Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-26-2018, 11:39 AM
 
106,671 posts, read 108,833,673 times
Reputation: 80164

Advertisements

the most money is lost trying to buy low and sell high , the most money is made buying high and selling higher . the trend certainly is your friend .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2018, 06:02 PM
 
2,189 posts, read 2,605,871 times
Reputation: 3736
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i started as an investor in 1987 . if i fell a sleep all these years and looked at my balance today i would never ever know we had wars , crashes , recessions and the greatest financial crash since the great depression .
the fidelity insight growth model took 100k in 1987 and grew it to 2.80 million without adding another penny using plain old fidelity funds . even the s&p 500 would be over 2 million through it all .
That's the Rip Van Winkle approach as described in:
https://loringward.com/blog/what-if-...-stock-market/

I'm quoting this from the above link if permitted on CD:

What if Rip Van Winkle Invested in the U.S. Stock Market?
By Sheldon P. McFarland

July 25, 2017
Print
This is an updated version of our August 2014 Portfolio Perspectives.
Nearly 200 years ago, the American short story “Rip Van Winkle” became an instant classic. The main character, Rip, is a simpleminded soul who lives in a village by the Catskill Mountains. He is an unambitious man who is very good at avoiding two things: work and his wife.

One day, while doing what he does best, he wanders into the mountains to go hunting, meets and drinks with a strangely dressed crew, and falls into a deep sleep after drinking their liquor. He awakens and is surprised to find that his dog is gone, his rifle has rusted, and he now has a long beard.

Rip makes his way back to his village only to discover that everything has changed. His wife has died, his friends are gone, and the portrait of King George III in the tavern has been replaced by a portrait of someone he does not recognize—General George Washington.

Rip Van Winkle had been sleeping for 20 years! And in the process, he missed one of the most exciting periods in the history of this country—he slept through the American Revolution.

Well, what if Rip slept through the worst 20-year period in stock market history?



If Rip had the opportunity to invest in the U.S. stock market before he slumbered, he may have woken up a wealthier man. The chart above shows the overlapping returns — often referred to as rolling returns — for all of the 20-year periods between 1926 and 2016.

If Rip had fallen asleep during the worst 20-year period for the U.S. stock market, the 20-year period from 1929 to 1948, he would have slept through the stock market crash of 1929, the Great Depression and all of World War II, which included the fall of France to the Nazis, Pearl Harbor and D-Day.

Looking back with hindsight, these events would likely scare even the most disciplined of investors out of the stock market. Did I mention that Rip also would have slept through the inauguration of the New Deal — what some considered socialism1 — and an increase in top tax rates from 25% to 63% and eventually 91%2!

These are the events that kill capitalism and market growth, right? Yet, it is a 20-year period that rewarded investors in the U.S. stock market with a return of almost 3% per year. To put that into perspective, $100,000 compounded at 3% per year for 20 years is $180,6113, almost double the original investment. Not bad despite all that happened during that period.

What if I told you Rip fell asleep during a period that would experience the Cold War, Black Monday, savings and loan bailouts, the Persian Gulf War, the Mexican peso collapse, the Asian currency crisis, the Russian financial crisis, and the failure of Long-Term Capital Management — one of the largest hedge fund collapses in history?

What would you guess Rip earned investing in the U.S. stock market during that 20-year period? He must have lost money! How could he not?

Headlines can be deceiving. The market would have rewarded him with just over 17% per year for 20 years. To put that into perspective, $100,000 compounded at 17% per year for 20 years is $2,310,560.4 This period — 1980 to 1999 — happens to be the best 20-year period since 1926 by the way. I bet you wouldn’t have guessed that given the events mentioned.

If we look back at the headlines over the last 91 years between 1926 and 2016, it is hard to believe that every 20-year period earned a positive rate of return. In fact, the average of all 72 20-year rolling periods between 1926 and 2016 is 10.91% annualized. What does that mean in dollar terms? If we compound $100,000 by 10.91% per year for 20 years we get $793,227.5

What am I getting at with this analogy? We worry that many investors may view their stock market investments the wrong way. We believe you should view your investment portfolio the same way you view your house.

Think about the value of your house and its price fluctuation over time. The price is certainly volatile and it is worth more or less depending on the day, the season, the market and its condition. The same news and market conditions that affect stock market prices — unemployment, interest rates, political unrest, etc. — affect the price of your home. The difference between your house and your stock market portfolio is that you don’t have up-to-the-minute price information for your house so you don’t worry or react to its daily price fluctuation.

