-restated."