Markets in a Minute
Buy the Dip, Buy the Rise, or Follow a Plan: Which Had the Best Return?
This infographic is available as a poster.
This infographic is available as a poster.
Buy the Dip, Buy the Rise, or Follow a Plan?
As performance trends come and go, investors may wonder whether they should adjust their portfolios accordingly. When prices drop, should they buy the dip in anticipation of prices going back up? Conversely, when prices rise, should they buy the rise in case the climb continues?
In this Markets in a Minute from New York Life Investments, we compare these scenarios with following a financial plan to see which one has delivered better returns.
A Tale of Three Portfolios
To evaluate these strategies, we compared the historical performance of three hypothetical portfolios:
- Buy the dip: 100% of the portfolio was invested in the worst-performing asset class from the prior year.
- Buy the rise: 100% of the portfolio was invested in the best-performing asset class from the prior year.
- Follow a plan: A balanced portfolio of 60% U.S. large cap stocks and 40% U.S. investment grade bonds for the entire duration.
We considered 13 asset classes to determine the best and worst-performing assets in each year.
| Equities | Fixed Income | Alternatives |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Large Cap Stocks | U.S. Taxable Municipal Bonds | Gold |
| U.S. Small Cap Stocks | U.S. Investment Grade Bonds | Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts |
| Developed Market Stocks | U.S. High Yield Bonds | Hedge Funds |
| Emerging Market Stocks | Foreign Bonds | Global Commodities |
| Cash (U.S. Treasuries) |
Four were within the broad category of equities, five were under the fixed income umbrella, and four were alternative investments.
Portfolio Values Over Time
We assumed all three portfolios had the same starting value of $10,000 as of January 1, 2011. Here’s how the year-end values of the portfolios would have changed over the last decade.
| Buy the Dip | Buy the Rise | Follow a Plan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | $10,007 | $10,893 | $10,433 |
| 2012 | $11,890 | $12,076 | $11,541 |
| 2013 | $11,896 | $12,421 | $13,689 |
| 2014 | $11,911 | $13,137 | $15,109 |
| 2015 | $7,997 | $13,509 | $15,301 |
| 2016 | $8,906 | $14,674 | $16,488 |
| 2017 | $8,979 | $16,616 | $18,814 |
| 2018 | $9,142 | $14,368 | $18,386 |
| 2019 | $10,754 | $14,685 | $22,360 |
| 2020 | $10,812 | $17,387 | $25,414 |
The buy the dip portfolio climbed steeply in 2012. Emerging market stocks, the worst-performing asset class in 2011, rebounded the following year with an annual return of 19%. Unfortunately, the buy the dip portfolio saw its value drop significantly in 2015. Global commodities had the worst return two years in a row, returning -33% in 2014 and 2015. Ultimately, the value of the buy the dip portfolio ended close to where it started, with total gains of just $812.
On the other hand, the buy the rise portfolio saw its worst annual performance in 2018. Emerging market stocks had returned an impressive 36% in 2017, but saw losses the following year. The buy the rise portfolio had its best return in 2020, when U.S. large cap stocks continued their upward climb from the year before. By the end of 2020, the buy the dip portfolio saw gains of over $7,000.
Finally, the balanced follow a plan portfolio experienced a small drop in 2018 when U.S. large cap stocks declined. However, it climbed the following two years due to a recovery in U.S. large cap stocks, which was the top-performing asset class in 2019. In the end, the balanced portfolio more than doubled its original value—the best performance of the three portfolios we analyzed.
Risk and Return
Of course, return is only one side of the equation. To properly evaluate all three strategies, investors can consider both risk and return.
Below, we look at how risk and return stacked up for each portfolio over the 10 year period.
| Buy the Dip | Buy the Rise | Follow a Plan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative Return | 8% | 74% | 154% |
| Min Annual Return | -33% | -14% | -2% |
| Median Annual Return | 1% | 7% | 11% |
| Max Annual Return | 19% | 18% | 22% |
| Standard Deviation | 14% | 9% | 7% |
Standard deviation based on annual returns.
Not only did the buy the dip strategy have the lowest cumulative return, it also had the highest risk. For instance, this portfolio experienced the biggest one-year decline of -33%, and had the highest standard deviation of 14%.
In the middle of the pack, the buy the rise portfolio’s worst drawdown was -14% and it had a standard deviation of 9%. Notably, its median annual return of 7% was much higher than that of the buy the dip portfolio.