Now I’m not advocating you turn a blind eye to your investments and sleep for the next 20 years. What I am advocating is that you think differently about the stock market. Stop thinking about the stock market as a game you win or lose. And stop viewing daily price fluctuations as wins or losses.

The stock market is composed of thousands of individual companies run by millions of people with incentives to innovate, optimize and grow shareholder wealth. Companies that don’t do these things go away and companies that do keep going. History has shown that the wealth created by the companies that do, more than offset the ones that don’t, which is why the stock market has gone up over time.

Think of investing in the stock market as part of the process to reach your retirement goal. The value of the market will change every day over the next 20-30 years. Some days it will be higher and some days it will be lower but historically returns in the stock market over the long term have been positive. The stock market has been one of the greatest creators of wealth in human history and chances are you will need to capture some of its growth if you are to reach your long-term goals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2018, 06:12 PM
 
2,189 posts, read 2,605,871 times
Reputation: 3736
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
you really have to break the numbers down deeper by age . you are diluting the percentage by counting those who may have just started saving in a 401k , those who have accounts and contribute little , etc .

you would need to break it down to those over 55 , contributing 1/2 max to max for at least 10 years to really get a better picture .

it is like when they give us these average 401k balances all the time and they are diluted by those who just started or barely contribute pulling the averages down for those who do.

the same thing happens in these silly studies you see all the time about our savings . half of america has no savings and is perpetually broke at any age so anytime they are counted with those with savings they dilute the averages and median numbers way down for those who do making it appear they have less than they do . .
It would be interesting to know how many Fidelity 401k accounts there are that are older than 20 or 25 years but probably Fidelity would never provide that kind of detailed info.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2018, 06:15 PM
 
2,189 posts, read 2,605,871 times
Reputation: 3736
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the most money is lost trying to buy low and sell high , the most money is made buying high and selling higher . the trend certainly is your friend .
I think as you have shown in your 401k and IRAs, the most money is made buying anytime and not selling for 30+ years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2018, 07:00 PM
 
15,639 posts, read 26,259,230 times
Reputation: 30932
I’ve read that as of 2014, 1 in 20 households have a million dollars or over in investable assets ( meaning, not including personal real estate). https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...where-they-are

It’s probably more like 1 in 15, now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2018, 02:24 AM
 
106,671 posts, read 108,833,673 times
Reputation: 80164
you really do need to count real estate in a calculation like that .

it would make no sense that today i get counted as achieving a million dollars in assets , tomorrow i buy a 500k home and now i am no longer counted as achieving that level . that really would make no sense for the purpose of seeing how many achieved millionaire status . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2018, 12:49 PM
 
15,639 posts, read 26,259,230 times
Reputation: 30932
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
you really do need to count real estate in a calculation like that .

it would make no sense that today i get counted as achieving a million dollars in assets , tomorrow i buy a 500k home and now i am no longer counted as achieving that level . that really would make no sense for the purpose of seeing how many achieved millionaire status . .
Well, I don’t know what intent was of the study, but they had reasons for discounting the real estate, maybe because they wanted a different aspect of the net worth figure.

I can remember arguments about people’s net worth, and people griping but it’s all in their house.

In any case, it is an interesting part of the equation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2018, 01:09 PM
 
31,683 posts, read 41,040,852 times
Reputation: 14434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallysmom View Post
Well, I don’t know what intent was of the study, but they had reasons for discounting the real estate, maybe because they wanted a different aspect of the net worth figure.

I can remember arguments about people’s net worth, and people griping but it’s all in their house.

In any case, it is an interesting part of the equation.
Wasn’t much of a study. It was merely one company (Fidelity) reporting out the year over year growth of individual 401k portfolios with balances in excess of one million dollars. It was only a measurement of Fidelity investors. The OP presented it as a data point for discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2018, 02:28 AM
 
6,438 posts, read 6,918,932 times
Reputation: 8743
Quote:
Originally Posted by walker1962 View Post
I'm NOT buying that Year-over-year increase in value. It's just TOO large an increase for a single year. If anything the stock market boom of the 1990s should have experienced greater YOY rises in 401Ks because people would have proportionately had more funds available relative to the COL to invest. Housing was more affordable. Taxes were less and gas was under a $1 a gallon!
Where was gas under $1 a gallon in the 1990s? Venezuela? And taxes were not lower in the 1990s, for the same income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2018, 05:58 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,782 posts, read 2,082,385 times
Reputation: 6650
Yes, somebody needs a memory refresher! Even housing was not more affordable because mortgage rates were much much higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top