- #71
NTL2009
- 622
- 386
With all due respect, I am at a loss as to how you can make that statement based on what I posted. I've said, and implied, no such thing. I hope my communications skills are not this poor!PeroK said:Taken at face value, your analysis implies there is essentially no risk investing in stocks. I'm highly sceptical. The moral that stocks can go down as well as up would appear, in the long term, to be false. They must, in your analysis, double every 20 years?
...
PeroK said:... My guess is that an element of hindsight bias has crept in. With hindsight the prudent investor would have done X, Y and Z over the years. And A, B and C are considered mistakes.
In other words, the strategy you propose has been tailored to the specific stock market conditions of the last 100 years. A strategy that would have looked equally viable at the time but would have lost money has subsequently, with hindsight, been deselected. ...
This sounds to me that you are thinking I may have cherry-picked the data to fit my view? Just the opposite, I chose those dates based on input from others that they would be the very worst time to invest.
I did choose a source with 20 year rolling returns for the market, as I do believe that if someone is trying to make a mortgage pay-off decision, they should consider the long run. I'd say that is appropriate and meaningful to the discussion.
PeroK said:... I'm also sceptical about how one tracks the indexes and to what extent these are a true reflection of long term stock market growth. Amazon was not a company in 1919, so at some point stocks need to be swapped in and out. This costs money and not everyone can buy stocks at exactly the same time etc.
The third point is how charges and fund management fees are accounted for. ...
You can find the data sources on the internet. A search on "shiller stock data 1871" will get you one commonly used data set.
Management fees are accounted for in the cfiresim source I linked. Now it's true, low cost, broadly diversified mutual funds/ETFs were not available in 1929, trading costs were higher, so this isn't meant so much as a literal analysis of what a person in 1929 could do, but more useful (since none of us are going back to 1929), as to what we might expect if the market took a similar plunge today (as they say, history doesn't repeat so much as it rhymes).
PeroK said:... Fourth, I suspect there is an element of averaging here. The average investor may get 3.1%, but that does not mean that everyone gets exactly 3.1%. Some investors do very well, some okay, some break even and some lose money. That is the nature of "risk". Unlike fixed returns where everyone gets the same.
The first research I would do is to determine how the raw stock market growth equates to the returns that an individual investor can expect. ...
But I don't care what the 'average person' did or will do. I'm trying to plan for myself and my family, arming myself with knowledge. I could make parallels, if (for illustration), we say the average person who attends college does not get a good paying/satisfying job in their field, do we use that to tell someone they should not pursue an advanced degree in Physics? I think not. Many people have made very good use of their degrees, or by learning an in-demand trade. Who cares about the 'average people', I don't want to be average, I want to excel (at least in some things).
PeroK said:... I can well imagine that if I invested a sum in the stock market and came back 20 years later I would have doubled my money or better. But, I can also imagine (perhaps wrongly) that I might not and that I might even have lost money.
The chart I presented showed no loss in the market for any 20 year period (there are some 10 year periods with losses). That doesn't mean, and I certainly did not intend to imply, that such a loss is impossible, or beyond consideration. But I do think it is worth considering that it hasn't happened in this reported time frame. I'm not going to ignore it, and I'm not going to say anything outside of that is impossible either. But w/o a crystal ball, I can only look backwards, apply some reasoning, and be willing to place a bet, if/when I think conditions warrant it.
Turning this around, does the fear of a chance of losing money in the market over a 20 year period keep you 100% out of stocks? And if so, what is the alternative? You are almost guaranteed of losing significant buying power if you keep your money in cash/bonds. You might try TIPS, but I think there are limits to those, and will they be around in the future if you need to roll them over?