If You Take More Risk Then You Can Earn More Money??

[Aliakbar2016]

han g kafi bar ham risk le kar acha earn kar letey ha lekin kafi bar ham risk le kar kafi kuch loss be kar detey ha ya sab sath sath chalta rehta ha profit and loss hamay sabar ka sath kam karna hota ha is ma warna loss ho jata ha

[billyboy00007]

g bilkul yeh to simple si baat hai agar ap zayada risk lay saktay hein to ap defenately zayada earning kar saktay hein aor is main risk bhi zayada involve hoga is liye try karen utna he risk lein jitna ap bear kar saktay hein.

[remo]

brother, absolutely to me, I personally do consider that that is logic that if we take more risk we can earn more money but to be true we may loss even more money due to high risk , this is why i advice all trader to be carful and trade only what they can afford to loos

[FOREXMAN]

forex trading meh jayada risk se no doubt apko profit bhi jayda mil skta hai kuki agar ap high lot size se sari opportunties lete hai toh boht chance h ki apki earning high ho skti hai par iske sath ek hi trae meh apka account wash hone ka dar bhi hota hai.

[KASINA]

ji bilkul forex me jitna jada hum risk leinge unta jada hum paisa earn kr skte hai par hume sirf ek side nhi dekhni hai isliye forex me jada risk lene walo ko loss bhi hota hai, qki jitna jada hum risk lete hai unta jada chance bhi hota hai loss bhi humko bada hi hota fir, to hum dhyan se trading krni chiye, hume jada risk un trades me hi lena chiye jime hum100% sure ho. baki me jada risk nhi lena chiye.

[blackt20]

mary khyalmain essa ho sakta hya agar ap zedia resk utahty hai to ap zeada mony earn kar sakty hain qoon k main ny aik gagh parah tah k jetna bara risk ho ga utna bara profit hota hy.

bhai jan meray khyal se ye ho ga k ap kitna zyada risk lay gay ap ko utna zyada profit ho ga kabhi kabhi asa hota ha k ap risk na bhi lay ab ko profit ho jata hai aur kabhi aisa hota hai k ap risk lay aur ap ko double profit hota hai yani risk lanay se profit bhi hota hai aur loss bhi zyada risk zyada money to mein ye kehna chahta ho k ap zyada risk lay aur zyada earning kijiye, ap jab risk lay gay ap ko forex trading kay baray mein pata chalta gaye ga bhai meray

[punjabpolice]

bhai jan risk tu her business main he hota hai same ese tara se forex ke trading main bhe bht he zida risk hai but forex ke trading main who profit hai jo ke kise bhe or job main kise bhe or work main nh hai es main agar hum log risk le kr trading krte hain tu great earning hai es job main thora risk hai but earning best hai es job main

[Nuleta]

certainly my dear, for me I absolutely do believe that to earn more you should take high risk. But in this situation if you fail to earn you can finish. Your account would be zero. Then you will be disappointed about forex. So I would like to take low risk if my profit also be small no problem. I want to surive here for long term.

[yulbang111]

forex trading is not a gamble. forex trading is a business. it's the best and most profitable business in this world. we can earn good income and get better life with forex trading. we can take forex as source of income. but don't take high risk for your account

[monir897]

There are two schools of thought on whether those who make less money should assume more risk in their portfolios.

In a recent video interview, Morningstar�s Laura Lutton argues for the affirmative. Those on a lower wage must do something different than their wealthier peers if they wish to attain equality in retirement, such as holding a higher stock weighting..

Of course, there are many levers available to retirement plans besides assuming greater investment risk. Better levers, too. Saving more, retiring later, and cutting portfolio costs are superior options to boosting one�s stock percentage. The first two actions guarantee higher retirement income, no matter how the markets perform. The third is not as ironclad, as pricey investments sometimes beat their cheaper rivals, but it is predictable. Whereas owning additional stocks is not.

Unfortunately, those intentions can be unrealistic. Investing more to catch up sounds fine in principle, but in practice it means expecting the lowest-paid workers to have the highest savings rates. Good luck with that. Retiring later is a likelier hope, but no more than that. Health concerns, family issues, and redundancy send millions of people out of work, against their will, each year.

So, yes, along with using the painless lever of lowering costs, lower earners might also wish to increase portfolio risk. That action comes neither without pain nor without real danger; there is a chance that poor stock market performance will leave the retiree with significantly fewer assets, and therefore less income, than if they had played it safer.

However, the alternatives of saving more when more cannot be saved, retiring later when later will not be permitted, and of investing conservatively, thereby forgoing all hopes of ever catching up, are imperfect as well.
But is More Portfolio Risk the Answer?

Forbes contributor Frances Coppola disagrees. In �No, Living Longer and Earning Less Are Not Good Reasons to Take More Risk,� Coppola writes:

�Consider the case of a 40-year old single man on the median wage. Would any decent investment adviser tell him to take higher risks in his portfolio than a single man of the same age on a six-digit salary? I hope not. Because although higher risk may generate higher returns, there is greater chance that your investments will deliver less than the returns you expected..�

This looks to be a claim for asset-allocation equality.

Lower-earning workers should not attempt to catch up by owning more stocks, because there�s no free lunch in doing so. The potentially higher gains that could accrue from that tactic are more than offset by the potentially larger losses. The gains must be more than offset by the losses, rather than merely offset, because otherwise adding stocks would be a neutral move, not a mistake.

The same logic would seem to apply to higher-earning workers. They, too, are subject to the law of risk and return. If they buy more stocks, they also may enjoy higher returns, but they also face greater potential losses. The correct retirement allocation, it would appear, is the correct retirement allocation. Income is not an issue.

Coppola continues:

�For our man on a six-digit salary, higher volatility isn�t too much of a disaster, since his investment portfolio should be large enough to deliver a decent income in retirement even if it doesn�t return quite what he expected. But for our typical woman, whose portfolio will be much smaller, even a small underperformance could make a material difference to her standard of living in retirement. For her, increased volatility is bad news.�

Ostensibly, Lutton and Coppola�s subject was how women should invest. However, this portion of their discussion, the relationship of income to portfolio risk, is gender-neutral, so I have treated it as such.

So, Coppola does not advocate income equality. Rather, she suggests that higher income might permit higher portfolio risk. Those with means can afford to absorb losses that those without means cannot. A high-earner whose portfolio gets drubbed will still enjoy a comfortable, if not lavish, retirement, while a low-earner whose portfolio gets drubbed will land in the metaphorical � and perhaps literal � poorhouse.