Growth Investing: The Complete Guide to Building Generational Wealth

The Uncomfortable Math of Wealth Creation

Here’s a truth most investors never internalize: you don’t need to be right very often. You need to be right in a specific way.

Consider two investors. The first makes 100 trades over a decade, winning 60% of the time with average gains of 15% on winners and losses of 10% on losers. Sounds reasonable. After fees and taxes, they’ve roughly matched the market—maybe underperformed.

The second investor makes 10 investments over the same decade. They’re wrong on 7 of them, losing an average of 30% on each loser. But their 3 winners return 500%, 800%, and 1,200%.

The first investor worked harder, traded more, and was “right” more often. The second investor built generational wealth.

This is growth investing. Not a strategy for finding stocks that go up. A philosophy for capturing the asymmetric returns that create real wealth—while accepting the uncomfortable reality that most of your picks won’t work.

The question isn’t whether you can handle being wrong. The question is whether you can hold the winners long enough for the math to work in your favor.

Why Growth Investing Demands a Different Mental Model

Most investment education teaches you to minimize mistakes. Diversify broadly. Cut losses quickly. Take profits when you have them. This advice isn’t wrong—it’s appropriate for a different game.

Growth investing operates on different mathematics entirely.

The Asymmetry Principle

When you buy a stock, your maximum loss is 100%. Your maximum gain is unlimited. This asymmetry is the foundation of everything.

A stock that drops 50% needs to gain 100% to recover. That sounds like bad math. But a stock that gains 1,000% only needed to not go to zero. The asymmetry works in your favor—if you structure your portfolio to capture it.

Risk $1 to make $10. That’s not reckless. That’s the mathematics of wealth creation.

The problem is that capturing 10x returns requires holding through the volatility that makes most investors sell. Amazon dropped 95% from its 2000 peak to its 2001 trough. An investor who bought at the peak and held through that drawdown—through the ridicule, the margin calls, the certainty that they’d made a catastrophic mistake—turned $10,000 into over $2.4 million.

The asymmetry only works if you stay in the game long enough to capture it.

The Power Law of Returns

Stock market returns follow a power law distribution. A tiny fraction of stocks generate the vast majority of wealth creation.

Research from Hendrik Bessembinder at Arizona State University found that just 4% of publicly traded stocks account for all net wealth creation in the U.S. stock market since 1926. The remaining 96% collectively matched Treasury bills.

This isn’t an argument for indexing. It’s an argument for understanding what you’re actually trying to do when you pick individual stocks: identify the 4% before everyone else realizes what they are.

Growth investing is the systematic pursuit of power law outcomes. You’re not trying to beat the market by 2% annually. You’re trying to own the businesses that will define the next decade of wealth creation.

The uncomfortable corollary: most of your picks will underperform. That’s not a bug—it’s the price of admission to the game where the real money is made.

The Anatomy of a Multi-Bagger

Multi-bagger stocks—those that return 3x, 5x, 10x or more—share common characteristics that become obvious in hindsight but require conviction to recognize in real-time.

Revenue Growth Is the Engine

Earnings get the headlines. Revenue growth creates multi-baggers.

A company can manipulate earnings through accounting choices, cost-cutting, and financial engineering. Revenue growth is harder to fake. When customers are spending more money with a business year after year, something real is happening.

The pattern in almost every multi-bagger: sustained revenue growth of 20%+ annually for extended periods. Netflix grew revenue at 25%+ annually for 15 consecutive years. Amazon maintained 20%+ revenue growth for over two decades. Nvidia’s revenue growth accelerated as AI demand exploded.

Revenue growth compounds. A company growing revenue at 25% annually will nearly quadruple in size over 6 years. If margins hold or expand, earnings growth can exceed revenue growth. If the market recognizes the durability of that growth, the multiple expands.

Revenue growth × margin expansion × multiple expansion = multi-bagger.

Competitive Moats Protect the Growth

Growth without protection is a target. Every high-growth business attracts competition. The ones that become multi-baggers have something that makes competition difficult.

The five sources of durable competitive advantage:

Brand power. Customers pay more or choose automatically. Apple commands 40%+ gross margins on hardware in a commodity market because of brand.

Network effects. Each additional user makes the product more valuable. Meta’s platforms become harder to displace with every new user.

