Sentences with phrase «than market returns because»

23:52 «People are going to be almost certainly disappointed going forward; they think they're going to get better than market returns, but they're virtually doomed to get lower than market returns because prices are so much higher»

Not exact matches

But because their assets tend to perform better during better economic times, these stocks often see higher returns than other parts of the market during upswings, says Stammers.

If you immediately see yourself as an enterprising investor — solely because Graham says an enterprising investor can expect a higher return than a defensive investor — that's good but consider this: by using the strategy that I will describe later in this article, a defensive investor can expect to earn a return equal to the overall market's return (which has averaged 9.77 % per year since 1900).

That's because average stock market returns have been higher than those on bonds and savings accounts over time.

The reason why valuations are so tightly correlated with 10 - 12 year returns is that extreme deviations from historical norms tend to wash out over that horizon, and because interest rate fluctuations have a much less durable impact on market valuations than investors imagine.

Investors choose this as one of the ways to invest money because it offers higher returns than an ordinary CD or money market investment.

The statement that began with the word «Unless» in the first paragraph is enormously important — because that distinction captures the primary lesson of our own awkward transition from 2009 to mid-2014 in our methods of estimating market return / risk profiles (see A Most Important Distinction, and A Better Lesson than This Time is Different).

American workers are more confident in their ability to retire comfortably than they have been since before the financial crisis — not because they're better at planning, but because stock market returns and property values have climbed.

Because of the unusual profile of valuations over the past few years, the Fund's returns were higher during the 2000 - 2003 bear market than I would expect during typical bear markets.

Some franchisees, particularly people who sign Area Development Agreements to control an entire market, may spend more than $ 20,000 per center for grand opening advertising because they believe they will receive a return on that investment.

Because these venture capital firms want higher return rates than other investments such as the stock market provide, they typically invest in promising startup or young businesses that have a high potential for growth but are also high risk.

there is no doubting that Arsene has helped to provide us with some incredible footballing moments in the formative years of his managerial career at Arsenal, but that certainly doesn't and shouldn't mean that he has earned the right to decide when and how he should leave this club... there have been numerous managers at each of the biggest clubs in Europe throughout the last decade who have waged far more successful campaigns than ours yet somehow and someway each were given their walking papers because they failed to meet the standards laid out by the hierarchy of their respective clubs... of course that doesn't mean that clubs should simply follow the lead of others, especially if clubs of note have become too reactionary when it comes to issues of termination, for whatever reasons, but there should be some logical discourse when it comes to the setting of parameters for a changing of the guard... in the case of Arsenal, this sort of discourse was largely stifled when the higher - ups devised their sinister plan on the eve of our move to the Emirates... by giving Wenger a free pass due to supposed financial constraints he, unwittingly or not, set the bar too low... it reminds me of a landlord who says he will only rent to «professional people» to maintain a certain standard then does a complete about face when the market is lean and vacancies are up... for those who rented under the original mandate they of course feel cheated but there is little they can do, except move on, especially if the landlord clearly cares more about profitability than keeping their word... unfortunately for the lifelong fans of a football club it's not so easy to switch allegiances and frankly why should they, in most cases we have been around far longer than them... so how does one deal with such an untenable situation... do you simply shut - up and hope for the best, do you place the best interests of those with only self - serving agendas above the collective and pray that karma eventually catches up with them, do you run away with your tail between your legs and only return when things have ultimately changed, do you keep trying to find silver linings to justify your very existence, do you lower your expectations by convincing yourself it could be worse or do you stand up for what you believe in by holding people accountable for their actions, especially when every fiber of your being tells you that something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

once the car exceeds 59.9 mph the warning light comes on and AWD disengages... returning to RWD... because its a pretentious and fragile quasi AWD system not meant for Winter or Severe weather driving... engineered as a marketing device for the uninformed rather than for function.

This is again due to the collapse of the wholesale market in the 1990's which was almost all mass market paperback, the need then to raise prices on mmps as they moved more heavily into the bookstores, and the costs involved with mmp re the returns system (mmp are «returned» for full refund by ripping off their front covers, returning those to the publishers and the rest of the books are pulped because that's cheaper than shipping those units back, which has been a real mess.)

And the risk of that might be too much for you because most years the markets return more than 5 percent, said Courtney.

His money - weighted return was higher than the market's time - weighted return (despite being invested in the market) because had relatively little invested when the market plunged in the early years and bought more when stocks were cheap.

Regulatory institutions such as the Securities and Exchange Commission recommend investors take a long - term approach to S&P performance rather than engage in stock trading because day - to - day stock market returns can vary wildly.

Because USMV's market - like returns have come with less risk, its risk - adjusted returns (a measure of how much risk is involved in generating a security's return) have been better than 99 % of large - cap domestic equity mutual funds and ETFs since its inception.2

«Investors opt for this approach because they want to capture a return from a particular factor — for example, the value premium, rather than make excess returns from getting market timing right,» he continues.