Lastly, the follow a plan portfolio performed well on all fronts. Compared to the other two portfolios, it had the highest cumulative return and the lowest risk. Over the 10 year period, its worst annual performance was a decline of just -2%.
Buy the Dip: More Effort & More Risk
Notably, there are lots of variables that could affect the results of these strategies.
- Time period: Are there general market conditions at play? For example, U.S. large cap stocks had a bull market for most of the period we studied, boosting the return of the balanced portfolio.
- Types of securities: Is the portfolio investing in entire asset classes, or specific companies?
- Short-term or medium-term movements: Is the portfolio tracking daily dips and rises, or annual dips and rises?
However, based on this set of data, buy the dip and buy the rise strategies have historically had lower returns and higher risk than a balanced portfolio. If the market doesn’t move in the way the investor predicts, this can result in large drops in the portfolio. It also requires more effort to track these trends, and could result in higher fees from more frequent trading.
In contrast, following a balanced portfolio has historically resulted in lower risk and higher returns. By sticking to a plan, investors are also much more likely to be aligned with where they are on the investor lifecycle. This means their investment choices match up with their goals and risk tolerance.
Markets in a Minute
Mapped: GDP Growth Forecasts by Country, in 2023
The global economy faces an uncertain future in 2023. This year, GDP growth is projected to be 2.9%—down from 3.2% in 2022.
Mapped: GDP Growth Forecasts by Country, in 2023
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine early last year, talk of global recession has dominated the outlook for 2023.
High inflation, spurred by rising energy costs, has tested GDP growth. Tightening monetary policy in the U.S., with interest rates jumping from roughly 0% to over 4% in 2022, has historically preceded a downturn about one to two years later.
For European economies, energy prices are critical. The good news is that prices have fallen recently since March highs, but the continent remains on shaky ground.
The map shows GDP growth forecasts by country for the year ahead, based on projections from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) October 2022 Outlook and January 2023 update.
2023 GDP Growth Outlook
The world economy is projected to see just 2.9% GDP growth in 2023, down from 3.2% projected for 2022.
This is a 0.2% increase since the October 2022 Outlook thanks in part to China’s reopening, higher global demand, and slowing inflation projected across certain countries in the year ahead.