Switching costs. Leaving is painful. Salesforce’s CRM becomes more valuable as companies build workflows around it—and more costly to abandon.

Cost advantages. Scale or structural factors enable lower costs. Amazon’s fulfillment network creates cost advantages that new entrants can’t match.

Regulatory or intellectual property barriers. Legal protection against competition. Pharmaceutical patents, spectrum licenses, regulatory approvals.

Growth stocks without moats become value traps when competition arrives. Growth stocks with moats become compounding machines.

Addressable Market Determines the Ceiling

A company can execute perfectly and still plateau if the addressable market is limited.

The multi-baggers that define eras—Amazon, Google, Apple, Nvidia—operated in markets that were either massive from the start or expanded dramatically as the company grew. Amazon started in books but the real addressable market was all retail. Google started in search but the real addressable market was all advertising. Nvidia started in gaming GPUs but the real addressable market became all computing.

When evaluating growth stocks, the question isn’t just “how fast are they growing?” It’s “how much room do they have to grow?”

A company growing 40% annually in a $10 billion market has a different trajectory than one growing 40% annually in a $1 trillion market.

The Case Studies That Matter

Theory without evidence is speculation. Here’s what multi-bagger investing actually looks like in practice.

Amazon: The Template for Holding Power

Amazon went public in 1997 at a split-adjusted price of roughly $1.50 per share. By late 1999, it had risen to over $100. Then came the crash.

From December 1999 to September 2001, Amazon fell 95%. A $100,000 investment became $5,000. Every metric suggested the company might not survive. The dot-com bust had destroyed hundreds of similar companies. Amazon was burning cash, had never turned a profit, and faced skepticism from every corner of Wall Street.

Investors who sold at the bottom locked in a 95% loss. Investors who held through the drawdown—who understood that the business model was sound even if the stock price wasn’t—eventually saw that $100,000 become over $24 million.

The lesson isn’t “hold everything forever.” The lesson is that the volatility that destroys most investors’ returns is often the price of capturing the returns that create generational wealth.

Amazon’s 95% drawdown wasn’t a failure of the investment thesis. The thesis—that e-commerce would transform retail and Amazon would lead that transformation—remained intact. The stock price reflected market panic, not business reality.

Knowing the difference is the skill that separates wealth-builders from dabblers.

Netflix: Growth Through Reinvention

Netflix has been declared dead multiple times. Each time, it was reinventing itself into something larger.

The DVD-by-mail business was supposed to be killed by streaming. Netflix killed it themselves—cannibalizing their profitable business to pursue the larger opportunity. The stock dropped 80% in 2011-2012 as investors questioned whether the transition would work.

Then came the content wars. Disney, Apple, Amazon, and every media company launched competing services. Netflix was supposed to be crushed. Instead, they invested in content, expanded globally, and emerged as the dominant streaming platform.

From its 2002 IPO through today, Netflix has delivered returns exceeding 50,000%. A $10,000 investment became over $5 million.

The pattern: Netflix’s management understood that protecting the existing business was less important than capturing the larger opportunity. They made decisions that looked reckless in the short term but positioned them for dominance in the long term.

Growth investing requires recognizing when management is making smart long-term decisions that the market is punishing in the short term.

Nvidia: When Narrative Catches Reality

Nvidia spent years as a gaming GPU company. Solid business, reasonable growth, nothing spectacular. The stock meandered.

Then AI happened. Not overnight—the underlying technology had been developing for years. But when large language models captured public attention, the market suddenly realized that Nvidia’s GPUs were the picks and shovels of the AI gold rush.

From 2019 to today, Nvidia has delivered returns exceeding 3,000%. The company that was “just” a gaming chip maker became one of the most valuable companies in the world.

The lesson: some multi-baggers are obvious in hindsight because they were serving a market that didn’t exist yet. Nvidia’s GPUs were always capable of AI training. The market for AI training didn’t exist at scale until it suddenly did.

Growth investors who understood the technology’s potential—not just the current financials—positioned themselves before the market recognized what was happening.

The Common Thread

Every multi-bagger shares the same DNA:

A business model that scales. Revenue can grow faster than costs. Each incremental dollar of revenue drops more profit to the bottom line.

A market larger than it appears. The addressable market expands as the company grows. Amazon’s market wasn’t books—it was all retail. Netflix’s market wasn’t DVDs—it was all entertainment.

