It's not really a question of upside/downside, its how much risk you can take based on your situation. If you're supporting a wife and three kids, and really need good health insurance, perhaps best to be that family man on salary and not play the market--at least not full-time.So where is the downside exactly to all this? This one little truism has become painfully obvious to me since joining the rat race, that is trading time for money ie. wage rarely adds up. Feel free to disagree but the in the end most just end up with liabilities. Office politics, nepotism, cronyism, a 350 pound mentally challenged slob for a supervisor, getting laid off? Been there done that not my idea of a good time
Personally, I am single with no kids, renting a cheap apartment, and don't have a car. With relatively little responsibility, and total monthly expenses around $2500 (including beer money!), I can afford more risk than most. If I can average just $160 a day, all my expenses are covered--including taxes--and my stake grows. That's why I'm now taking a swing at this. Crunch your numbers; if wifey is OK with it, and you want to go for it, then do it.
Just beware that a few months is not a lot of time, and expect to take some losses as you learn. I'm not qualified to give advice, but my opinion would be to begin trading full-time in stocks that are beneath your means. Go for smaller percentage gains; if you can consistently make 0.5% on 200 shares of Nasdaq:MU in a day, that's awesome! That's 120% per year! It's about $20, but profit is profit! If you lose 0.5%, meh, it won't kill you. On the other hand, leverage up to a full 4:1 and lose that 0.5%, and you'll be crying... drinking... probably both.
The point is to make your mistakes on smaller stocks until you get your game together. You don't want to learn about how forward guidance, earnings announcements, FDA drug rulings, and all sorts of things can spike the market against you when you're leveraged up to the max!
Last edited: