Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Whenever a mutual fund advertises performance, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires that it include the disclaimer that "past performance does not guarantee future results." A study by ...
Although past performance is a natural consideration and has been used as an implied evaluation factor, its use was not formalized by the U.S. government until the 1960s through a Department of Defense past performance reporting system known as the Contractor Performance Report. [3] Defining past performance as an evaluation factor ...
In addition, investors are advised that past investment product performance is no guarantee of future price appreciation. Show comments. Advertisement. Advertisement. In Other News.
Like most investments, past performance doesn't guarantee future returns, and so you shouldn't invest in mutual funds unless you can absorb periodic losses.
A multibagger stock is an equity stock which gives a return of more than 100%. The term was coined by Peter Lynch in his 1988 book One Up on Wall Street and comes from baseball where "bags" or "bases" that a runner reaches are the measure of the success of a play. [1]
Generally, past consideration is not a valid consideration and has no legal value. Past consideration is consideration that has already flowed from the promisee to the promisor. That is, the promisee's act or forbearance predates the promisor's promise. Past consideration therefore cannot be used as a basis when claiming damages. [38]
"Past consideration is no consideration": consideration must be "executory" or "executed", but not "past"; that is, consideration must be supplied in the present or in the future, but things done beforehand cannot be good consideration. [5] ex nudo pacto actio non oritur; Dyer's case (1414) 2 Hen. 5, 5 Pl. 26
The leading case is Stilk v Myrick (1809), [3] where a captain promised 8 crew the wages of two deserters provided the remainders completed the voyage. The shipowner refused to honour the agreement; the court deemed the eight crew were unable to enforce the deal as they had an existing obligation to sail the ship and meet "ordinary foreseeable emergencies".