Sensei wrote:Anyway, my number 6 was derived as a ballpark average of companies I own that have increased 10+% per year vs. companies that have increased very little. It's about half and half, so 6 seemed like a good historical average. I might reduce it to 5 based on the value line figure provided by Brian, even though I think I'll do better.
I don't disagree with you that stock selection can't result in 6, and perhaps more in the short term. But you didn't say that in your earlier post. Shakes and I were calling you on that.
And to achieve that, the stocks you pick must be from companies experiencing above average growth relative to their competitive peers, i.e. taking market share.