Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Downtown said:

I also didn't realize those charts were split-adjusted. Still, its interesting to see Oilerman's 26 year positive window that includes 3 very large market corrections.

 

It's a 26 year window that started soon after Black Monday.  There wasn't a better time to begin making contributions in our lifetime.

 

Also, the 3 market corrections were short lived when compared to ones from before we were born.

 

Edited by abenjami
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jfc are you a boomer? Here...    

This is one of the problems.... It could go higher for much longer and/or when you get in it could go lower much longer..... You have to guess right twice

Way back when Bush was president he signed this https://theweek.com/articles/767184/how-george-bush-broke-post-office   Around the same time my house flooded, home insurance doesn't cover fl

Posted Images

30 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

I stayed out because the market shot up so fast I couldn't get back in.  And then it just kept going up and up and up.

All the more reason to admit the mistake and get in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Starkiller said:


Happened last week, too. 
 

Maybe they hit bottom. Or maybe it’s just a dead cat bounce.

 

Could also be a hedge against tomorrow's open.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Downtown said:

That's not how compound interest works though. You're not calculating the 30 years of other gains compounded and just looking at the comparative figures, while also discounting any splits that occurred during that timeframe along with passively re-investing dividends. 

 

In short, you'd have way more shares, but at a lower cost.

 

S&P would have resulted in a 900% gain from 1955 to 1985 versus a 300% gain if looking at pure inflation. 

 

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-periodic-reinvestment-calculator-dividends/

 

You'd also be dollar cost averaging in over that 30 years and adding shares. The average investor doesn't drop in in 1955 and ride it for 30 years with a lump sum. 

 

Looking more at the 55-85 time frame it would have actually been a great time. Assuming you're contributing over those 30 years, then in 85 you retire. Your sequence of returns once you start making withdrawals in retirement would have been great. Starting in 85 until now the market has consistently went up. Your account would have grown even while making withdrawals. You'd have more now than when you retired using basic strategy 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, abenjami said:

 

It's a 26 year window that started soon after Black Monday.  There wasn't a better time to begin making contributions in our lifetime.

 

Also, the 3 market corrections were short lived when compared to ones from before we were born.

 

 

7 years isn't very soon after black Monday 

 

I went from a S&P type fund to a small cap fund in 08 that did very well after the 08 recession 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/dont-touch-your-stocks-during-coronavirus-crisis/607672/?fbclid=IwAR0mj1kemjSn1AC69_gvbkLXRVLaxtNOInl8ljPdq_SdJ71j3uCNqZK2qKE

 

The market is panicking and plummeting now as the horror of COVID-19 is taking hold. It might crash harder as the mortality count gets worse and governments enact strict measures to contain the virus. Or it might rebound as countries get the worst of the epidemic behind them and financial regulators take action.

 

Which one? Nobody knows. That is the whole point: Timing the market is a game for professionals, not amateurs. And most professionals are terrible at it too. Study after study has shown that “active” investors, meaning ones who shuffle investments around to take advantage of new information and supposed opportunities, tend to do worse than “passive” investors, meaning ones who buy the broad market and walk away. One Morningstar analysis found that just one in four active funds beat the average returns provided by passive funds over a decade-long period, and that cheap-and-dumb funds were twice as successful as expensive-and-smart ones. And study after study has shown that the old investment chestnut is correct: Time in the market beats timing the market.

 

Say you were to sell your equities today, and to hold cash or bonds as the market plummeted. What are the chances you would be selling at the nadir? How would you know when the equities market had hit bottom? Would you be able to act fast enough if there were a muscular policy response and a surprise rebound? How much of a surge would you be willing to miss out on to make sure that you were not catching a dead-cat bounce? Even if you got out of the market at the right time, you would probably struggle to get back in at the right time.

 

Investing on a longer time horizon means not worrying about buying dips and selling highs. And studies demonstrate that buying and holding assets for the long term is a great strategy for average folks saving for retirement, and for everybody: rich, poor, old, young, risk-averse, and risk-hungry. In one 10-year analysis, hedge funds—highly sophisticated investment instruments available only to the richest of the rich—returned a quarter of what plain-vanilla, market-tracking index funds did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...