Validation tests published two years after the original bet compared no - change model forecasts with IPCC dangerous warming forecasts for horizons from one to 100 years, and found that no - change forecasts were considerably more accurate;
especially over longer horizons.
Not exact matches
In periods of rising volatility, pharma companies are often
especially vulnerable because of investors are paying big prices today for therapies expected to pay off
over a
long horizon.
... [T] he profile of actual market returns —
especially over 7 - 10 year
horizons — looks much like the simple, humble, raw earnings yield, unadjusted for 10 - year Treasury yields (which are too short in duration and in persistence to drive the valuation of stocks having far
longer «durations»).
This is
especially true because you can mostly eliminate price risk by timing (unless you buy a lot of stocks in 1999, 2007, etc. you will dollar cost average into a decent enough stock price) and most macroeconomic risks dissipate
over a
long enough time
horizon.
Remember all the conversations we've had
over the past couple years about staying invested in the market no matter what it does (assuming you have a
long - term
horizon) and
especially when it's falling?