I found this part of the article interesting:... he says, long - term investors must hold stocks, because risky as the market may be, it is still likely to produce better returns than the alternatives.

Investors looking to aggressively grow their wealth are not well suited to money market funds and other highly stable products because the rate of return is often not much greater than inflation.

If the investor could only reinvest at 4 % (say, because market returns fell after the bonds were issued), the investor's actual return on the bond investment would be lower than expected.

Because bear market meltdowns are more frequent than raging bull markets, the downside protection is a true value add in terms of long - term compound return.

Low - risk stocks do better than stocks as a whole because their return is only slightly lower in bull markets and is much better than average in bear markets.

The stock market has, over time, consistently provided investors with higher returns than «safer» investments like certificates of deposits and bonds — but there are also risks because buying stocks means acquiring an ownership interest in companies.

If that was the case it wouldn't really be the intrinsic value, because it's obvious that it's way better than what anyone can get from the average market, or in other words, it's much better than most people required rate of return.

At equal returns, public investments are generally superior to private investments not only because they are more liquid but also because amidst distress, public markets are more likely than private ones to offer attractive opportunities to average down.

Unfortunately, the equity market returns less than a buy - and - hold investor receives, because people buy and sell at the wrong times.

Because reserve cash requires limited liquidity, it can be invested over a horizon of 6 — 12 months, thereby capturing incrementally higher yields and returns than money market funds, while taking on only slightly greater risk and keeping a focus on preservation of principal.

Because of this, when these substantial returns are scaled by much higher risk than the market, it is easy to see that the investor did not beat the market.

Because a GARP strategy employs principles from both value and growth investing, the returns that GARPers see during certain market phases are often different than the returns strictly value or growth investors would see at those times.

Mutual funds in general have lower returns than individual stocks but because they are diversified among many different stocks they also tend to lose less in market downturns.

Historical market data shows the evidence for this relationship between risk and potential rewards: Since 1926, stocks have generated much higher compound annual returns than bonds — 10.0 % vs. 5.5 % — because stocks are a more volatile investment.

Because of our greedy and fearful investment decisions, we earn returns that are several percentage points per year lower than the overall market.

So the market fails to be «rational» (in relation to pricing volatile stocks) not because major market participants are irrational, but rather because they are rationally pursuing a goal other than maximization of risk - adjusted return — namely, the goal of keeping their jobs by not lagging the benchmark.

That is fine, because you can get a guaranteed return by paying down a part of your line of credit rather than roll the dice on the stock market.

Although these average returns may not accurately represent the holdings in VTSMX or your replicated portfolio and the average returns statistics for each market cap may represent slightly different holdings than those of the Vanguard funds, these nuances don't pose a problem in this example because I'm using the same benchmark to estimate the returns on VTSMX and the replicated portfolio.

These awful returns happen even more frequently than a Gaussian function (or bell curve) would predict because stock market returns are not well - behaved Gaussian statistics.

Many investors compare mutual fund performance with the Russell 2000 index because it reflects the return opportunity presented by the entire market rather than opportunities offered by narrower indices, which may contain bias or more stock - specific risk that distort a fund manager's performance.

I also think if you have debt locked in at a low rate, you should instead get it exposed to the market because your return over time will (hopefully) be better than the rate you pay on your debt.

Because of the dream of market returns, most variable annuities have lower contractual benefits and guarantees than their fixed annuity cousins.

This is because their risks are higher and their returns are lower than mutual funds, and then advisers that have yet to get a clue, are bailing when the markets hiccup during the day, thinking this brilliant method of market timing is adding value - when it does not most of the time.

However, insofar as a company pays regular dividends which are increased periodically market prices tend to be a lot less capricious than would otherwise be the case because the shares tend to get priced, at least in part, on a return (or yield) basis.

One thing to add here if you are looking at FIRE in the short run less than ten years you may lean more towards mortgage pay off because in the short term the market can return a low rate.

We can classify all of these ETFs as smart beta because they're designed to capture one of the factors shown to have delivered higher returns than the broad market, or at least similar returns with lower risk.

They then simply apply an HML coefficient to a portfolio of value stocks and — abracadabra — the expected return is higher than the market return but explainable within the efficient markets world because of the additional risk attributable to value.

Because Conservative investors are still «investing,» they should have a higher return over most rolling three - year periods than investing 100 % in money market funds, fixed annuities, CDs, and other bank instruments.

However if at years end stocks are now considered 10 % over valued by those same metrics and your stock allocation is now at 55 % because of the returns then rather than adjusting back down to 50 % perhaps now you adjust your reasonable allocation percentage down to 45 % to reflect to over-valuation that is inherent in the current valuation of the stock market.

This is because investors as a whole can earn no more than the total return of the market (there is only so much juice in an orange).