True Wealth Systems Review – Steve Sjuggerud Newsletter

Want to be a part of a True Wealth Systems by Steve Sjuggerud from Stansberry Research? Now you have a chance for limited time to join.

Editor: Steve Sjuggerud
Type: Investing Newsletter

What’s True Wealth Systems anyway?

true wealth systemsIn short it’s investing newsletter that focuses on holding period of 6 to 18 months.

Which means you’ll be getting monthly recommendations, with updates as needed, that focus return between half to one and half years.  The recommended starting capital to invest is around $2,500.

As you can see this type of newsletter focuses on rather short time investments with a low entry point. However, it uses what Steve Sjuggerud calls systems to dig and sift through mountains of data and find best trading strategies.

Thanks to those systems Dr. Steve Sjuggerud has been tested for decades and been proven to return as much as 60% annualized. Which is why you can get great returns without big investments.

Big Return and Low Risk?

While all investment have risks, there is no question about it, the level of risk vs reward is something you need to consider very carefully before investing your money.

For example investing moguls like Warren Buffett want you to invest into things like Coca-Cola, like he did in 1988 by buying 400,000 shares for $2.45 each (around $1 billion in total).  Which as of me writing now are worth around $18.4 billion (or $45.95 per share).

That’s a 1,775.51% gain, which is impressive even without the dividends but that’s over the last 30 years. Which means if you invested a $1,000 back in 1988, 30 years later it would be $17,551. Not exactly a life changing income.

What’s even worse is that due to inflation that $1000 you invested was actually worth $2,179.31 in today money. However, that’s not my point. The point is that while Coca-Cola has been great for buffet and will most likely stay great for many years, over all chart is not as promising.


If you invested about a 10 years ago, you gain would be around 74% come compared to Warren’s 1,756%. In fact, if you invested 20 years ago your increase would be only 15% for those 20 years.

So while Coca Cola stock is a great stock as over  time it increases in value, it’s useless for someone that has $1000 to $5,000 to invest and want returns within 2 years.

But, aren’t other investment riskier?

It depends how you define risk. Which is riskier to you?

  • investing $20,000 for 7% to 10% return per year and hoping it will not crash
  • investing $2,000 for a 60% return.

A $20,000 investment in the index has an average return of 7%, which is $1,400 per year. A $2,000 investment on a 60% return yields $1,200. About the same.

And while yes, index investing is considered safer but it’s not crash proof and at these turmoil times a crash can be just around the corner. So for me losing $20,000 is much more riskier, even on a safer option, than losing $2,000.

However, it can be different for you and none of this should be taken as financial advise.  I’m just stating the way I  compare investments.

At the end of the day all investments have risks but if you’re interested in having nice gains at low entry point check out True Wealth Systems  by Steve Sjuggerud.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.