Management willing to sacrifice short-term results. The decisions that create multi-baggers often look bad quarterly. Investing in infrastructure, entering new markets, cannibalizing existing products—these moves depress current earnings while building future value.

A stock price that reflects current reality, not future potential. Multi-baggers don’t start as multi-baggers. They start as stocks the market has mispriced because it can’t see the future earnings power.

Recognizing these patterns in real-time—before the returns have been captured—is the skill that separates wealth-builders from dabblers.

The Intermediate Trap: Why Good Investors Stay Mediocre

Here’s where most growth investors fail: they understand the theory but can’t execute the practice.

The Problem of Premature Selling

You buy a growth stock. It doubles. Every instinct screams to take profits. You’ve made 100%—that’s a great return. Why risk giving it back?

So you sell. And then you watch the stock triple from where you sold. Then 5x. Then 10x.

The data on this is brutal. If you had sold every Alpha Picks recommendation after it doubled, you would have captured 2,904% in gains. By holding, actual gains were 10,367%. Selling early cost 72% of total returns.

The winners that become multi-baggers only do so because someone held them. Your instinct to “take profits” is the enemy of wealth-building.

The Problem of Averaging Down on Losers

The flip side of selling winners too early is holding losers too long.

Growth stocks that fail usually fail for real reasons: the thesis was wrong, competition arrived, management made mistakes, the market shifted. Averaging down on a broken thesis doesn’t make the thesis less broken—it just concentrates your losses.

The discipline required: hold winners through volatility because the thesis remains intact. Sell losers when the thesis breaks, not when the price recovers.

Most investors do the opposite. They sell winners to “lock in gains” and hold losers hoping to “get back to even.” This is the exact behavior pattern that guarantees mediocrity.

The Problem of Position Sizing

You find a stock you love. You do the research. You’re convinced it’s going to be a multi-bagger. So you put 2% of your portfolio in it.

Then it 10x’s. Your 2% position becomes… 18% of your portfolio. You’ve made money, but you haven’t built wealth.

The math is unforgiving. A 10x return on a 2% position adds 18% to your portfolio. A 10x return on a 10% position adds 90% to your portfolio. Same stock. Same return. Radically different outcome.

Concentrated conviction—putting meaningful capital behind your best ideas—is what separates wealth-builders from dabblers. If you’re not willing to make a position large enough to matter, you’re not really investing in your conviction.

This doesn’t mean recklessness. It means that your top 5 positions should represent 50-60% of your portfolio. Never exceed 20 positions. If an idea isn’t good enough for a meaningful allocation, it’s not good enough to own.

The Framework for Finding Growth Stocks

Understanding multi-baggers in hindsight is easy. Identifying them in real-time is the skill that matters.

Start with the Business, Not the Stock

Most investors start with screens: P/E ratios, revenue growth rates, momentum scores. They find stocks that fit their criteria, then try to understand the business.

This is backwards.

The businesses that become multi-baggers are usually obvious to their customers long before they’re obvious to investors. Amazon was clearly transforming retail for anyone who used it. Apple was clearly creating products people loved. Netflix was clearly changing how people consumed entertainment.

The edge for individual investors isn’t better financial analysis—institutions have more analysts, more data, more computing power. The edge is understanding businesses as a consumer, an employee, or an industry participant before Wall Street catches on.

Peter Lynch built his track record partly by noticing what his wife and daughters were buying. He invested in L’eggs pantyhose after observing its popularity—before Wall Street had discovered Hanes. He invested in Dunkin’ Donuts after seeing lines out the door.

You have access to information that Wall Street doesn’t: your own experience as a consumer in the real economy. Use it.

Evaluate the Durability of Growth

Not all growth is equal. Some growth is sustainable; some is a one-time bump.

Questions that separate durable growth from temporary growth:

Is the growth coming from new customers or existing customers spending more? Both matter, but customer acquisition growth has limits. Revenue expansion from existing customers suggests product-market fit that compounds.

Is the company gaining or losing market share? A company growing 20% in a market growing 30% is losing ground. A company growing 20% in a market growing 10% is taking share.

Are margins expanding or contracting as the company scales? Expanding margins suggest operating leverage—the business becomes more profitable as it grows. Contracting margins suggest the growth is being bought through unsustainable spending.

Is the growth dependent on a single product or customer? Concentration creates fragility. The best growth businesses diversify their revenue streams over time.

