That
relatively small amount of stocks will severely under perform a 100 % stock portfolio during most long - term scenarios, as I repeatedly demonstrated throughout Articles 6 through 8.
What I am confused about is the strategy some of my friends have taken, which is to take great risks
with small amounts of stock yet for the most part, have most of their money in cash.
Hunt said some of his clients «nibbled» during the decline — bought
a small amount of stocks they had an interest in before the prices fell.
That'll make up for
the smaller amount of stock.
At this stage my strategy will be to keep
a small amount of stocks that have a consistent history of increasing their annual dividends.
If you think that return on assets doesn't vary that much over time, you would conclude that having
a smaller amount of stock owning the assets would lead to a higher rate of return on the stock.
So, here's my status: I have never owned stock or investments of any kind, and currently have only a checking and savings account to my name, with
a small amount of stock.