In short, investors have gained about a 5 % annualized
excess return over the long term by investing in stocks rather than bills or bonds.
He found that just buying low price / book stocks does not produce
excess returns over the long term, because many low price / book companies are trading at a discount because they deserve to — they're dogs with poor prospects.
This evidence is consistent with market overreaction and suggests that a simple strategy of buying stocks that have gone down the most over the last year or years may yield
excess returns over the long term.
Not exact matches
Both of the funds referenced are growth funds and have delivered
over the intermediate - and
long -
term returns in
excess of peer groups, at lower risk.
But history has shown that a simple mix low - cost stock and bond funds has been able generate sufficient
returns in
excess of inflation to maintain the purchasing power of your savings
over the
long term.
These funds are risky during a volatile or bear market but has capability to generate
excess returns over the
long -
term period.
Most academic research has shown short - sellers (represented by measures of short - interest) generate
excess returns over the medium to
longer -
term, and some recent work ferrets out subsequent news flow to posit they [shorts] possess informational advantage (better research?)
Over the
long -
term, you should expect most of our
excess returns to come from smaller, lesser known companies.
I've
long understood the dangers of trusting intuition on such questions, but I can't say that I have any hard data to support the hypothesis that fund managers can provide
returns in
excess of chance variation
over the
long term (any finance or econ readers know of any useful studies?).