Assess Management Quality

Great management in a good market beats good management in a great market.

The indicators that matter:

Skin in the game. Does the CEO own meaningful stock? Not options that vest regardless of performance—actual shares purchased with personal money. Alignment of incentives matters.

Capital allocation track record. How has management deployed cash? Have acquisitions created value or destroyed it? Have buybacks happened at reasonable prices or at peaks?

Long-term orientation. Does management make decisions that sacrifice short-term results for long-term positioning? Netflix cannibalizing DVD revenue for streaming. Amazon investing in AWS when it was losing money. These decisions look bad quarterly but create enormous value over decades.

Transparency about challenges. Does management acknowledge problems or spin everything positive? The best operators are honest about what’s not working.

Understand What You’re Paying

Valuation matters—but not in the way most investors think.

A stock trading at 50x earnings isn’t automatically expensive. A stock trading at 10x earnings isn’t automatically cheap. What matters is the relationship between price and future earnings power.

A company growing earnings at 30% annually will roughly 10x earnings over 8 years. If you pay 50x current earnings and the multiple compresses to 25x, you’ve still made 5x your money. If you pay 10x earnings for a company with no growth and the multiple compresses to 8x, you’ve lost money.

The framework: what do I believe this company will earn in 5-10 years, and what price am I paying for that future earnings stream?

Growth investors aren’t paying for current earnings. They’re paying for the earnings power that doesn’t exist yet. This requires making assumptions about the future—assumptions that will often be wrong. But when they’re right, the returns more than compensate for the misses.

The Holding Problem: Why Most Investors Can’t Execute

You can find the right stocks and still fail to build wealth. The gap between identifying winners and actually capturing their returns is where most investors fall apart.

Volatility Is the Price of Returns

Every multi-bagger in history has experienced gut-wrenching drawdowns.

These drawdowns weren’t bugs. They were features of owning high-growth businesses in volatile markets. The investors who captured the subsequent returns are the ones who held through the drawdowns.

This isn’t advice to hold everything forever regardless of circumstances. It’s recognition that volatility and returns are inseparable. You cannot capture multi-bagger returns while avoiding multi-bagger volatility.

The question to ask during a drawdown: has the thesis changed, or just the price?

If the thesis is intact—if the competitive advantages remain, the growth continues, the addressable market expands—then the drawdown is an opportunity, not a warning. If the thesis has broken—if competition has arrived, growth has stalled, management has failed—then the drawdown is confirmation of a mistake.

Knowing the difference requires understanding the business deeply enough to distinguish signal from noise.

Time Horizon Creates Edge

Institutional investors operate on quarterly performance cycles. They can’t afford to be wrong for long, even if being “wrong” means holding a position that’s temporarily down.

Individual investors have no such constraints. Your edge is the ability to think in decades while institutions think in quarters.

This edge is real but only valuable if you actually use it. Most individual investors, despite having long time horizons, trade like they’re managing quarterly performance. They check prices daily, react to news, and make decisions based on short-term movements.

The discipline required: make investment decisions on 5-10 year time horizons. Evaluate positions annually, not daily. Ignore quarterly noise unless it changes the long-term thesis.

Conviction Comes from Understanding

You can’t hold through a 50% drawdown on faith. You need conviction. And conviction comes from understanding the business well enough to know when the market is wrong.

If you can’t explain in 2-3 sentences why a business will be worth more in 10 years than it is today, you don’t understand it well enough to hold it through volatility. You’ll sell at the bottom because you have no framework for evaluating whether the drawdown is temporary or permanent.

The work of growth investing isn’t finding stocks. It’s developing the understanding that creates holding power.

The Systematic Approach: Building a Growth Portfolio

Individual stock selection matters. But portfolio construction determines whether your selections translate into wealth.

Concentration vs. Diversification

The conventional wisdom: diversify broadly to reduce risk.

The growth investor’s reality: over-diversification guarantees mediocrity.

If you own 50 stocks, your best idea and your worst idea have the same weight. A 10x return on a 2% position barely moves the needle. You’ve diversified away your upside along with your downside.

The framework that works: own 15-20 positions maximum. Let your top 5 positions represent 50-60% of your portfolio. When you find a business you truly understand and believe in, make the position large enough to matter.