With this in mind, we show GDP growth forecasts for 191 jurisdictions given multiple economic headwinds—and a few emerging bright spots in 2023.
| Country / Region | 2023 Real GDP % Change (Projected) | 2022 Real GDP % Change (Projected) |
|---|---|---|
| 🇦🇱 Albania | 2.5% | 4.0% |
| 🇩🇿 Algeria | 2.6% | 4.7% |
| 🇦🇴 Angola | 3.4% | 2.9% |
| 🇦🇬 Antigua and Barbuda | 5.6% | 6.0% |
| 🇦🇷 Argentina* | 2.0% | 4.0% |
| 🇦🇲 Armenia | 3.5% | 7.0% |
| 🇦🇼 Aruba | 2.0% | 4.0% |
| 🇦🇺 Australia* | 1.6% | 3.8% |
| 🇦🇹 Austria | 1.0% | 4.7% |
| 🇦🇿 Azerbaijan | 2.5% | 3.7% |
| 🇧🇭 Bahrain | 3.0% | 3.4% |
| 🇧🇩 Bangladesh | 6.0% | 7.2% |
| 🇧🇧 Barbados | 5.0% | 10.5% |
| 🇧🇾 Belarus | 0.2% | -7.0% |
| 🇧🇪 Belgium | 0.4% | 2.4% |
| 🇧🇿 Belize | 2.0% | 3.5% |
| 🇧🇯 Benin | 6.2% | 5.7% |
| 🇧🇹 Bhutan | 4.3% | 4.0% |
| 🇧🇴 Bolivia | 3.2% | 3.8% |
| 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina | 2.0% | 2.4% |
| 🇧🇼 Botswana | 4.0% | 4.1% |
| 🇧🇷 Brazil* | 1.2% | 2.8% |
| 🇧🇳 Brunei Darussalam | 3.3% | 1.2% |
| 🇧🇬 Bulgaria | 3.0% | 2.9% |
| 🇧🇫 Burkina Faso | 4.8% | 3.6% |
| 🇧🇮 Burundi | 4.1% | 3.3% |
| 🇨🇻 Cabo Verde | 4.8% | 4.0% |
| 🇨🇲 Cameroon | 4.6% | 3.8% |
| 🇰🇭 Cambodia | 6.2% | 5.1% |
| 🇨🇦 Canada* | 1.5% | 3.3% |
| 🇨🇫 Central African Republic | 3.0% | 1.5% |
| 🇹🇩 Chad | 3.4% | 3.3% |
| 🇨🇱 Chile | -1.0% | 2.0% |
| 🇨🇳 China* | 5.3% | 3.2% |
| 🇨🇴 Colombia | 2.2% | 7.6% |
| 🇰🇲 Comoros | 3.4% | 3.0% |
| 🇨🇷 Costa Rica | 2.9% | 3.8% |
| 🇨🇮 Côte d'Ivoire | 6.5% | 5.5% |
| 🇭🇷 Croatia | 3.5% | 5.9% |
| 🇨🇾 Cyprus | 2.5% | 3.5% |
| 🇨🇿 Czech Republic | 1.5% | 1.9% |
| 🇨🇩 Democratic Republic of the Congo | 6.7% | 6.1% |
| 🇩🇰 Denmark | 0.6% | 2.6% |
| 🇩🇯 Djibouti | 5.0% | 3.6% |
| 🇩🇲 Dominica | 4.9% | 6.0% |
| 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic | 4.5% | 5.3% |
| 🇪🇨 Ecuador | 2.7% | 2.9% |
| 🇪🇬 Egypt* | 4.0% | 6.6% |
| 🇸🇻 El Salvador | 1.7% | 2.6% |
| 🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea | -3.1% | 5.8% |
| 🇪🇷 Eritrea | 2.9% | 2.6% |
| 🇪🇪 Estonia | 1.8% | 1.0% |
| 🇸🇿 Eswatini | 1.8% | 2.4% |
| 🇪🇹 Ethiopia | 5.3% | 3.8% |
| 🇫🇯 Fiji | 6.9% | 12.5% |
| 🇫🇮 Finland | 0.5% | 2.1% |
| 🇫🇷 France* | 0.7% | 2.5% |
| 🇲🇰 North Macedonia | 3.0% | |
| 🇬🇦 Gabon | 3.7% | 2.7% |
| 🇬🇪 Georgia | 4.0% | 9.0% |
| 🇩🇪 Germany* | 0.1% | 1.5% |
| 🇬🇭 Ghana | 2.8% | 3.6% |
| 🇬🇷 Greece | 1.8% | 5.2% |
| 🇬🇩 Grenada | 3.6% | 3.6% |
| 🇬🇹 Guatemala | 3.2% | 3.4% |
| 🇬🇳 Guinea | 5.1% | 4.6% |
| 🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau | 4.5% | 3.8% |
| 🇬🇾 Guyana | 25.2% | 57.8% |
| 🇭🇹 Haiti | 0.5% | -1.2% |
| 🇭🇳 Honduras | 3.5% | 3.4% |
| 🇭🇰 Hong Kong SAR | 3.9% | -0.8% |
| 🇭🇺 Hungary | 1.8% | 5.7% |
| 🇮🇸 Iceland | 2.9% | 5.1% |
| 🇮🇳 India* | 6.1% | 6.8% |
| 🇮🇩 Indonesia* | 4.8% | 5.3% |
| 🇮🇶 Iraq | 4.0% | 9.3% |
| 🇮🇪 Ireland | 4.0% | 9.0% |
| 🇮🇷 Iran* | 2.0% | 3.0% |
| 🇮🇱 Israel | 3.0% | 6.1% |
| 🇮🇹 Italy* | 0.6% | 3.2% |
| 🇯🇲 Jamaica | 3.0% | 2.8% |
