The most important factor for becoming a great stock trader in not learning how a great trader trades... but how that person thinks. Because where the mind goes, everything else follows. My deepest study of great performers has been rooted in the study of mindset.
More from Mark Minervini
More from Markminervinilearnings
20 Powerful tweets to learn from @markminervini
A 🧵thread...
Jesse Livermore
Some important quotes by Jesse Livermore... pic.twitter.com/UklL86oTvb
— Mark Minervini (@markminervini) June 16, 2021
Never let a loss exceed 8% changed his trading game for the
The big turning point in my trading came when I made a decision and vowed to NEVER EVER let a loss exceed 8%. During the next 5 years I averaged 220% per year for a total compounded return of 33,500%. It's been 28 years since and I have never broken that discipline not even once!
— Mark Minervini (@markminervini) April 26, 2021
Key early decisions to make for your trading
A few key decisions early in my trading career and my financial life completely changed for the better in just a few years.
— Mark Minervini (@markminervini) June 13, 2021
1. No big losses
2. No averaging down
3. No chasing extended stocks
4. No giving back decent profits
5. Always get odds on my money
Never listen to
Only losers discourage dreamers. Only those who never achieved big things discourage those attempting to achieve big things. Only those who think small discourage those who think big. Never believe discourages. The have no credibility! Believe winners. Believe in YOU! \U0001f447 pic.twitter.com/JdAhRy3lRJ
— Mark Minervini (@markminervini) June 14, 2021
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?