This sounds reasonable enough. Yet few of us achieve that straightforward goal. Why not? The answer reminds me of how Adolf Hitler lost the campaign against Russia: he did not heed the advice of experts; he changed his strategies repeatedly instead of giving any single one a chance to succeed; and he was led more by emotions than a well reasoned outlook.

Similarly, most of us when trying to invest show poor impulse control, strike off in new investment directions as if we have attention deficit disorders, trade frequently and so incur extra commission costs as well as not giving a winning approach a chance to make us real money, and too often try to avoid (a misunderstood concept of ) risk by selling early, even at a loss, what should really be left for the long-term. Such tendencies are a major reason that, despite thereby usually paying higher brokerage and money management fees, many would be better off letting a professional handle our investments than trying to do it ourselves.

I submit that this technique of buying stocks in winning companies when they are a little depressed in price yet still have excellent prospects could be a superior long-term technique, all one might need for financial independence, sort of the lazy person's guide to wealth without a lot of hassle or risk.

Another way of locating this type security is by using an investment service with a good reputation. An example is Value Line. Abbreviated Value Line data bases (and sometimes complete hardcopy formats) are available for free through many public libraries. In addition, one can subscribe to both paper and digital versions of the services' reports.

The investment company provides weekly its top 100 growth stocks list. Among these, I look for ones that are favorably ranked for both safety and recent price performance (what Value Line calls timeliness). From these, I pick the top four or five in terms of risk-adjusted projected returns, then buy shares in one or two of them per month. With dividends included, such an approach has a good chance to provide the average 15-20% a year overall return I am seeking.

The next question is when to sell. Buffett says that for many stocks, ones bought at a good level compared with their potential, the correct response is "never."

If one finds he or she has a lot of stocks that after purchase routinely go down a lot compared with the market, it may not be reason to sell them, but could very well be cause for reviewing the buy strategy. Value investing, without special care for the profitability of one's purchases, can too often involve a lot of these "falling knife" kinds of assets, ones that are down for good reason and will thus keep going south. Maybe they will turnaround eventually, maybe not, but in the meantime one might have poor overall returns.

If I bought Cognizant Technology when it was listed among the top 100 growth companies, had close to the best timeliness and safety ranks, and was projected to have total returns of 15% annually over the next 3-5 years, I feel very comfortable setting my eventual sell point for when it has provided 50% or greater price performance since I bought it and also now has projected annual returns averaging less than 10% a year. I can then use the proceeds from that sale to buy another safe growth asset that then has 15% or better projected total returns. Such a sell/buy strategy can be repeated over and over with good long-term results.

A novice investor may learn best by simply investing. Both losses and profits are great teachers. Good luck with your own investing experiments and with setting what for you seem to be the proper sell points for your own approach to this intriguing hobby.