Here is something I like to think about. When people project long-term returns from asset classes, especifically in stocks, they look at current yields (like dividend or earnings yields) and add a component for the path of valuations going forward.
So a typical calculation would be:
2.5% in dividend yields + 2% in earnings growth -2% per year in multiple contraction = 2.5% per year. They put in mean reversion in their models to be more realistic
But I think there is a big flaw in this, at least for most people. Since most people work and will be net savers during their lifetime (and net buyers of investments), they are "short" valuations. Higher valuations will hurt them big time as their savings get invested at smaller and smaller likely returns. But if valuations come in, that will be great for them as they invest at cheaper prices (both the savings from their income, as well as dividends/interest from their current investments) and compound their wealth at a greater rate.
Since they are short valuations, a negative contribution is actually a positive one. The final result of the formula is more along the lines of 6% per year (roughly). Its a weird form of accounting to do that though, I have never read anything on personal finance that explains to people things like that. The closest thing that I find is when Buffett says people should cheer lower stock prices and not be depressed by them
It might be a weird form of accounting but I believe its pretty accurate in a lot of situations
Of course, this is just mathematical theory, in the real world, people freak out and do dumb things when prices fall but for the smart disciplined investor, valuations improving should count as a positive
Other things that people are naturally short (as a result of being born)
-Real estate (you need to live somewhere)
-Real income (although, this is somewhat related to the short in valuations)
-Commodity prices
-Time
There could be others and some nuances around them but I havent thought about it more.
Figuring out how to close these shorts and manage a person's exposure to them should be a big part of modern personal finance, but sadly, it does not appear to be
So a typical calculation would be:
2.5% in dividend yields + 2% in earnings growth -2% per year in multiple contraction = 2.5% per year. They put in mean reversion in their models to be more realistic
But I think there is a big flaw in this, at least for most people. Since most people work and will be net savers during their lifetime (and net buyers of investments), they are "short" valuations. Higher valuations will hurt them big time as their savings get invested at smaller and smaller likely returns. But if valuations come in, that will be great for them as they invest at cheaper prices (both the savings from their income, as well as dividends/interest from their current investments) and compound their wealth at a greater rate.
Since they are short valuations, a negative contribution is actually a positive one. The final result of the formula is more along the lines of 6% per year (roughly). Its a weird form of accounting to do that though, I have never read anything on personal finance that explains to people things like that. The closest thing that I find is when Buffett says people should cheer lower stock prices and not be depressed by them
It might be a weird form of accounting but I believe its pretty accurate in a lot of situations
Of course, this is just mathematical theory, in the real world, people freak out and do dumb things when prices fall but for the smart disciplined investor, valuations improving should count as a positive
Other things that people are naturally short (as a result of being born)
-Real estate (you need to live somewhere)
-Real income (although, this is somewhat related to the short in valuations)
-Commodity prices
-Time
There could be others and some nuances around them but I havent thought about it more.
Figuring out how to close these shorts and manage a person's exposure to them should be a big part of modern personal finance, but sadly, it does not appear to be