tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073066728112402191.post812436641804301686..comments2024-02-09T02:42:41.112-06:00Comments on Observations: Best & Worst 20-Year Returns in Stock Market HistoryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073066728112402191.post-10744870036619809622010-08-12T12:23:56.067-05:002010-08-12T12:23:56.067-05:00Hellboy,
If I understand you, you're reiterati...Hellboy,<br />If I understand you, you're reiterating my main point -- that even over periods as long as 20 years returns can vary considerably. Since returns are not a constant 10%/year, it's useful to be aware of what the approximate p/e is when you buy in order to reduce your chances of poor performance. (See <a href="http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2010/03/stock-market-10-year-forecast.html" rel="nofollow"> Projecting Market Returns)</a><br /><br />To do your own analysis, download my <a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=puh1r-znAl8J2pdm6yzkODw&output=xls" rel="nofollow">Stock Market Analysis Model</a>. That way, you can choose whatever start years and ending years you like.<br /><br />Thanks for reading <br />AlAlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349009181054767705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073066728112402191.post-59390961398981083742010-08-07T00:02:01.977-05:002010-08-07T00:02:01.977-05:00agreed what way to view the markets. Would like to...agreed what way to view the markets. Would like to know how that data looked in March of 2009 as I would guess the returns after inflation is not as compelling, meaning rear view thinking on this should be measured from all conceivable market scenarios....... IE from 1970-march 2009 would look considerably less interesting than measured from 1970 - today, not to suggest stocks can't go up 5-6% per year from here....HEDGEPHONEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17405799077883057636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073066728112402191.post-17590760856711897282009-11-21T14:03:01.552-06:002009-11-21T14:03:01.552-06:00Excellent point. I think my original point was ju...Excellent point. I think my original point was just that, assuming normal inflation, <b>all</b> of the "real" 20-year results would more disappointing than presented. But you're absolutely right. If we use actual inflation rather average inflation, '61-'81 is indeed even worse than '28-'48. Adjusting the numbers using actual CPI data, the 2.5% nominal return for '28-'48 becomes 0.7% because of less than average inflation; the 5.3% nominal return for '61-'81 becomes <b>minus</b> 0.6% because of the high inflation (the CPI more than tripled).Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349009181054767705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073066728112402191.post-26476266065221180402009-11-20T20:30:53.627-06:002009-11-20T20:30:53.627-06:00Good stuff. Although I do want to point out that ...Good stuff. Although I do want to point out that inflation was relatively low during that 1928 to 1948 period. Almost zero inflation for the first 15 years of that time horizon. From 1961 to 1981 prices basically tripled so in real terms 61 to 81 might have been worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073066728112402191.post-30444895384036561292009-10-19T09:16:58.579-05:002009-10-19T09:16:58.579-05:00Thanks for the compliment. It's good to know ...Thanks for the compliment. It's good to know that all this hard work is not going to waste. :-)Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349009181054767705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7073066728112402191.post-36683867616538997102009-10-18T22:22:48.081-05:002009-10-18T22:22:48.081-05:00It appears to me you've posted some tremendous...It appears to me you've posted some tremendously valuable data. I've not really encountered such long-term data. And I particularly like your semi-log plots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com