“This is my Merrill Lynch portfolio – 1.83% expenses, underperformed S&P 500”

Problem with the arg how can an &quot;average&quot; investor expect to compete against the big dedicated investment houses is that in most respects the big guys are average at best.<p>Speaking as a former aspiring fund manager turned software developer, most of the tools at these manager&#x27;s disposal are simplistic and completely invalid yet in most cases the manager&#x27;s don&#x27;t quite understand them anyways.<p>Bottom-line: its a boys club of MBAs whose curriculum still says the sharpe ratio is important and holds their students responsible for at the very most being able to calculate probabilities from a normal distro using a table of values.<p>Solution: invest in a lot of risky small companies, you will lose most of the time but, those few winners more than make up for the loss. Spread across enough bets stats says its very unlikely to lose. Contrast that with your family&#x27;s 401k split in two a few years back while invested in the &quot;blue-chips&quot;

I&#x27;ve had pretty good luck in the market. Owned a REIT (<a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reit.asp" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.investopedia.com&#x2F;terms&#x2F;r&#x2F;reit.asp</a>) during the housing boom, owned APPL during their run up, and recently TSLA. When I don&#x27;t have a company I like I&#x27;ve owned QQQ (Power Shares 100), AGG (iShared Bond), and various ETFs. I&#x27;m young so I can take risk, but honestly you can manage your own investments without the fees.

Pretty good portfolio, if you think 1.83 expexses fine, you have to bet more risks.

1.83%? That&#x27;s highway robbery!