Live data from Hacker News

What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

morningstar.com

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#41

SP500 is down like 8% from the ATH, which BTW was less than 3 weeks ago. People need a little perspective. I lived through the GFC and the Dotcom bust, this is nothing (so far).

Neither of those events were anything either.

Stock markets go to zero. Capitalism is disruptive and politically unpopular (the US pumps technology into the rest of the world and the US is still the exception, other countries know it works...they just don't care). Even in the US, which is the best case, you have had decades of underperformance. A 50% dip that fixes itself quickly is nothing, the US is the best case of the best case.

Btw, the original article also misses everything relevant about humans operate. During Covid, one of the FT economics columnists, a person who still makes a very healthy living from giving advice about human behaviour said that he sold his stocks, the volatility was too much, there were problems in his personal life, etc. Wiped out decades of gains in an afternoon (and was happy about it). Herding is going to, eventually, result in an almighty fallout. Risk-adjusted return from equities was already low...and this was before all barriers to entry were removed.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vanguard target retirement funds have expense rations of 0.08%

They are cheaper than most for sure, but still more than buying individual ETFs. Here are 4 common funds that are used in risk parity portfolios: VTI = .03% VXUS = .06% VGLT = .03% GLDM = .1% (edit) I am not arguing that that investing in TDFs is inferior solely due to expense ratio cost - the biggest issue is that they lock you in to a specific allocation and re-balancing strategy that might not align with your spec…

> They are cheaper than most for sure, but still more than buying individual ETFs.

At some point you are being penny-wise, pound-foolish: saving even 10bps (0.10%) on a $1e6 portfolio is saving $1000 dollars per year on management fees. If that kind of difference makes or breaks your retirement plans you have bigger problems (and most regular folks don't have that kind of portfolio, so the savings would be even smaller).

Certainly fees are important:

* http://larrybates.ca/t-rex-score/

but once you're Just saving the time-cost / hassling of rebalancing is worth something, and probably worth the fees you pay for an all-in-one / asset allocation solution.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#43
post #2

Subtitle: > Though they varied in length and severity, the market always recovered and went on to new highs. True. But that only works if the nation itself recovers and goes on to new highs.

I really don't understand the subtitle, and the argument implied, which countless people make. Do they really believe new things can't happen?

"This thing has lasted for X years so it can't fail now". Wha...? I mean, maybe it will not fail, but not for the reason that it has lasted this much. Everything has an end, and things not observed before do happen.

If anything, what we can learn from the last... any period really, is that something unexpected will happen.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a fair number of us not worried about the drop in our portfolio as much as we are worried that the current decisions will decrease the world's willingness to invest in American companies and markets permanently. What if your hypothesis is that the fundamentals have changed?

So far, this is a minor stock correction coupled with unprecedented political uncertainty. In my lifetime, there have been multiple -10+% single day drops, one -22%, and a bunch of -10% months. In that time though, no one has questioned the full faith and credit of the US government. However now -- The Supreme Court had to take a case to rule that the government had to pay contracts that had already been delivered on…

Not yet mentioned is that this is the first time the US is actively working against their allies, and it's not just the Europeans.

If - or when? - the US leaves NATO, the EU will finally have a big incentive to buy local. Right now the EU buys most of their arms from the US. Germany's 100 billion Euro special fund created at the beginning of the war in Ukraine mostly went to US purchases.

It's a Chinese article but I found it pretty good (I'm German by the way): https://english.news.cn/europe/20240913/04cbc80f51674bd7b0a2...

Here in Europe the sudden change with regards to Russia, and how they treated an ally that the US spent at least the last two decades actively building up (Ukraine military would have been quickly overrun in 2022 without all the work and support the US provided), there now is fear that when we really need it the US may do what they did with the Ukrainians.

It may not even be political, but it's no longer far-fetched to imagine that the US will demand major concessions and payback in order to resume support, ignoring any previous agreements, just because they can.

What still works in favor of the US is, at least here in Germany, our politicians. Just now, what did the new government - consisting of the two same old major parties that have ruled all the time since this country was created - concentrate on? Major fundamental changes? No! Immediately they went for useless spending for some of their clientele, and they only went for "borrowing a lot of money" instead of institutional changes. They may be concerned, but in the end they still refuse to move. Even the new trillion is again just a new special fund kind of setup instead of fundamental changes, and you can bet most of it will disappear in the major inefficiencies of our systems.

They have also always had a lot of problems creating a true alliance of European arms manufacturers, each country pushes their own interests with little regard for the rest.

However, should they finally wake up at least a little bit from their long fat slumber, many billions of reliable purchases from the US could disappear - plus the European arms makers will become much more competitive internationally too. Especially if more countries have doubts about the reliability of relying on the US for ongoing long-term support. That could be bad for the US arms industry from two fronts.

BY the way, I am much more mad at the Europeans, my own German government(s) especially, than at Trump. We did nothing for two decades, watching Russia prepare for war. To me it also makes perfect sense for the much more populous EU to deal with its own problems without having to ask a far away country. It's kind of like "regression towards the mean", no? The US only came to Europe because of some truly special events, but at least since the fall of the East Bloc there really is no reason. We were lucky because of all the momentum, it took the US a while to realize this (and some really bad wars). I consider the developments good for Europe in the end. We are forced to confront reality.

I just wish the Ukrainians would not have to pay such an enormous price for all those fuck-ups. Which includes a lot of actions to get Ukraine into NATO at some point (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations) - and now when they really need it, and also because of all of that, the rug is pulled from under them.

With the world watching, that too may be a factor for future US arms deals.

In addition, the world and Europe especially also depend on the US when it comes to software. The OS and Office 365 are ubiquitous. For the cloud we have alternatives and one could use those, it is much much harder for a business not to use US software.

