How can I determine if my portfolio's rate of return has been “good”, or not?
It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given.  A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!) There isn't really enough information here to go on.  Without knowing when you invested that money we can't find your rate of return at all, and it's important to measure your rate against risk.  If you take on significantly more risk than the overall market but only just barely outperform it, you probably got a lousy rate of return. If you underperform the market but your risk is significantly lower then you might have gotten a very good rate of return.  A savings account earning a guaranteed 4% might be a better return than gambling on the roulette wheel and making 15%. "Historically, the market's average rate of return has been about 8%. (Serakfalcon's ""6% to 10%"" is essentially the same number.) You should be able to get into that range for long-term investments with minimal risk. ""5 or 6 companies"", unless you know a heck of a lot about those companies, is fairly high risk. If any one of those runs into trouble, a considerable amount of your net investment is riding on it. Of course if any of them invents the Next Big Thing you could hit it big; that's the tradeoff. Diversification isn't sexy, but it buffers you from single-company disasters, and if you diversify across kinds of investment that buffers you from single-sector disasters. Index funds aren't sexy, but they're a low-cost way to diversify, especially if you go with a mix of funds in different categories (large cap, small cap, bond, international, real estate) or a fund which has that mix built into it such as a target date fund."
"First, I'm not a CPA or international tax accountant; my entire understanding of the French tax system is entirely from what I've read in places like the WSJ, Barrons, WaPo, etc.   However, ***my understanding*** is that French tax law works something like this. Let's say France has a tax rate of 35%. First, it must be assessed where the controlling entity is. In this case, if the majority of production and labor, or if the corporation is primarily based in France, it would proceed as follows. Taxes are initially paid based on transfer pricing to the original local entity (this avoids ""double taxation""). So in the example above, you would pay 10% to India on the $3,000,000 in profits ($300,000). You would then reduce the 35% French tax rate by the 10% already paid. This means you would pay an additional 25% to France ($750,000). The premise is that you have an effective ""minimum"" tax threshold for being in France. In the case above, companies like GE would have to pay the difference (this doesn't get into tax breaks/shelters on previously recorded losses, etc.).   Again, ***I AM NOT SURE ON THIS***. This is my basic understanding and am by no means a tax accountant/lawyer/etc. From what I understand; however, this hasn't necessarily been a good thing for France either (California is likely a similar case study with the Unitary return requirement). The fact is the world is very global nowadays. Its easier and cheaper for the companies to just leave instead of being forced to pay higher taxes...  IMO, Germany hit it right on the head. Low corporate tax rates with high personal tax rates. This maintains a very business friendly environment (business move there because of the skilled labor and low corporate taxes), but they effectively pass the burden on to individuals (who also benefit from the pro-business environment). You'd be hard pressed to find an economist that doesn't think Germany's economy has been very strong over the past decade (very good Soros speech that was recently posted about his analysis of the Euro and Germany's unfair benefits, but that's a whole different gear).   What I find the issue to be is the whole concept is complex enough that's difficult to explain to the average person with a 2 second attention span. That's why I like writing posts like this, to try to help people understand how finance and businesses operate behind the scenes!" I wrote a detailed article on Tax Loss Harvesting to show the impact on returns.  For my example, I showed a person in the 15% bracket. In years with no loss, they trade to capture gains at 0% long term rate, thus bumping their basis up. In years with losses, they tax harvest for a 15% effective 'rebate' on that loss.  I showed how for the lost decade 2000-2009, a buy and hold would have returned -1% CAGR, but the tax loss harvester would have gained 1% (just 1% for the decade, not CAGR), ending the decade with no loss.  As one's portfolio grows, the math changes. You can only take $3000 capital loss against ordinary income, and my example relies on the difference between taking a gain for free but using a loss to offset income. Note, the higher earner would take gains at 15%, but losses at 25%, but only for the relatively small portfolio. The benefit for them is to use loss harvesting to offset gains, less so for ordinary income.  As the other answer state, Wealthfront can aid you to do this with no math on your part. "I struggled with this one at first.   