For the past 200 years, the average return for U.S. stocks (discounting inflation) is 6-8%. Why?

1. Expansion rate alters consequently higher and bring down returns of the stocks between 6-8%. As we realize that in that era there were higher swelling rate in the US economy, thus higher profits for the stocks consequently falls between 6-8% territory because of reducing on this higher expansion rate.

It is additionally evident that at whatever point because of blast time of the economy, stocks produce higher return then general swelling in the economy will likewise be higher because of blast period subsequently net profits for the stocks won't be as significantly higher as it looks in ostensible profits for these stocks. In the event of retreat period there will be bring down reducing rate thus bring down profits for the stocks will be in same range between 6-8% approx.

2. Drawn out stretch of time is additionally another purpose behind this. As we know that in long haul timeframe variances in the stocks' arrival will be consequently set-off. At the end of the day we can state that transient major ups and downs in the profits on stocks will be balanced in drawn out stretch of time. What's more, when we consider normal of 200 years then we will get normal picture of the profits, not for a specific year or years consequently it demonstrates that fleeting period high ups and downs won't indicate real effect on long haul midpoints. That is the reason for as long as 200 years, the normal return for U.S. stocks (marking down swelling) is 6-8%.

THE Q is : What is the relevant risk of a stock, and how is it measured? How is this information useful to an investor?