2 ms·
Well your assumption that a stock has to outperform a specific market index to be consider worthy is not true. S&P500 is just an index of 500 capital sorted han
by nivla 13y ago
Well your assumption that a stock has to outperform a specific market index to be consider worthy is not true. S&P500 is just an index of 500 capital sorted hand picked companies.
You made some flawed assumptions:
[1] All companies in the index pay dividends.
[2] MSFT is not one of the companies in the index.
[3] There is only one industry in the index or all industries in the index are somehow complementary (ie. a loss/gain in one will see a similar loss/gain in another)
[4] Most industry are related to Technology (Only 62 out of the 500 companies are in the Technology sector)
Using your example, if the Technology industry outperforms all other industry within a given period, Person A would enjoy a profit whereas Person B might walk away with a loss.
Market indices shouldn't be used as the benchmark for the true reflection of a company's performance/worth. Lockheed Martin is the key example, its one of the most desired stocks that has been growing steadily and pays one of the highest dividends, yet it underperforms the market.
- throwawaymsft 13y agoA decision to invest in Microsoft needs to be compared against the opportunity cost: investing in an unbiased sample of companies (you can invest in the Russel 2000 if you want), for much less risk. Taking a job to work at McDonalds is a bad decision when the alternative (picking a random job available to you, essentially) pays more. Even if you "get paid" while working at McDonalds, it wasn't a worthwhile decision. (By the way, stocks are absolutely compared against the average market to see if they are a worthwhile decision. Why do you want to invest in an underperformer when you can invest randomly and do better? It's like testing a drug against a placebo.)