Sentences with phrase «than growth stocks»

For this reason, a value stock is typically more likely to have a higher long - term return than a growth stock because of the underlying risk.

Over time, value stocks have actually done better than growth stocks.

Very less risky than a growth stock for sure and even though I am invested in a couple of growth stocks, dividend producing securities take up the majority.

They have low price - to - earnings and price - to - book ratios — which is why they're less expensive than growth stocks.

I've included these quotes for learning purposes and they are taken straight from the article to express the point that younger investors are better off focusing more on dividend stocks than growth stocks.

Whilst high yield stocks tend to be less volatile than growth stocks, they will still be subject to market forces and outside influences that management can not control.

While value stocks, by definition, will trade at a lower valuation than growth stocks, the valuation spread moves over time.

These types of stocks behave more like bonds than growth stocks or dividend growth stocks.

I'd rather have great, stable dividend growth stocks rather than a growth stock with wild volatility and an unpredictable future.

A value stock is often traded at a more affordable rate than a growth stock.

Value stocks typically enjoy higher dividends than growth stocks.

Due to this fundamental distinction, a value stock is often traded at a more affordable price than a growth stock.

In the long run, value stocks have generated higher returns than growth stocks, which have higher stock prices and earnings, albeit because value stocks have higher risk.

A value stock is considered riskier than a growth stock.

While value stocks, by definition, will trade at a lower valuation than growth stocks, the valuation spread moves over time.

A dividend stock that shows virtually no growth (think utilities) and returns close to 100 % of its cash flows to shareholders is more like a bond than a growth stock.

Despite the trust's name, it has long focused more on value than growth stocks (think Shell and Lloyds), which hasn't been working — the trust has underperformed the FTSE All - Share over three and five years and the shares have traded at a nasty discount to net asset value.

As of May 31, 2017, measured by the difference between the Russell 1000 Growth Index (growth stocks) and Russell 1000 Value Index (value stocks)- value stocks returned less than growth stocks over the past one, three, five and 10 years.

For example, when value stocks are substantially cheaper than growth stocks — meaning the spreads in valuation ratios are abnormally wide — a reversion toward the norm would result in above - average value stock outperformance.

Dividend stocks often provide a steadier source of income than growth stocks, allowing investors to build wealth without selling their shares.

Value companies, however, are firms whose stock price has been beaten down relative to the company's earnings or «book value,» ironically giving them more room to grow than growth stocks.

The expected cycle of neglect & then re-valuation for a portfolio of value stocks surely implies a far higher level of turnover than a growth stock portfolio.

However, every academic I'm familiar with expects that, over the long term, stocks will continue to have higher returns than bonds, that small - cap stocks will continue to have higher returns than large - cap stocks and that value stocks will continue to have higher returns than growth stocks.

Conversely, when the economy contracts, defensive stocks will likely fare better than growth stocks with lower - realised volatilities.

It can be dangerous if investors think dividend investing is safe (at least safer and less volatile than growth stocks) and not follow the progress of the underlying businesses driving the long - term stock performance (whether you're looking for dividend or growth).

Before academics documented value's outperformance and attributed it to risk, these stocks were typically viewed as less risky than growth stocks, because their share prices were less volatile.

Value stocks have low price - to - earnings and price - to - book ratios — which is why they're less expensive than growth stocks.

If a fund showed more similarity to the value index than thegrowth index, I concluded that its portfolio includes more value stocks than growth stocks.

However, every academic I'm familiar with expects that, over the long term, stocks will continue to have higher returns than bonds, small - cap stocks will continue to have higher returns than large - cap stocks, and that value stocks will continue to have higher returns than growth stocks.

Until now, I've recommended slightly overweighting this portfolio to value stocks, which as most savvy investors know have a reliable long - term record of doing better than growth stocks.

Finally, there are behavioral biases that lead value stocks to offer higher prospective returns than growth stocks.

And value stocks have provided higher returns than growth stocks»

Ever since the 1970s, when it was discovered that value stocks (i.e., high E / P stocks) tend to have higher average returns than growth stocks (i.e., low E / P stocks), there has been a large body of academic research which has confirmed the existence of a value premium, namely, that value stocks outperform growth stocks.

The second is the value premium: stocks with high book - to - market ratios have historically delivered higher returns than growth stocks.