Is it prudent to sell a stock on a 40% rise in 2 months
Depends entirely on the stock and your perception of it. Would you buy it at the current price? If so, keep it. Would you buy something else? If so, sell it and buy that. Sell half. If it's as volatile as you say, sell it all and buy on another dip. No one can really offer targeted advice based on the amount of information you have provided. Did you buy near the bottom? Suppose you did then the price is still 16% below. 50% fall and then 40% increase leaves a 16% gap. So there could still be upside. However, it appears that you are talking about a small-cap that is volatile. I wouldn't hold it. I would take the money and invest elsewhere. If you have a lot of shares and brokerage is less then sell 60% now and the remaining 40% on either 10-15% jump in price or if it falls by 5% from now. Too risky to hold longer-term.
A lot of this example is idealistic and the analysis stops right at the point the loan is issued.    If you use generous interest rates you could just skirt by the bare minimum debt service coverage ratio for an asset-backed loan if you found a lender to approve it.  However, he doesn't address any of the issues of running a business that will be insolvent if expenses rise more than about ~2% above the monthly average in a given month (those pesky 3-pay period months; equipment repairs; heating/cooling in winter/summer; etc.), or you have a similarly small sag in sales (selling dirtbikes in January?).    Most companies doing LBOs have skin in it, and a plan to make the company more valuable, not run it exactly the way it is. This allows them to either acquire more debt capital than just a percentage of the collateral -- and so they can finance capital projects to improve the business, deal with fluctuations in cash flow, and/or implement plans to increase the free cash flows above how it was running previously.  This site's advice is a bit like teaching someone the basics of how to take off in an airplane, and then telling them they're ready to fly. For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds.  If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds.  Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low).  Now back to 40/40/20.   Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20.  Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming).   Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that.   None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically.  You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more).  But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound. "Check your math... ""two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?"" If a stock has P/E of 2 and  price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5." "Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and ""Open interest"" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs.  When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches." "RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that ""you believe these will continue"" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market.  In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this).  Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits.  Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous." Coincidentally just read a nice post on this topic: http://thefinancebuff.com/no-tax-advantage-in-rsu.html In short, sell the stock as soon as it vests and treat it as a cash bonus. Assuming you're in the US and the stock is possible to sell (public company, no trading window restrictions, you have no material nonpublic information, etc.)  What do you do with a cash bonus? If you have no savings, an emergency fund would be good, then start on retirement savings perhaps... it sounds a bit like you could use some broad general financial planning info, my favorite book for that is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/B0013L2ED6 One exception to selling immediately could be if the company stock is hugely undervalued, but it probably isn't, and it's probably too hard to determine. "Don't assume you will make a loss. I knew a couple of cases where people have made mistakes like this and turned it into a more profitable business than their original venture, causing them to willingly make the same ""mistake""again.  Look for the strength: a large quantity, all ready to go. It's way easier to solve than having no stock. Look further afield than usual; talk to people in different parts of the supply chain. Sure, your usual customers don't need that much all at once but would a distributor in a neighboring country or state be interested? It's possible someone out there is having trouble fulfilling an unusually big order and would love your help. Alternatively, do something unusual. Is there a pet event going on at which you could have a blow out one-off sale and work the marketing angle?  Think creatively but, most importantly, you're doing the right thing by tackling this now. A distributor won't touch it when it's only got two months left." "Your math is correct. These kind of returns are possible in the capital markets. (By the way, Google Finance shows something completely different for $CANV than my trading console in ThinkorSwim, ToS shows a high of $201, but I believe there may have been some reverse splits that are not accurately reflected in either of these charts) The problems with this strategy are liquidity and timing. Let's talk about liquidity, because that is a greater factor here than the random psychological factors that would have affected you LONG LONG before your $1,000 allowance was worth a million dollars. If you bought $1000 worth of this stock at $.05 share, this would have been 20,000 shares. The week of October 11th, 2011, during the ENTIRE WEEK only 5,000 shares were traded. From this alone, you can see that it would have been impossible for you to even acquire 20,000 shares, for yourself at $.05 because there was nobody to sell them to you. We can't even look at the next week, because there WERE NO TRADES WHATSOEVER, so we have to skip all the way to November 11th, where indeed over 30,000 shares were traded. But this pushed the price all the way up to $2.00, again, there was no way you could have gotten 20,000 shares at $.05 So now, lets talk about liquidation of your shares. After several other highs and lows in the $20s and $30s, are you telling me that after holding this stock for 2 years you WOULDN'T have taken a $500,000 profit at $25.00 ? We are talking about someone that is investing with $1,000 here. I have my doubts that there was no time between October 2011 and January 2014 that you didn't think ""hm this extra $100,000 would be really useful right now.. sell!"" Lets say you actually held your $1,000 to $85.55 there were EXACTLY TWO DAYS where that was the top of the market, and in those two days the volume was ~24,000 shares one day and ~11,000 shares the next day. This is BARELY enough time for you to sell your shares, because you would have been the majority of the volume, most likely QUADRUPLING the sell side quotes. As soon as the market saw your sell order there would be a massive selloff of people trying to sell before you do, because they could barely get their shares filled (not enough buyers) let alone someone with five times the amount of shares that day. Yes, you could have made a lot of money. Doing that simplistic math does not tell you the whole story."