What makes this discussion complicated is:

导致这一问题复杂化的因素是：

First, many inexperienced investors fail to realize that, even though companies like Eastman Kodak went bankrupt, long-term investors still should have walked away with a lot more wealth than they had prior to their investment.

首先，很多缺乏经验的投资者没有意识到即使像柯达这样的公司破产了，长期投资者仍然可以带着比投资之前赚到的更多的钱转移资金。

This can be difficult to grasp if you aren't aware of how dividends, spin-offs, split-off, and even tax loss credits work but it is, nevertheless, the case.

如果你不懂股息、剥离、分拆，甚至抵税是如何操作的，那这个很难掌握，但事实仍然并非如此。

Second, for 20 to 30 years after the Nifty Fifty peaked, the basket of stocks, as a whole, underperformed the market.

其次，Nifty Fifty火爆之后的20-30年间，股票篮子整体市场表现不佳。

However, by the time you started getting into the 30 to 40-year range, the underlying businesses were, in fact, so good that they ultimately ended up beating the market as the core economic engines were so superior they burned off the excess valuation.

然而你买了30-40年之后，这个潜在的投资产品其实也很好，最终能战胜股市，因为核心经济引擎太好了，能消耗掉过剩价值。

【大公司不一定是好的投资之选】相关文章：

★ 为什么成功的投资者善于管理情绪?

★ 每天1万步就叫健康吗？这原来是日本人的营销

★ 中国人对奶酪的兴趣开始发酵

★ 我国科学家发现了可抑制HIV扩散的蛋白质

★ 懂礼貌的你一定得拥抱你不愿拥抱的人吗?

★ 外国领导人对“一带一路”竖起大拇指

★ 今天会是美好的一天

★ 光头更具吸引力？男生再也不怕脱发了

★ 你做过什么最勇敢的事？

★ 科学家验证奶牛的幽默感