When I was a young man in the 1970s, tech firms were scattered across the developed world. Since then, America has come to dominate tech almost totally.
From Kenneth Fisher
Over rolling long periods, U.S. and non-U.S. stocks tend to equalize.
All equity categories, correctly calculated, create near-identical lifelong returns. They just get there via wildly differing paths.
Back in the '60s and '70s, data were scarce, and while analysts knew that companies with fat gross margins lagged those with thin gross margins early in bull markets - and overachieved in the later phases - they couldn't do much about it.
Long before folks fretted the demise of 'quantitative easing,' I fretted its existence. It proved the reverse of its image, an antistimulus, and we've done okay not because of it, but despite it.
Both cheap value stocks and more glamorous growth stocks can work well in a portfolio - if done right.
Having different types of stocks in your portfolio can enhance returns.
Generally, variations in earnings aren't nearly as impactful on glamour growth stocks as are changes in image and, well, sexiness. I often think of glamour stocks as though they are attractive women dressing to the nines.
Fundamentally cheap stocks are often held in low regard by market participants. Something may be tainting their perception in investors' minds.
What is the most common investor mistake? Trading - getting in and getting out at all the wrong times, for all the wrong reasons.
20 perspectives
15 perspectives
12 perspectives
10 perspectives
7 perspectives
2 perspectives
1 perspectives