Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 282 posts

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#101

Post by nostromo »

awb wrote: post #68
sauwan wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Tech advancements are slowing down Are they? I think they've been slow for maybe the last 20 years, but it seems like the advances in things like AI and Genomics are rapidly accelerating and may lead to growth like we haven't seen in several decades...

> I think they've been slow for maybe the last 20 years Really? 20 years is the difference between a generation being raised pre/post: * smart phones * streaming services (endless free content) * massive computing storage / processing upgrades * mass adoption of eCommerce * video calling * ubiquitous social networking * EVs * mRNA vaccines * Mars exploration * LHC * 3D printing It amazes me to look back at 2003 and s…

Compare 1940 to 1960, 1960 to 1980, 1980 to 2000 -- then compare 2000 to 2020.

2000 to 2020 is the least impressive 20 year period by a long shot.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#102

Post by Kon-Peki »

bumby wrote: post #83
coliveira wrote: post #71

Until the beginning of the 20th century, stocks were viewed as a purely speculative investment. The idea that buy and hold will provide great returns is a modern one and is supported by the growth of the stock market in the 20th century. There is also the issue of survivorship bias. The SP500 and Dow Jones indices regularly discard the losers and add new companies, so we don't know the true results of holding compani…

Do you happen to know where to find historical data on such holdings? For example, how do I find the historical ETF holdings at a particular point in time?

ETFs? Welllllll, how about mutual funds instead? A lot of ETFs are just exchange-traded mutual funds.

Mutual funds are required to periodically report their holdings:

https://www.sec.gov/edgar/sec-api-documentation

Rate limit yourself to under 10 requests per second, and put contact info into your user-agent if you'd like them to contact you about problems.

> The APIs are updated in real-time as filings are disseminated. The submissions API is updated with a typical processing delay of less than a second; the xbrl APIs are updated with a typical processing delay of under a minute. However these processing delays may be longer during peak filing times.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#103

Post by ghaff »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #86
danuker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dividends aren't enough to cover living expenses. If you plan to withdraw 4% per year, so you preserve your wealth indefinitely, you're more than 2 percentage points short when the dividend yield is 1.71% [1] If you want to live solely from dividends, you'll need more than double the capital. If you want to die with zero [2], it's impossible. I'd much rather invest in a dividend-accumulating index fund and sell as I…

You can absolutely die with zero: buy a life annuity and let someone else worry about the problem.

I think parent is saying that you can't die with zero if you plan to live off dividends. (Because you need to keep owning the stock throwing off the dividends.)

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#104

Post by xyzzy123 »

smaddox wrote: post #98
sleton38234234 wrote: post #92

I have a theory. The last 100 years has seen govt spending as percent of gdp increase to ever greater levels. People are expecting more and more handouts and no one wants to pay for it. Without the ability to pay for it via taxes, the govt will eventually have to default on it's currency and thus real returns on fixed income/bonds will have to become increasingly negative. Their article already shows a slight widenin…

Private debt dwarfed public debt until very recently, and it's still significany higher: https://braveneweurope.com/steve-keen-what-is-the-role-of-pu... Also GDP is a terrible proxy for economic prosperity. A broken window adds to GDP, but subtracts from prosperity. If we had a better proxy for prosperity, it would be easier to see if government debt was actually net negative or net positive effect. As is, all argume…

I think prosperity (particularly if we include health, education, wellbeing etc) is unfortunately very difficult to measure and any attempt necessarily incorporates a lot of speculation and ideology.

A forest cleared creates wealth & prosperity, but what was the value of the forest that was lost? What value do we put on natural amenity, biodiversity, a pristine environment?

