How to join the top 1%

Petroleum engineers can easily earn around $120000, student counsellors can live on $20000 a year so we'll deduct this amount and use the rest for investment.

http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=

Typical large stable growing companies like Chevron usually double their share price every 10 years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CVX+Profile

Chevron stock has increased from 42 to 100 in the past decade, which is 90% higher adjusted for inflation. 2 more companies off the top of my head, Halliburton has increased by 10 to 36 (+180% afi) and ExxonMobil 40 to 80 (+60% afi). If you had divided your capital evenly among these you would roughly double your investment every decade or around +7% per year which is reasonable for low risk.

So, after 2 years of finding work, gaining experience and paying off student loans you start saving and buying low risk stock and after 8 years you are already a millionaire, even if you're a shitty engineer and only have $60000 to spare a year it will only take 4 more years. By this point you will already have your foot in the door, access to options, dividends insider information and financial resources unavailable to ordinary folk, returns are going to be a lot higher than 7% and you are guaranteed to hit the top 1% before you retire, more likely you will reach it within 10 years.

You're not looking at 20 years of miserly frugality, the estimates I made were pretty conservative and there's nothing stopping you skimming off the top of your investments if you feel reaching a net worth of $10000000 isn't so urgent, though you might want to note the fact that many people spend their entire lives on $20k a year without any prospect of lifting off as you will. There is also the chance you will develop the skills and entrepeneurial spirit to start your own business or gain an executive position and far exceed what the exponential function can yield for us here.

You're welcome.

>double their share price every 10 years
>and you are guaranteed

I wasn't aware that the stock market was such a sure thing. Thanks OP.

>>1
Right because anyone can get a degree in petroleum engineering. It doesn't take any talent or special ability. Have an IQ of 90? You just need to study a little harder.

>>3

>>4

>>5

>>6

>>7

>>8

>>3
>It doesn't take any talent or special ability.
No, it doesn't because claiming lack of talent or inborn ability is just a meagre excuse for settling for incompetence. Becoming the best you can be is a matter of willpower, not God given special abilities only handed out to a few.

>>2
strawman logical fallacy
I said "usually", it is was an estimate.

The estimate of 7% was actually pretty conservative, even a low risk mutual fund like FPA crescent has had annualized returns of 9.3% over the past 10 years despite the credit crunch.

http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/moderate-allocation/fpa-crescent-portfolio-fund/fpacx
>>3
The average person knows 15000 words yet most people have difficulty memorizing a telephone number. Why? The brain is a machine, it just doesn't seem like it in the short term, it is possible to program your brain to do complex tasks with enough time to develop new neural connections through practice and study. Unless you have some major physiological differences all it takes is effort.
>>10
Truth told. This is something very observable in our culture, not that people drunk on a friday night exemplify "anti-intellectualism", it's more those who refuse to apply themselves to their work due to some petty foible.

>How to join the top 1%

Don't let Obama have 4 more years to spend your money?

>>1
>implying I want to be part ofd the top 1%

>>11

strawman logical fallacy
No, it really isn't. Your entire point is that getting rich from stocks is easy. Your investment plan is almost laughable though and still retardedly risky. Putting every spare penny you earn into mutual funds is not a good lifestyle. Your entire premise seems to be that these stocks did well in the past so all you have to do is buy them (or ones like them) and this process is almost guaranteed to repeat itself. So they're "conservative"? According to what? A few years ago mortgage backed securities were considered conservative and safe.

...it is possible to program your brain to do complex tasks with enough time to develop new neural connections through practice and study. Unless you have some major physiological differences all it takes is effort.
There's still a limit for most people that can't be breached no matter how much training or effort they put into it. Ask any real psychologist.

>>14
Your entire point is
Your investment plan is
Your entire premise seems to be
One of my points is that you can get rich from stocks through hard work, years of careful research and patience. My investment plan is not high risk, it is to invest in diversified low risk stock. My premise is the simple principle of looking at facts to make judgements about potential investments, like the fact low risk mutual funds withstood the credit crunch.

Are you saying the underestimation of the risk of collateralized debt obligations means low risk mutual funds are just as risky? Whatever their similarities there are too many differences between them for this to prove anything, it would be like saying that the future performance of stock can be predicted from it's prior performance since in both cases you are ignoring many other major factors.

One of my points is that you can get rich from stocks through hard work, years of careful research and patience.
I agree and I'm glad you said this.

My investment plan is not high risk...
Putting 5/6th of your income into the stock market is risky no matter what. You'd still be gambling with a large chunk of your life. Even if the probability of failure is very low, you would still stand to lose a lot more than you gain. At least in terms of quality of life.

Are you saying the underestimation of the risk of collateralized debt obligations means low risk mutual funds are just as risky?
No, probably not just as risky.

I really hope you don't think that an annual salary of $120k grants you entry into the "1%"?
If you do, well....wow.

>implying it doesn't take a top 1% IQ to get a chem-e degree, barring a "diversity"/"affirmative action" pity-fuck from the faculty

>>17
Apparently you haven't read any of this thread.

>>18
I've never heard of affirmative action used for grading, just admission.

i preasure wash mining equipment and earn 2000 a week in the bank
my g/f is a medical scientist and also clears about 2000 a week

her work pays our rent
we each pay about $2000 a week tax

which gives us a household income of just over 200,000 a year

LOL %1 if your not in the %1 your a fucking loser !