Interesting article in Morningstar today: The tortoise wins in investing (I've linked to the public version of the article instead of premium) - a few snippets from the article below ...
For decades, it’s been a truism that taking greater risks with stocks should equate to higher returns. New research casts doubt on that and suggests investing in ‘boring’ stocks and industries may be a better bet
Just-released research, that debunks the long-held notion that taking greater risks in markets equates to higher returns. If right, it has ramifications for how investors should allocate assets for their portfolios
The study reveals that for low and medium volatility shares, returns are clustered. That means volatility is shown to have little effect on returns. For high volatility stocks, the results are more striking. They reveal that these stocks dramatically unperformed the rest. In other words, investors haven’t been rewarded for putting money into stocks with high volatility; they’ve been punished
The latest UBS research builds on their earlier, better-known work on whether it’s better to invest in new industries, often characterised by higher volatility and risk, or older, more seasoned sectors. Its 2015 study examined the rise and fall of industries in the US and UK since 1900
It found that though new industries and companies have transformed the world, they’ve often been disappointing investments. Why? Because, historically, there’s been a tendency for the market to overvalue new industries and technologies
On the flip side, markets have tended to undervalue older industries, and that’s resulted in superior performance over time