Otherwise, basic principles
like broad diversification and low - cost investing still hold.
Not exact matches
Competitive advantages, including scale, existing patents on blockbuster drugs (such as Enbrel),
broad geographical and product
diversification, R&D, and a strong pipeline of drugs (16 compounds in Phase III trials) give this firm the strengths it needs to fight risks
like competition, litigation, and regulation.
On the one hand, they work
like mutual funds, with tax advantages as well as
diversification from investing in a
broad range of assets.
Competitive advantages, including scale, existing patents on blockbuster drugs (such as Enbrel),
broad geographical and product
diversification, R&D, and a strong pipeline of drugs (16 compounds in Phase III trials) give this firm the strengths it needs to fight risks
like competition, litigation, and regulation.
Standard «Mixes» that are
broad groupings of Conservative, Moderate, and Aggressive
diversification, much
like Acorns
And I think this gives another alternative to an average retail individual investor, maybe to start constructing their portfolio more
like an institution and get
broad diversification that's extremely transparent, so they know what they own at a very low cost, not to mention there's a lot of tax efficiencies that go along with it.
For
broad diversification, you might choose a world stock market fund
like Vanguard's Total World Stock Market Fund.
By contrast, law firms have not sought
diversification on anything
like a similar scale through building teams of non-lawyers to add to a
broader revenues portfolio.