If Europe becomes more self-reliant, we may see some movement here. It would not work bottom-up, but all the EU has to do is demand things at least for the public sector, piece by piece. This could create some certainty and cash-flow to create European software, and create a wide basis on which businesses could later build upon.

For the US, leaving Europe has a few risks. What is never mentioned are all those secondary effects of their NATO support and dominance: This way the US keeps a lid on too much European independence, and goes far beyond defense. If Trump and Musk think it's a no-brainer to give that up, well, as a European I support them. If we can't do anything with such a chance it's our own fault. This could be really good for Europe.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vanguard target retirement funds have expense rations of 0.08%

They are cheaper than most for sure, but still more than buying individual ETFs. Here are 4 common funds that are used in risk parity portfolios: VTI = .03% VXUS = .06% VGLT = .03% GLDM = .1% (edit) I am not arguing that that investing in TDFs is inferior solely due to expense ratio cost - the biggest issue is that they lock you in to a specific allocation and re-balancing strategy that might not align with your spec…

TBH that last 0.05% doesn't matter much. Over a generous 40 year time it would be a <2% difference. It's not like moving from a 2% mutual fund to a 0.1% ETF.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#46
post #24

While dollar cost averaging and index investing are solid strategies, this article overlooks an important consideration: the Realistic Rate of Return (RoR) needed for retirement planning. Yes, US markets historically recover (lately that notion seems to be challenged more often than not), but timing matters significantly. What happens if someone's retirement coincides with a market crash? Younger investors have time…

> Age-appropriate risk management becomes increasingly important as your investment horizon shortens. As you appear closer to retirement, make sure you invest in Bonds or other fixed income. It won't beat inflation but it will prevent you from draw-downs exactly when the market is down.

Call me crazy, but since the DOGE hatchet-wielding started, I've redeemed all my US bonds. I just don't have confidence that the people needed to keep TreasuryDirect running will still have their jobs if/when I need to redeem them in the future.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#47
post #24

While dollar cost averaging and index investing are solid strategies, this article overlooks an important consideration: the Realistic Rate of Return (RoR) needed for retirement planning. Yes, US markets historically recover (lately that notion seems to be challenged more often than not), but timing matters significantly. What happens if someone's retirement coincides with a market crash? Younger investors have time…

You should always have 2-3 years of runway in cash or other safe liquid savings (CDs, Bonds) as you get older (6 months minimum when you’re in 20s and 30s). You shouldn’t be really relying on selling assets to pay your monthly bills.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not in Japan it didn't. Only if you were 100% JP equities without any diversification: if you had some (20%?) bonds (and rebalanced), or had an international equities (and rebalanced), you were probably fine. * https://www.bogleheads.org/blog/2017/02/06/a-short-study-of-... * https://www.gocurrycracker.com/lessons-from-japans-lost-deca... > Using Portfolio Charts withdrawal rates calculator, which uses data going b…

Real interest rates in Japan were zero or negative for pretty much all of that same 35-year period, so bonds wouldn't have helped you either. And "you were up if you bought international equities" kind of proves my point: if Japan is the harbinger for the rest of the world, there will be no more "always up" markets to flee to.

One of the mistakes that people make is not understanding that people tend towards solutions that are sold as "counter-intuitive" or "smart" because they are largely unable to independent decisions. And financial markets will respond and move in the direction of maximum pain (governments can pump trillions into the market to support them but, eventually, as has happened in Europe and now the US...they run out of taxpayer's money because this destroys productivity). Easy decisions don't exist.

ETFs are a better technology (marginally, they don't solve the issues of open-end funds) but they are primarily a psychological product, not a financial one.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#49

A popular post that is often given to folks who are freaking out about drops in their portfolio: * https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/worlds-worst-market... And for those who want to sit on the sidelines, that's usually not a good idea: * https://ofdollarsanddata.com/even-god-couldnt-beat-dollar-co... The main folks that do have to worry about their portfolio are those who are about to retire, and those that ha…

There are a fair number of us not worried about the drop in our portfolio as much as we are worried that the current decisions will decrease the world's willingness to invest in American companies and markets permanently. What if your hypothesis is that the fundamentals have changed?

> What if your hypothesis is that the fundamentals have changed?

There's been recent research on survivorship bias in market returns, especially with regards to the US:

> Using international data, we quantify the magnitude of survivorship bias in U.S. equity market performance, and find that it explains about one third of the equity risk premium in the past century. We model the subjective crash belief of an investor who infers the crash risk in the U.S.~by cross learning from other countries. The U.S. crash probability shows a persistent and widening divergence from the implied global average. We attribute the upward bias in the measured equity premium to crashes that did not occur in-sample and to positive shocks to valuations resulting from learning about the probability.

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3689958

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FwgCRIS0Wg

I'm Canadian, so I have a different home market, but that is correlated to the US economy (cf. tariffs), but my portfolio (TSX:VGRO) also has non-US/CA equities.

Re: What We've Learned from 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes

#50

SP500 is down like 8% from the ATH, which BTW was less than 3 weeks ago. People need a little perspective. I lived through the GFC and the Dotcom bust, this is nothing (so far).

Neither of those events were anything either. Stock markets go to zero. Capitalism is disruptive and politically unpopular (the US pumps technology into the rest of the world and the US is still the exception, other countries know it works...they just don't care). Even in the US, which is the best case, you have had decades of underperformance. A 50% dip that fixes itself quickly is nothing, the US is the best case o…

It's a fair point. And even short of "going to zero" the Nikkei didn't recover its 1989 high until last year. 35 years is a long time to get back to breakeven.
Post reply on HN