Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

Be sure to carefully read the description of the graph. Every time I link this, someone assumes that the green & red indicates are the yearly returns, but the entire point of this graph is that it is cumulative. If it is red 20-30 years into the line, that means that money put it at the beginning had a negative cumulative return after 20-30 years, not that the 20th or 30th year was negative. Also observe the graph is inflation adjusted.

Yes, it's true. The idea that you can just stick your money in the stock market and see 7% returns every year is somewhere between "mistaken" and "a lie". It is not a coincidence that this idea has arisen during a time of loose monetary policy and a stock market that is being inflated by it over the course of a couple of decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, for instance, this would have been considered risible, and indeed, people did not generally value stock equities. (See the chart for why they may have felt that way.)

It is not an even remotely accurate model of the stock market to think of it as a 7% return that you can casually compound over time. Anyone who speaks of that model or uses that model doesn't know what they are doing. Your debt certainly compounds over time, but your assets can't be modeled as doing that.

A couple of further observations:

Part of the reason why the stock market can offer 7-10% gains in a year, when the economy does not offer such gains in general, is precisely that "room" is made for those gains by the years in which it loses big.

This is also part of why we have a pension fund crises, because even in the relatively friendly stock market of the past couple of decades, even these so-called professionals would blindly use a high-single-digit return estimate per year, and even in the past few years, that has been an inadequate model. The bailout they're going to need if the stock market actually crashes (popping the "Everything Bubble"?) will be literally unaffordable. (Not paying in sufficiently is also a problem, but that is also itself a consequence of absurdly optimistic models being generally accepted.)

What to make of it now? There's both colors of swans at work in terms of the plague, excessive money printing, per Peter Turchin (cliodynamics) a peaking cycle in civic unrest, a potential loss of reserve currency status, big changes in tech that still haven't been digested, low cost of transactions. Lotsa opportunities for froth.

I'm still uncomfortable with it as a store of value. Not many people even owned stocks in the past, which makes historical comparisons a little problematic. It took things like the government heavily encouraging parking money there (401k, IRA, tax law changes, corporate tax law) and greater ease of transaction to put us where we are. You could argue that the entire market is a mania.

edit: Just to indulge my logorrhea for a minute, I wonder to what extent we are seeing an organic change in stock markets, a form of evolution really, that takes advantage of human nature. In the last 40 years or so, it was bound to gather up all the accoutrements of video poker. Marketing and blinkenlights, random payoffs, a house percentage getting scraped off, the fiction of player skill. The payoff is greater than 100% due to it riding the back of GDP growth (and the growth of large companies at the expense of the small) but the science of the casino is built deeply in the human psyche. The stock market has to act the way it does simply to remain attractive to all the primates.

My point is that holding S&P 500 generally gives you a positive return but if you buy during good years/months and end up having to sell in bad years/months you actually can have a negative return up to a about 15 years (if you really eff the timing up) or get marginal returns (1-2% per year).

Even over 40 years - you probably wouldn't be supper happy with a 100% return - yes things go positive but your returns are much lower if you time the market poorly (obvious statement).

For example buying in 98/99/00 your returns are much worse then buying before or after. Likewise selling in those years gave much higher returns.

Stating the obvious - but worth thinking about. Sell when the market is rich, buy when its soft (like blackjack).

Which doesn't subtract from you main point, yes, real estate is much riskier than it might look.

For example-- what happens when municipalities realized their pension funds are broke, and they decide to raise property tax to cover the shortfall?

Objectively, the big publicly listed companies are growing and have stellar financials. I can think of no better place for someone to invest, other than maybe diversifying into real estate with high demand, if they already have a significant amount invested in public equity markets.

Public equity market prices are also backed by the federal government, at least on a 5+ year (maybe even 3+ year) timeframe per events over the last few decades.