Sentences with phrase «not deliver higher returns»

Not exact matches

But clever specialty films do not often deliver the box - office returns necessary to justify their high marketing costs.

While a fund with higher than average fees isn't necessarily bad, its manager will have to do better than his peers to deliver a comparable return on investment.

By secular reflation, we mean at least a decade in which short - and long - term interest rates stay habitually below nominal GDP growth and high grade bonds are not really bonds any more: delivering trend returns that are close to zero or even negative.

And with interest rates at all - time lows and stocks at all - time highs, there are many who expect that not only will a 60/40 portfolio deliver below average returns, but that bonds might not provide the protection they once did.

But riskier investments absolutely can not be counted on to deliver higher returns.

The main issue for good, established companies here is not the risk to the long - term stream of cash flows, but to what extent the uncertainty about the coming year or two of earnings will frighten investors to sell at depressed prices (thereby pricing stocks to deliver even higher long - term returns).

If one of these new platforms were to deliver the goods and provide consistently high returns, crypto traders would flock to it, which simply hasn't happened.

ACCC Chairman, Rod Sims, delivered a speech at the Gilbert + Tobin Regulated Infrastructure Policy Workshop in Melbourne today, calling for a «return to the approach to regulation of monopoly infrastructure envisaged by the Hilmer Committee» and arguing «it is wrong to suggest that we should not be concerned about high monopoly pricing of infrastructure because the result is only a pure transfer of economic rent.»

It validates the concept of a «crowded trade,» one that offered high returns in the past, may presently offer low returns to a «buy and hold» investor, but will deliver negative returns in the near future, because the holders of the trade are relying on the trade to deliver positive returns in the short run, and will bail if it doesn't happen.

They earn their salaries by producing excellent investment results, not by charging high fees while delivering mediocre returns.

If these ETFs had large tracking errors (for the record, they did not), their absolute returns would still have been very high, but they would have been losers for not delivering on their mandate.

It's not the one that would have delivered the highest return over the last 12 months, because that is always unknowable in advance and has no bearing on the future.

For example, if stocks with a given characteristic delivered higher returns in the US but not in other countries, or only during a specific period, chances are there's no real anomaly.

You can't force the financial markets to deliver a higher rate of return, but you can keep more of whatever return the market delivers by sticking to low - cost investing options like broad - based index funds and ETFs.

While the Wall Street Journal didn't declare a formal winner research indicates that the professionals were unable to deliver higher risk adjusted returns than the random basket.

Since equity mutual funds deliver substantially high returns on a long - term basis, the expense ratio does not make a big difference.

The younger you are, the more you should usually tilt that mix toward stock funds, as equities generally have a higher probability of delivering the lofty returns you'll need to build an adequate nest egg.

For example, although there's no magical investment that can deliver returns high enough to make up for all those years you failed to save, you may very well be able to boost the return your savings earn — and the eventual size of your nest egg — by opting for low - cost index funds and ETFs, many of which charge less than 0.25 % a year in annual expenses.

So the key is to arrive at a blend of assets that can deliver returns high enough to provide adequate income without subjecting you to losses so large that you'll spend down your nest egg too quickly.

1) While not shown on this chart, you might notice that the simulated equal weight return of ~ 12 % is higher than what the market - cap weighted S&P 500 actually delivered across the 40 years of this study.

It's reasonable to say that, if the generations alive in the next few decades are willing to give up, say 3 per cent of their income for a project which will deliver most of its benefits after 2050, those who will benefit from that (modest but not insignificant) sacrifice ought to be willing to give up a similar proportion of their (almost certainly much higher) incomes, to return the environment to something like the starting point, before the process of industrialisation that delivered all that wealth.