| 🇯🇵 Japan* | 1.8% | 1.7% |
| 🇯🇴 Jordan | 2.7% | 2.4% |
| 🇰🇿 Kazakhstan* | 4.3% | 2.5% |
| 🇰🇪 Kenya | 5.1% | 5.3% |
| 🇰🇮 Kiribati | 2.4% | 1.0% |
| 🇰🇷 South Korea* | 1.7% | 2.6% |
| 🇽🇰 Kosovo | 3.5% | 2.7% |
| 🇰🇼 Kuwait | 2.6% | 8.7% |
| 🇰🇬 Kyrgyz Republic | 3.2% | 3.8% |
| 🇱🇦 Lao P.D.R. | 3.1% | 2.2% |
| 🇱🇻 Latvia | 1.6% | 2.5% |
| 🇱🇸 Lesotho | 1.6% | 2.1% |
| 🇱🇷 Liberia | 4.2% | 3.7% |
| 🇱🇾 Libya | 17.9% | -18.4% |
| 🇱🇹 Lithuania | 1.1% | 1.8% |
| 🇱🇺 Luxembourg | 1.1% | 1.6% |
| 🇲🇴 Macao SAR | 56.7% | -22.4% |
| 🇲🇬 Madagascar | 5.2% | 4.2% |
| 🇲🇼 Malawi | 2.5% | 0.9% |
| 🇲🇾 Malaysia* | 4.4% | 5.4% |
| 🇲🇻 Maldives | 6.1% | 8.7% |
| 🇲🇱 Mali | 5.3% | 2.5% |
| 🇲🇹 Malta | 3.3% | 6.2% |
| 🇲🇭 Marshall Islands | 3.2% | 1.5% |
| 🇲🇷 Mauritania | 4.8% | 4.0% |
| 🇲🇺 Mauritius | 5.4% | 6.1% |
| 🇲🇽 Mexico* | 1.7% | 2.1% |
| 🇫🇲 Micronesia | 2.9% | -0.6% |
| 🇲🇩 Moldova | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| 🇲🇳 Mongolia | 5.0% | 2.5% |
| 🇲🇪 Montenegro | 2.5% | 7.2% |
| 🇲🇦 Morocco | 3.1% | 08% |
| 🇲🇿 Mozambique | 4.9% | 3.7% |
| 🇲🇲 Myanmar | 3.3% | 2.0% |
| 🇳🇦 Namibia | 3.2% | 3.0% |
| 🇳🇷 Nauru | 2.0% | 0.9% |
| 🇳🇵 Nepal | 5.0% | 4.2% |
| 🇳🇱 Netherlands* | 0.6% | 4.5% |
| 🇳🇿 New Zealand | 1.9% | 2.3% |
| 🇳🇮 Nicaragua | 3.0% | 4.0% |
| 🇳🇪 Niger | 7.3% | 6.7% |
| 🇳🇬 Nigeria* | 3.2% | 3.2% |
| 🇳🇴 Norway | 2.6% | 3.6% |
| 🇴🇲 Oman | 4.1% | 4.4% |
| 🇵🇰 Pakistan* | 2.0% | 6.0% |
| 🇵🇼 Palau | 12.3% | -2.8% |
| 🇵🇦 Panama | 4.0% | 7.5% |
| 🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea | 5.1% | 3.8% |
| 🇵🇾 Paraguay | 4.3% | 0.2% |
| 🇵🇪 Peru | 2.6% | 2.7% |
| 🇵🇭 Philippines* | 5.0% | 6.5% |
| 🇵🇱 Poland* | 0.3% | 3.8% |
| 🇵🇹 Portugal | 0.7% | 6.2% |
| 🇵🇷 Puerto Rico | 0.4% | 4.8% |
| 🇶🇦 Qatar | 2.4% | 3.4% |
| 🇨🇬 Republic of Congo | 4.6% | 4.3% |
| 🇷🇴 Romania | 3.1% | 4.8% |
| 🇷🇺 Russia* | 0.3% | -3.4% |
| 🇷🇼 Rwanda | 6.7% | 6.0% |
| 🇼🇸 Samoa | 4.0% | -5.0% |
| 🇸🇲 San Marino | 0.8% | 3.1% |
| 🇸🇹 São Tomé and Príncipe | 2.6% | 1.4% |
| 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia* | 2.6% | 7.6% |
| 🇸🇳 Senegal | 8.1% | 4.7% |
| 🇷🇸 Serbia | 2.7% | 3.5% |
| 🇸🇨 Seychelles | 5.2% | 10.9% |
| 🇸🇱 Sierra Leone | 3.3% | 2.4% |
| 🇸🇬 Singapore | 2.3% | 3.0% |
| 🇸🇰 Slovak Republic | 1.5% | 1.8% |
| 🇸🇮 Slovenia | 1.7% | 5.7% |
| 🇸🇧 Solomon Islands | 2.6% | -4.5% |
| 🇸🇴 Somalia | 3.1% | 1.9% |
| 🇿🇦 South Africa* | 1.2% | 2.1% |
| 🇸🇸 South Sudan | 5.6% | 6.5% |
| 🇪🇸 Spain* | 1.1% | 4.3% |
| 🇱🇰 Sri Lanka | -3.0% | -8.7% |
| 🇰🇳 St. Kitts and Nevis | 4.8% | 9.8% |
| 🇱🇨 St. Lucia | 5.8% | 9.1% |
| 🇻🇨 St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 6.0% | 5.0% |
| 🇸🇩 Sudan | 2.6% | -0.3% |
| 🇸🇷 Suriname | 2.3% | 1.3% |
| 🇸🇪 Sweden | -0.1% | 2.6% |
| 🇨🇭 Switzerland | 0.8% | 2.2% |
| 🇹🇼 Taiwan | 2.8% | 3.3% |
| 🇹🇯 Tajikistan | 4.0% | 5.5% |