This isn’t recklessness—it’s recognition that your best ideas deserve your best capital. If you’re not willing to concentrate, you’re admitting you don’t have conviction in your own analysis.

Position Sizing by Conviction

Not all positions should be equal. Your highest-conviction ideas should be your largest positions.

A framework for sizing:

Highest conviction (3-5 positions): 10-15% each. These are businesses you understand deeply, with clear competitive advantages, strong management, and multi-year growth runways.

High conviction (5-7 positions): 5-8% each. Strong businesses where your understanding is solid but perhaps less complete than your top tier.

Developing conviction (5-8 positions): 2-4% each. Positions you’re building as you develop deeper understanding. If conviction grows, position grows. If conviction doesn’t develop, position gets cut.

When to Add and When to Cut

The hardest decisions in growth investing: when to add to winners, when to cut losers, and when to do nothing.

Add to winners when: The thesis is playing out, the business is executing, and the valuation still offers attractive risk/reward. A stock that’s doubled might still be cheap if the business has tripled its earnings power.

Cut losers when: The thesis has broken. Not when the price has dropped—when the fundamental reason you owned the stock no longer applies. Competition arrived. Growth stalled. Management failed. The thesis broke.

Do nothing when: The thesis is intact but the price is volatile. Most of the time, the right action is no action. The compounding happens while you wait.

The Role of Research Services in Growth Investing

Finding multi-baggers requires research. The question is whether you do it yourself or leverage others who do it professionally.

What Good Research Provides

The best stock-picking services don’t just tell you what to buy. They provide:

A systematic process for identifying opportunities. Screening thousands of stocks to find the handful worth deep analysis.

Thesis-driven recommendations. Not just “buy this stock” but “here’s why this business will be worth more in 5 years and here are the risks.”

Ongoing coverage. Businesses change. Competition arrives. Management makes decisions. Good research tracks these developments and updates the thesis accordingly.

A framework for holding. The hardest part of growth investing is holding through volatility. Good research helps you distinguish between noise and signal.

What Research Cannot Provide

No service can give you conviction. That has to come from your own understanding.

If you follow recommendations without understanding the underlying thesis, you’ll sell at the first sign of trouble. The research provides the starting point—your job is developing the understanding that creates holding power.

The best use of research services: as a filter for your attention. Let professionals screen the universe and identify candidates. Then do your own work to develop conviction in the ones that resonate with your understanding. When you’re ready to leverage professional research to accelerate your growth investing, check out our roundup of the best stock advisors to find the service that fits your style.

The Services That Align with Growth Investing

Motley Fool Stock Advisor has built a 23-year track record by applying growth investing principles systematically. Their 964% cumulative return versus 194% for the S&P 500 demonstrates what’s possible when you identify quality businesses and hold them through volatility.

What makes their approach work: they’re explicit about time horizons (5+ years minimum), they prepare subscribers for volatility (expected drawdowns are disclosed), and they provide the thesis that enables holding power.

Alpha Picks takes a different approach—purely quantitative, no human discretion. Their track record since 2022 shows +269% versus +81% for the S&P 500. The data reveals the power of patience: under 1 year, their picks have a 58% win rate. Hold 1-3 years, and the win rate jumps to 80% with 185% average returns.

Both approaches work because they’re built on the same foundation: identify high-quality growth businesses, hold them long enough for the thesis to play out, and let the asymmetric math work in your favor. See our Stock Advisor vs Alpha Picks comparison for a detailed breakdown of how these two services differ.

For a complete overview of all available options, explore our guide to the best stock advisors.

Explore Stock Advisor — 30-Day Guarantee

The Psychological Requirements

Growth investing is simple to understand and brutally difficult to execute. The gap is psychological.

Accepting Uncertainty

You will be wrong. Often. The best growth investors have win rates around 60-70%. That means 30-40% of their picks lose money.

The difference between success and failure isn’t avoiding losses—it’s ensuring your winners more than compensate for your losers. A 60% win rate with 3:1 reward-to-risk ratio creates substantial wealth. A 90% win rate with 1:1 reward-to-risk ratio creates nothing special.

Accepting uncertainty means making decisions with incomplete information, knowing some will be wrong, and structuring your portfolio so the inevitable mistakes don’t destroy you.

Resisting the Crowd

The best time to buy growth stocks is when everyone else is selling them. The 2022 bear market created some of the best entry points in a decade. Investors who bought during maximum pessimism captured returns that won’t be available again until the next crisis.