It's easiest if you temporarily ignore the mathematical machinery of martingales and go back to the derivation that Black and Scholes provide in their 1973 paper. They basically show that when you construct a portfolio consisting of a long position in the option (the one being priced) and a short position on the replicating portfolio (consisting of shares of stock and cash in the risk-free bank account), then that portfolio will be entirely risk-less, and hence will earn the risk-free rate of interest. This makes intuitive sense if you think about it - every change in the value of the option is going to be countered by an opposite change in the replicating portfolio; by no arbitrage, that composite portfolio (the option + the replicating portfolio) must therefore earn the risk-free rate.   The fact that the composite portfolio earns the risk-free rate provides the connection to martingale pricing.   Recall that a martingale is basically* a stochastic process that has no drift, only volatility. Here, it's useful to think of the drift as being the ""risk  premium"" or ""return"" of a particular asset (like the stock).   What martingale pricing theory says is that to find the price of the option we (1) discount the value of the replicating portfolio by the cash bond (the numeraire asset), and (2) turn the stochastic process of the risky asset in the replicating portfolio into a martingale. This move intuitively makes sense because the Black-Scholes derivation shows that the replicating portfolio + the option must earn the risk-free rate, but if you divide the value of the Black-Scholes replicating portfolio by the numeraire asset, you're going to cancel out that risk-free rate -- e.g. have a Martingale.  (I'm not a mathematician, so please correct me if I've mucked something up in my explanation).   *I say basically because there are some technical conditions that need to be fulfilled, but that's generally true." Your question is a complex one because knowledge of the investor's beliefs about the market is required.  For almost any quantitative portfolio, one must have a good estimate of the expected return vector and covariance matrix of the assets in question.  The expected return vector, in particular, is far from estimable.  No one agrees on it and there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. In a world satisfying the conditions of the CAPM, you can bypass this problem because the main implication of the CAPM is that the market weights are optimal.  In that case the answer to your question is that you should determine the market weights of the various assets and use those along with saving in a risk-free account or borrowing, depending on your risk tolerance.  This portfolio has the added benefit that you don't need to rebalance much...the weights in your portfolio adjust at the same rate as the market weights. Any portfolio that has something besides this also includes some notion of expected return aside from CAPM fair pricing.  The question for you, then, is whether you have such a notion.  If you do, you can mix your information with the market weights to come up with a portfolio.  This is what the Black-Litterman method does, for example: get the expected return vector implied by market weights and the covariance matrix, mix with your expected return vector, then use mean-variance optimization to come up with your final weights. Ah, pardon me, so it's not *either* 10x return or zero, but also includes points in between there?  Is it path dependent? Do you have any history on the asset?  The usual crutches for dealing with unknown probabilities are using risk neutrality or arbitrage pricing, but if the market is inefficient then that will be an estimation at best. Well, one can easily have rates below -100%.  Suppose I start with $100, and end up with $9 after a year. What was my rate of return? It could be -91%, -181%, -218%, or -241%, or something else, depending on the compounding method.  We always have that the final amount equals the initial amount times a growth factor G, and we can express this using a rate r and a day count fraction T. In this case, we have T = 1, and B(T) = B(0) * 0.09, so: So, depending on how we compound, we have a rate of return of -91%, -181%, -218%, or -241%. This nicely illustrates that: Split the difference. Max it out, sell half immediately and wait a year or more for the rest. Or keep a third... whatever works for your risk tolerance. A perfectly diversified portfolio with $0 in it is still worth $0. "6% isn't ""too high"" in terms of market rates at the moment, however it's a very subjective question whether it's too high for you. The real question to determine is if paying 6%, can you make more than 6% return (to cover the costs plus your profit)? As for a rule of thumb, there's none I know of, however your best bet is to take the time to model it in Excel (not difficult).  It's different for each portfolio or investment. Something with a high standard deviation of returns is already high risk, adding margin to it only makes it worse.  So, long story short is that, ""it depends""."