Quote from Took2Summit:
I dont know either you nor failed_trader but the only reason im responding is because of your comment "failed_mathematician". You obviously failed statistics. If you wouldn't have failed you'd know that cherry picking dates when there are more dates in the pool does not give you an average. For you to pick 2000 as your starting date, which includes the start of the tech bubble and doesnt include the roaring 90s is beyond ignorant. Most people will have 65ish investing years in their lifetime, so at the least you should look at a minimum of 65 years to get a true average for a person, not a 13 year period which includes 2 of the worst bubbles in history. Lastly, the index doesn't count reinvested dividends, so for you to not use total return numbers is also beyond ignorant.
to top it off you started the nikkei at 1989 but the other 3 at 2000. next time you decide to talk, just don't.
Don't worry, I know mathematics and know what I'm saying.
Mine are not statistics (I'd need a book to write the whole thing down, including inflation, dividends, comparison with bonds, etc) nor a technical demonstration of anything which would be too long for this thread or any thread; these are just observations from where you can start demonstrating that 8% returns are pure fantasy.
Cherry picking dates was only meant to make the point clearer,and to note some other points.
I've studied Dow charts since pre-1900 and I tell you that considering the "roaring 90s" is THE cherry picking. You won't find returns of 8% in the last century.
The tech bubble was part of a bigger bubble and is not so uncommon in history.
Point is, it's been 13 years for West World and 24 years for Japan (which in my opinion anticipated our cycle) that returns are very small to negative on an average and there is no reason to think this will change anytime soon.
Go study the Dow in the last century, you'll find returns are more or less the same as bond returns but with much more volatility.
Frankly, I don't care if MAYBE in 65 years an investment COULD have interesting returns, I think 13-24 years (and many more to come,you'll see) gone bad are well enough. (By the way, I agree with failed_trad3r that for another 1-3 years we can have a bull market).
As I explained in another thread,the only possibility I see for great nominal returns in stocks is hyper-inflation,but that would probably mean (possibly heavy) losses in real value.
Conclusion: I'll continue writing, and you should read more carefully before inferring what is not written (a very common habit on ET).
