Interessante perceber que apesar do século XX ter sido o século do Normalistão e do eficientismo, ainda assim:
"Shares in smaller companies came out on top. Investing £1 in 1955 in the Numis 1000 index, which represents the smallest UK-listed companies, would have produced £12,144 by the end of last year. The same £1 invested in the FTSE All Share would have grown to just £829.E, recordando esta figura:
Most investors will not have a 60-year time horizon. But even over more realistic holding periods, smaller shares still shine. Over 10-year periods, smaller firms outperformed larger ones five times out of six."
"Small firms generally carry higher risks for investors than the big blue-chip firms in the FTSE 100 index."E para um blogue que aposta nas idiossincrasias como este, o que se segue é poesia:
"“At times when economic growth is weak, which I think will remain the case in the coming years, smaller companies considerably outperform larger companies,” Mr Williams said. “This is because the growth potential of a smaller company tends to be more closely linked with factors specific to the individual company rather than economic trends.”"Por isso, o conselho de fazer como Ulisses mandou os seus marinheiros fazerem, pôr cera nos ouvidos e não ouvir os geradores de cortisol que encharcam os media.
Trechos retirados de "In numbers: how tiny companies have outperformed the giants over six decades"