| 🇹🇿 Tanzania | 5.2% | 4.5% |
| 🇹🇭 Thailand* | 3.7% | 2.8% |
| 🇧🇸 The Bahamas | 4.1% | 8.0% |
| 🇬🇲 The Gambia | 6.0% | 5.0% |
| 🇹🇱 Timor-Leste | 4.2% | 3.3% |
| 🇹🇬 Togo | 6.2% | 5.4% |
| 🇹🇴 Tonga | 2.9% | -2.0% |
| 🇹🇹 Trinidad and Tobago | 3.5% | 4.0% |
| 🇹🇳 Tunisia | 1.6% | 2.2% |
| 🇹🇷 Turkey* | 3.0% | 5.0% |
| 🇹🇲 Turkmenistan | 2.3% | 1.2% |
| 🇹🇻 Tuvalu | 3.5% | 3.0% |
| 🇺🇬 Uganda | 5.9% | 4.4% |
| 🇺🇦 Ukraine | N/A | -35.0% |
| 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates | 4.2% | 5.1% |
| 🇬🇧 United Kingdom* | -0.6% | 3.6% |
| 🇺🇲 U.S.* | 1.4% | 1.6% |
| 🇺🇾 Uruguay | 3.6% | 5.3% |
| 🇺🇿 Uzbekistan | 4.7% | 5.2% |
| 🇻🇺 Vanuatu | 3.1% | 1.7% |
| 🇻🇪 Venezuela | 6.5% | 6.0% |
| 🇻🇳 Vietnam | 6.2% | 7.0% |
| West Bank and Gaza | 3.5% | 4.0% |
| 🇾🇪 Yemen | 3.3% | 2.0% |
| 🇿🇲 Zambia | 4.0% | 2.9% |
| 🇿🇼 Zimbabwe | 2.8% | 3.0% |
*Reflect updated figures from the January 2023 IMF Update.
The U.S. is forecast to see 1.4% GDP growth in 2023, up from 1.0% seen in the last October projection.
Still, signs of economic weakness can be seen in the growing wave of tech layoffs, foreshadowed as a white-collar or ‘Patagonia-vest’ recession. Last year, 88,000 tech jobs were cut and this trend has continued into 2023. Major financial firms have also followed suit. Still, unemployment remains fairly steadfast, at 3.5% as of December 2022. Going forward, concerns remain around inflation and the path of interest rate hikes, though both show signs of slowing.
Across Europe, the average projected GDP growth rate is 0.7% for 2023, a sharp decline from the 2.1% forecast for last year.
Both Germany and Italy are forecast to see slight growth, at 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Growth forecasts were revised upwards since the IMF’s October release. However, an ongoing energy crisis exposes the manufacturing sector to vulnerabilities, with potential spillover effects to consumers and businesses, and overall Euro Area growth.
China remains an open question. In 2023, growth is predicted to rise 5.2%, higher than many large economies. While its real estate sector has shown signs of weakness, the recent opening on January 8th, following 1,016 days of zero-Covid policy, could boost demand and economic activity.
A Long Way to Go
The IMF has stated that 2023 will feel like a recession for much of the global economy. But whether it is headed for a recovery or a sharper decline remains unknown.
Today, two factors propping up the global economy are lower-than-expected energy prices and resilient private sector balance sheets. European natural gas prices have sunk to levels seen before the war in Ukraine. During the height of energy shocks, firms showed a notable ability to withstand astronomical energy prices squeezing their finances. They are also sitting on significant cash reserves.
