Sentences with phrase «less aggressive stocks»

Not exact matches

The Chinese Communist Party has taken aggressive measures to combat its decline in the nation's stock market, which had shed about a third of its value in less than a month.

Finally, GM's quick repayment of the loans has whetted the appetite of some commentators (including DeCloet) for the ultimate repayment of the full government contribution. That would occur through the issuance of public equity by GM and Chrysler, creating a market for those stocks into which the government would presumably sell its shares. There is even some nefarious language in the rescue packages requiring the government to sell off its shares within specified, relatively aggressive timelines. The more I think about it, the less this makes sense — neither for the auto industry, nor for taxpayers. Why not hang onto the equity stake? If the companies recover and the equity gains market value, then the government will be able to claim that on its balance sheet (hence officially recouping the cost of its written - off contributions and creating a budgetary gain).

Resource and commodity stocks in general should make up only a limited portion of your portfolio — say less than 20 % for a conservative investor or as much as 30 % for an aggressive investor.

Unlike a conservative investor who favours fixed income investments like bonds or GICs, he says, a more aggressive investor — or someone with no less than 50 per cent stocks in their portfolio — will be more likely, though not guaranteed, to net a higher return.

The eventual recovery of aggressive stocks is also less certain.

Still, I had in mind that a 20 % allocation to non-U.S. stocks — or perhaps a 30 % allocation for a somewhat more aggressive portfolio — was more or less where the personal - finance conventional wisdom lay.

If you're looking for aggressive stocks with the potential for large returns of 50 % or more in 6 months or less, you should subscribe to Stock Pickers Digest.

And as mentioned, resource stocks should make up only a limited portion of your portfolio — say less than 20 % for a conservative investor or as much as 30 % for an aggressive investor.

Stock Amounts — Even assuming perfectly bad - luck timing and less aggressive dividend reinvestment, holding stocks for 10 years guards against all but the very worst historical stock catastroStock Amounts — Even assuming perfectly bad - luck timing and less aggressive dividend reinvestment, holding stocks for 10 years guards against all but the very worst historical stock catastrostock catastrophes.

I'm not saying a lot more aggressive, but maybe a little bit less conservative, having a little bit more stock allocation for the long term, staying invested, than their percentage rate or return over the long term would be actually significantly higher than men, I would say.

For medium term goals, you can take some risk with blended funds for example, while for the longer term goals (e.g. kids» college fund, retirement) you can be less liquid, by getting into more aggressive stocks or real estate.

If you add that future cash to the conservative investments you already hold, you will find your portfolio's split between stocks and more conservative investments is less aggressive than your current holdings suggest.

An aggressive investor puts a large part of their portfolios in stocks (or ETFs) of less well - established companies often without a long history of earnings or dividends.