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

111–120 of 282 posts

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#111

Post by treis »

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…

>People are expecting more and more handouts and no one wants to pay for it

I think this is more that we're entering a post material scarcity economy kind of like we changed from almost everyone being farmers. We're leaving behind the economy where almost everyone manufactures stuff to where they do something else.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#112

Post by moloch-hai »

Off-topic...

I was looking up NRGV, the fraudulent energy storage company (the one with concrete blocks and cranes) which hit $2.4B last year and then fell to a sixth that, before drifting up a bit.

According to analysts, if I read the summary right, it should be considered worth $1B, short-term, and $0, long term. Last I checked it had $90M in cash, down from $100M a few weeks ago.

Now, with $90M they could buy an actually viable energy storage technology to (most likely) run into the ground.

What are these analysts thinking, recommending BUY of a fraudulent company with no better prospects than your average fusion start-up or Hyperloop, and already trading at several times its objective value? Is it a judgment about where ignorant investors will take a no-future company that has been well-hyped, a la Tesla? And, could they be right?

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#113

Post by ghaff »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #106
ghaff wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. Life annuities may or may not be a good deal. But that's certainly the main way to not be essentially forced to pass on assets. (Modulo real estate you own and are living in.) And, as you say, defined benefit pensions basically work the same way--although, in the US, current ones are fairly uncommon outside public sector--although a lot of people still have them from years past.

Just to add. Bonds and CDs do have durations though so you can essentially do your own actuarial calculations to a certain degree.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#114

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

ghaff wrote: post #113
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. Life annuities may or may not be a good deal. But that's certainly the main way to not be essentially forced to pass on assets. (Modulo real estate you own and are living in.) And, as you say, defined benefit pensions basically work the same way--although, in the US, current ones are fairly uncommon outside public sector--although a lot of people still have them from years past. Just to add. Bonds and CDs do h…

In the UK this is actually the typical pattern for defined-contribution schemes; I haven't looked recently but it used to be the case that you were legally required to buy an annuity with 75% of your tax-deferred retirement savings.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#115

Post by pjc50 »

dot1x wrote: post #2

An extremely interesting paper that puts into perspective a lot of investment "knowledge" shared at nauseom almost everywhere. > Investors have seen countless charts of US stock market performance which start in 1926 and end near the present. But US trading long predates 1926, and the foreshortened perspective that results from a focus on post-1926 data can be misleading. > The goal is to challenge shibboleths about…

> since 1928 dividends plus inflation accounted for 99.7% of the nominal wealth produced, as of 2008, by investing in stocks.

OK, so strip out inflation to get real rather than nominal returns, and it becomes "stock investment produces almost all its returns in dividends over a long period". Which is .. not that surprising? Because dividends are ultimately why people buy stocks in the first place? The present value of a stock is after all the "net present value" of the expected flow of dividends.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#116

Post by bumby »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #102
bumby wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dissemina…

Thanks, this is useful. However, I was specifically looking for information on the SPDR ETFs.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#117

Post by antisthenes »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42
antisthenes wrote: post #24

The reason this kind of analysis is irrelevant is that human civilization has only been exploiting oil since ~ early 1900s. Sure, fossil fuels in the form of coal has been exploited before, but nothing on the scale of coal/gas/oil use that started after the Great Depression and ramped up to peak per capita consumption circa 1970s if memory serves. So you always have to look at that historic period discounting that, a…

> human civilization has only been exploiting oil since ~ early 1900s. Solar is within oil's error bars on a cost per kWh basis. Sure, there are kinks in storage and transport to work out. But the fundamental cost of energy doesn't look likely to change in the coming century.

What I meant is that oil enabled fundamentally new things like personal car transportation, plastics, space age materials and cheap and convenient gas heating.

Solar can still provide all of that, but it's not a revolution, just a substitute.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#118

Post by cmrdporcupine »

ant6n wrote: post #77
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it begs the question what happens when fossil fuel exploitation inevitably is curtailed drastically; either early by necessity because of reasonable legislation, or a bit later because of a stronger ecological collapse or depletion. Solar, wind, or whatever Future Tech is unlikely to have the same direct mine->refine->commodity->sell->use cycle on which a lot of this edifice is built. This could be quite re…

> Solar, wind, or whatever Future Tech is unlikely to have the same direct mine->refine->commodity->sell->use cycle on which a lot of this edifice is built What’s that mean? Solar is providing energy at similar costs.

It's providing energy with fewer intermediaries soaking up profits along the way, and can be done "anywhere" the sun shines instead of where resource deposits are concentrated. Entire political classes will be (and are) mobilized to push against this. There is a lot to lose for a lot of people.

That and a huge % of the stock market's value right now is built up of energy companies. Especially here in Canada.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#119

Post by cmrdporcupine »

eatsyourtacos wrote: post #52
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it begs the question what happens when fossil fuel exploitation inevitably is curtailed drastically; either early by necessity because of reasonable legislation, or a bit later because of a stronger ecological collapse or depletion. Solar, wind, or whatever Future Tech is unlikely to have the same direct mine->refine->commodity->sell->use cycle on which a lot of this edifice is built. This could be quite re…

>Wait until people's 401Ks start to explode Maybe we shouldn't have moved to such a completely moronic system them which shifts all the risk to the individual and just "hope" they magically make money on something they have no control over. It all works until it doesn't.

Sure, I completely agree with you. No argument there.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#120

Post by ghaff »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #114
ghaff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Life annuities may or may not be a good deal. But that's certainly the main way to not be essentially forced to pass on assets. (Modulo real estate you own and are living in.) And, as you say, defined benefit pensions basically work the same way--although, in the US, current ones are fairly uncommon outside public sector--although a lot of people still have them from years past. Just to add. Bonds and CDs do h…

In the UK this is actually the typical pattern for defined-contribution schemes; I haven't looked recently but it used to be the case that you were legally required to buy an annuity with 75% of your tax-deferred retirement savings.

Interesting. I'm not sure how common annuities outside of defined benefit pensions are in the US. My impression is not very.

I've noticed them mostly in the form of charitable trusts (which can offer the benefit of basically shielding large asset gains from taxation). But it doesn't seem to be a widely-used investment strategy in general. Maybe it's more common if someone doesn't have an interest in passing down any money.

Post reply on HN