But buying when others are selling requires resisting the crowd. It requires conviction that your analysis is right and the market is wrong. It requires emotional discipline that most investors don’t have.

The framework that helps: focus on business fundamentals, not market sentiment. If a business is executing—growing revenue, expanding margins, strengthening competitive position—the stock price will eventually reflect that reality. Your job is to hold until it does.

Playing the Long Game

Wealth creation is a decades-long process. The investors who build generational wealth aren’t the ones who have the best year—they’re the ones who compound reasonable returns over 20, 30, 40 years.

The math of compounding is counterintuitive. 15% annual returns for 30 years turns $100,000 into $6.6 million. 20% annual returns for the same period turns it into $23.7 million. Small differences in annual returns create enormous differences in terminal wealth.

Growth investing optimizes for long-term compounding, not short-term performance. Some years you’ll underperform. Some years you’ll look foolish. But if you’re positioned in businesses that compound value over decades, the long-term results will speak for themselves.

Growth Investing in the Current Environment

The principles of growth investing don’t change with market conditions. But the opportunities do.

What the Current Market Offers

After two consecutive years of 25%+ returns, the S&P 500 trades near all-time highs. Extreme concentration in mega-cap technology—the top 10 stocks represent roughly 43% of the index—creates both risk and opportunity.

The risk: passive investors have massive exposure to a handful of companies. A rotation out of mega-caps would devastate index returns.

The opportunity: the dispersion between winners and losers has never been wider. Some stocks have gained over 400% while others in the same index have lost 50%+. Stock selection matters more than it has in years.

For growth investors, this environment is ideal. The businesses that will define the next decade of wealth creation are being built right now. AI infrastructure, energy transition, healthcare innovation, financial technology—the secular trends are clear. The question is which companies will capture the value.

Where the Multi-Baggers Are Hiding

The next Amazon isn’t hiding in the Magnificent 7. It’s probably a company you haven’t heard of yet, or one you’ve dismissed as “too expensive” based on current earnings.

The pattern repeats: transformative businesses look expensive on traditional metrics because those metrics can’t capture future earnings power. Netflix looked expensive at $10. Amazon looked expensive at $50. Nvidia looked expensive at $20. They were all cheap relative to what they became.

The framework for finding tomorrow’s multi-baggers:

Follow the secular trends. AI isn’t going away. Neither is electrification, healthcare innovation, or the shift to digital everything. The businesses enabling these transitions have multi-decade runways.

Look for businesses with expanding moats. The best growth companies don’t just grow—they become harder to compete with as they grow. Network effects compound. Data advantages widen. Switching costs increase.

Find management teams playing the long game. Companies investing in the future at the expense of current earnings are often punished by the market. That punishment creates opportunity for patient investors.

Accept that you’ll be early. The best growth investments feel uncomfortable when you make them. If everyone agreed the stock was going to 10x, it would already have done so.

The Path Forward

Growth investing isn’t for everyone. It requires conviction most investors can’t develop, patience most investors don’t have, and discipline most investors won’t maintain.

But for those who can execute it, the rewards are asymmetric. Finding 2-3 true winners in a decade—businesses that 10x or more—is enough to build generational wealth. Everything else is noise.

The framework:

1. Focus on businesses, not stocks. Understand what creates value before worrying about what moves prices.

2. Seek asymmetry. Risk $1 to make $10. Structure your portfolio to capture power law outcomes.

3. Develop conviction. You can’t hold through volatility on faith. Understanding creates holding power.

4. Concentrate on your best ideas. Over-diversification guarantees mediocrity. Make your winners count.

5. Think in decades. Your edge over institutions is time horizon. Use it.

6. Accept being wrong. Most picks won’t work. The ones that do will more than compensate.

The next evolution is developing the pattern recognition that identifies multi-baggers before they’re obvious. That’s a different skill—one that comes from studying businesses, understanding competitive dynamics, and recognizing when the market’s expectations are wrong.

The tools exist to accelerate that learning. Research services that have identified multi-baggers for decades can show you what to look for. But the conviction has to be yours.

The question isn’t whether growth investing works. The track records prove it does. The question is whether you can do what it requires: find great businesses, hold them through volatility, and let the asymmetric math work in your favor.

That’s the game. Everything else is noise.

Get Started with Alpha Picks