An employee works very long hours, numbers go up. Great. In specific situations though we can ask: was any wealth actually created, or was the wellbeing of the employee and their children simply exchanged for dollars?

etc. It's value judgements all the way down.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#105

Post by shkkmo »

zie wrote: post #100
sleton38234234 wrote: post #92

I have a theory. The last 100 years has seen govt spending as percent of gdp increase to ever greater levels. People are expecting more and more handouts and no one wants to pay for it. Without the ability to pay for it via taxes, the govt will eventually have to default on it's currency and thus real returns on fixed income/bonds will have to become increasingly negative. Their article already shows a slight widenin…

The other option is they raise taxes, cut spending and they actually pay those debts off. All debt comes due eventually, you can choose to go bankrupt or you can choose to pay it. But if neither option happens in your lifetime, you don't need to care, if you are just trying to optimize for yourself.

Federal debt "comes due" all the time. The option you haven't listed (which is the one we're engaged in) is: "You can choose to borrow more money to pay your creditors".

The interest on federal debt recently makes up (very roughly) 1/3 of our total deficit.

This is why when the US doesn't raise the "debt ceiling" we risk defaulting on our debts.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#106

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

ghaff wrote: post #103
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely die with zero: buy a life annuity and let someone else worry about the problem.

I think parent is saying that you can't die with zero if you plan to live off dividends. (Because you need to keep owning the stock throwing off the dividends.)

OK sure; same's true of bonds or CDs or any other asset type though no? The point is that "invest in equities with dividend reinvestment until retirement and then buy a life annuity" is a totally viable strategy. That's basically the way pension saving in the UK works historically, for example.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#108

Post by MichaelDickens »

coliveira wrote: post #72
metacritic12 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like this follow up paper clarifies the data's vision a lot more. Notable changes from the previous version discussed in a sister thread here: - There is no more emphasis on price-only-inflation-adjusted returns. Good riddance: getting rid of dividends makes no sense and is borderline intellectually dishonest just to make the point. - He no longer argues stocks don't work for the long run, just that bonds we…

Removing dividend does make sense because dividends are taxed. You cannot reinvest all dividends, unless you're using a tax advantaged account.

This might justify discounting dividends (eg reducing them by 20%), but not removing them entirely.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#109

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #76
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a non-funny-money-world, government bonds would yield more than expected inflation. No one would ever give the government money expecting to lose money. Only in a world where you can always count on the government to lower interest rates ad-infinitum to keep itself solvent which pushes up the value of your bonds to someone who's willing to pay more money to lose the same amount of money later (a greater fool - alt…

I don't follow your argument here. How about a hypothetical? Let's say government bonds pay 3%, they have done so for decades, and we're confident they will keep doing so for decades. So right off the bat, no lowering of interest rates ad-infinitum. Let's also say inflation is 4%. Everyone wants to beat inflation. But you need to find an investment opportunity for that. And the higher an investment yields, the riskie…

AAA corporate bond yield has always been about ~1% above the treasury yield [1].

Almost nobody has bought government bonds for a long time besides pension funds (due to obligations), banks (due to regulations), foreign governments (due to ForEx necessity), the Fed, and a pretty small amount (~8%) held in 401ks (overwhelmingly by older folks) [2].

Rich people certainly aren't buying Treasuries to protect their wealth - unless it's someone like DoubleLine betting on interest rates only going down and the forced greater fool (pension funds).

401k people are only buying treasuries because of the "age old wisdom" - not because it makes sense unless you think like DoubleLine that treasury yields - long term - are only going down.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AAA10Y

[2] https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-de...

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#110

Post by duderific »

nly wrote: post #87
nostromo wrote: post #78

The Titanic was built a bit over 100 years ago for 1.5m pounds -- today that'd buy you a nice London two-bedroom apartment. I wonder if in 100 years from now, people will casually be talking about their nice (but modest) London two-bedroom apartment they bought for 100m pounds.

Peoples perceptions of number sizes don't change quickly. 1 million will still seem like a big number. It's likely at some point we'll have to re-denominate. There will be a 'new Pound' or something that is worth 100 'old Pounds'. You can see the number phenomenon today. People still talk about "winning £1M on the Lottery" like it'd set them up for a life of luxury. To reasonably replace even a median UK full-time sa…

Or we can make 100 trillion pound notes like in Zimbabwe https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/africa/zimbabwe-trillion-doll...
Post reply on HN