Everyone starts from a very low base and most of them end at that same number as well so this is no unique problem to have what matters is how we turn the low base into an advantage by aggressive betting and portfolio allocation. If you think that your capital is tiny and you can afford to lose it please apologize me for my saying but "you will". Its the tough to make your first five lacs, hard to take it upto ten lacs, difficult to put that to twenty five lacs and than it gets easy.

So please throw away the notion that your portfolio is small and you can afford to lose it by betting aggressively. A better strategy would be to buy long dated Nifty Calls.

Pantaloon is history and I have discussed a lot so any more discussion would be a repetition.

Originally posted by excel_monkey First One needs capital to preserve it    We all have such a tiny amount of our net worth invested in equity that we probably don't mind loosing it all or taking a stock to 30% of our portfolio. Basant Bhai how has your risk perception changed compared to when you started investing (pantaloon days)? Do you think making enormous returns with risk makes an investor more aggressive or more conservative? What was the single most important event which changed your risk perception 180 degree? Would be great to learn from your experience. Thanks in advance Originally posted by basant Actually if you look at it closely an Arshiya can hit any of us any day. So while it looks good to celebrate that we were not there the point is that this is a market and runs the risk of eating anyone anyday. For example it looked so simple in 2007 and yet 2008 seemed like a landmine for all of us. This market does not spare Steinhardt, Robertson, Livermore. Even the guy who ET regularly calls Old Fox (the largest investor in VST Industries) was in exile from the market for several years after having lost a significant part of his networth in Oil marketing companies. The key question is if you were diversified as I guess all these big names were than its a part of the game because the pain isn't as much as the public thinks it to be but if as an amateur retail investor he were looking to put 30% of his portfolio in such companies than its an expensive lesson learnt.

Edited by basant - 19/Jan/2013 at 8:15am

Originally posted by excel_monkey First One needs capital to preserve it    We all have such a tiny amount of our net worth invested in equity that we probably don't mind loosing it all or taking a stock to 30% of our portfolio.

Surprising to see such a comment from a very active boarder. I hope this is not the case with you.

Originally posted by prabhakarkudva Same here. All my net worth into equities and all because of TED and the man who is running it. Excel ji your statement might be true for moneycontrol forums but definitely not on TED :) We all mind big time losing 30% of our portfolio.

Though my networth is small(Age 23 and currently a student), My savings during 2 years of my job are into equities..

I guess with a small portfolio, one should calculated bets.. like betting 30% of portfolio on stocks like Hawkins, Maruti,etc. when they face temporary problem..
(This is ideal thing to do for large portfolios as well)