On the other hand, inflation is far from over. To counter this effect, many central banks will have to use measures to rein in prices. This may in turn have a dampening effect on economic growth and financial markets, with unknown consequences.
As economic data continues to be released over the year, there may be a divergence between consumer sentiment and whether things are actually changing in the economy. Where the economy is heading in 2023 will be anyone’s guess.
Markets in a Minute
Chart: The State of U.S. Retirement Assets in 2022
U.S. retirement assets have faced challenging conditions amid market headwinds—but over the last decade these assets have nearly doubled.
This infographic is available as a poster.
Chart: The State of U.S. Retirement Assets in 2022
Today, many people are questioning the effects of high inflation on their retirement assets.
This Markets in a Minute from New York Life Investments charts the state of U.S. retirement assets to show how Americans are building their retirement savings, and where these assets are being drawn from.
U.S. Retirement Assets: Where it Stands Today
As of 2022, there was over $33 trillion being held in U.S. retirement assets.
For perspective, that’s about 31% of all household financial assets in America and nearly double the amount seen a decade ago. In the table below, we show how this breaks down by retirement asset type, using data from the Investment Company Institute:
| Type of Retirement Asset | 2022* | 2012 | 2002 | 1992 | 1982 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRAs | $11.7T | $5.8T | $2.5T | $872B | $67B |
| DC Plans | $9.3T | $5.2T | $2.6T | $1.1T | $264B |
| State and Local Government DB Plans | $5.1T | $3.2T | $2.1T | $958B | $260B |
| Private-Sector DB Plans | $3.2T | $2.7T | $1.7T | $1.1T | $479B |
| Federal DB Plans | $2.2T | $1.3T | $800B | $411B | $99B |
| Annuities | $2.2T | $1.7T | $899B | $473B | $180B |
| Total | $33.7T | $19.9T | $10.5T | $5.0T | $1.3T |
*As of Q2 2022.
As seen above, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) hold the most retirement assets, at 34% of the total. Since 2012, they have doubled, jumping from $5.8 trillion to $11.7 trillion in 2022.
Today, about 37% of Americans hold an IRA.
With $9.3 trillion in assets, defined contribution (DC) plans are the second-greatest source of savings. These type of plans have the employee make contributions that are automatically deducted from their paycheck. Here, employers have the option to make contributions. Like IRAs, they have grown considerably in the last 10 years.
Defined benefit (DB) plans, meanwhile, have declined in usage, especially in the private sector. In 1982, private-sector DB plans made up almost 40% of U.S. retirement assets. In 2022, they accounted for under 10% of these assets.
Overall, retirement assets have declined in 2022 due to weak market performance—after a record year in 2021 driven by higher contributions, a strong market, and other factors.
U.S. Financial Security in 2022
With these factors at play, how are Americans feeling about their financial security, and how is this impacting their retirement outlook?
In one Ipsos survey, just 56% of Americans surveyed said they felt good about their overall level of financial security.
When it comes to their long-term outlook, chief among concerns is inflation. Over half surveyed said that it will likely have a big impact on their ability to save for retirement and meet other long-term financial goals. Rising interest rates and medical costs are other areas of concern, with about one-third saying they will have a large impact on achieving these outcomes.
Meanwhile, 59% of Americans said they feel confident they have enough savings to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Of these, Baby Boomers feel most confident at 70%, while Gen Z (48%) feels least confident.
The good news is that inflation looks to have hit its peak in the summer of 2022. Still, reaching a 2-3% target may take a longer period of time. With this in mind, looking to investment strategies that include floating-rate bonds and real estate, infrastructure, and value equities may help insulate retirement assets from market fluctations and inflation.
-
Markets in a Minute2 years agoVisualizing the 200-Year History of U.S. Interest Rates
-
Markets in a Minute3 years agoThe Pyramid of Equity Returns: Almost 200 Years of U.S. Stock Performance
-
Markets in a Minute2 years agoAll S&P 500 Sectors and Industries, by Size
-
Markets in a Minute2 years agoVisualizing the History of U.S. Inflation Over 100 Years
-
Markets in a Minute2 years agoVisualizing the Hierarchy of Financial Needs
-
Infographics11 months agoThe Top Investment Quotes Every Investor Should Know
-
Markets in a Minute3 years agoAsset Class Risk and Return Over the Last Decade (2010-2019)
-
Markets in a Minute2 years agoIdentifying Your Stage on the Investor Lifecycle
