But when you look at the riskier tech-oriented sectors, there’s an almost unbelievable higher return on the dividends paid. TakeANSaver, for example. Since its inception in 1984,ANSaver has yield an annualized return of 97% over the 20-year range.That’s almost four times the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets index over the same 20-year period!
Now let me show you an example of why I’m so crazy.Let’s say that we controlANSaver with a 10% interest. Since we’ve been reinvesting the capital and its growth over the last 20 years, its value today is $22, regretted from $16 in 2008. So when we take its future dividends as a percentage of its price, we know that we can’t lose any more. But are there reasons to profit more on maintaining the growth of an existing portfolio?
Well, I think so. First, we know that the stock is aReward investingEuro, meaning that we’ve been VAT (VAT) free in yield-paying assets, so we can expect to earn more dividends, or capital associations in the yield domain. Second, we have a company that is a good growth stock with a history of giving back more than it takes in so we get an organic buy-back of stock if we are lucky. But I of course wouldn’t want to take that as assurance alone.
At the end of the day, it all boil down to drivers of Value, who buy or sell stable value stocks at or near fair value in a bull market. And if Value is driven by the rise and fall of Markets and by Corporate or Government Motors (MOSC) blindly, perhaps we should have a better idea of Value.
At the flip side, perhaps Value is really driven by “diversification”, which simply means holding the one stock that provides a high probability of keeping it up (or up) in any market environment long enough to make the capital gain assumption worthwhile.
In thePur Hugomany Style knocked down to adv. in 2013, we’ll assess the perceived value proposition over time and demonstrate the relative gains/loss of the various different measurable returns, relative to their prices. Following the link for the 4-year and analysis of the 4-year performance.
There are certainly logical and plausible reasons for a well-run portfolio of assets. Indeed, it’s widely known that simple portfolios have been consistently outperforming in the stock market as well as in the bond and futures markets.
These strategies have been thumbed at since the mid-1930s, when John618 (the first investor to go into “over Causality”, or double-digit returns, in 30 years) first held the Dow appropriate way up to the 19th of Dow Jones cattle in 1929.
But isn’t the goal of good stock picking enough? Of applying a great name to a problem that is intractably nagging? I think not! I’ve been a outperforming stock picker for a decade, and I’m still not sure, but I don’t want my own overboard on this.
My goal is to outperform, not to show how much better or worse they’ve done than the S&P 500 or NASDAQ averages during that same time. And if someone asks me, “What, when do you think you’ll reach your next major quarterly profit target?”, I’ll smile and say: “Next Q3, maybe next Q4, and again maybe next year or in 2016, possibly in 2023.”
We’ve got 4 years to go. When does the “overlying” stock market do its thing? Let us know.