Live data from Hacker News

Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

papers.ssrn.com

121–130 of 282 posts

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#121

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.

The Titanic cost $7.5 million to build, which is $200 million in today's money (as of 2020) [1]. I'm pretty confident this is not the cost of the average flat in London. [1] https://www.history.com/news/titanic-facts-construction-pass...

And when the Titanic cost £1.5M, the average weekly wage in the UK was £5.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#122

Figures 6 and 9 look a lot like https://totalrealreturns.com/ , especially with the trendlines on these figures, logarithmic y-axis, (disclosure: my side project, recomputed daily at market close) It would be cool to merge in some longer-term historical data as the article author has done, instead of just using actually-tradable assets like I've done. Per the article, the author considers these charts "misleading": >…

Yahoo uses the CRSP method (see: factor to adjust price) to back-adjust old prices when dividends and splits occur, so it's not as misleading as you're probably thinking. I'd be surprised if the others didn't do something like this too.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#123

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 a…

The actual rating doesn’t really matter, it’s the changes that do.

Strong from a previous “strong buy” is very different than a strong from a previous of “hold” or even “sell”.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#125
post #103

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.)

I'd expect a good portion of deaths involve very expensive health care for the last few months or years of life.

Live off dividends, then sell to pay for the healthcare right before you die

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#127

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 a…

[deleted]

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#129

It’s very common nowadays to see people suggest investing into S&P500 ETFs and keep them forever. More then 20% of US population owns stocks. I think we are near a change into this paradigm.

What is your suggestion to do instead? Owning a non index fund will have a fee of at least 1% Putting it under your mattress makes you lose from inflation. I'm not sure doing 60 / 40 stocks and bonds could be another solution.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#130

The reason all the stock market charts you see start in 1926 is because they come from CRSP data, which starts in 1926. If you are a student at a university almost anywhere in the world that offers an MBA or other advanced degree in business or finance, it subscribes to the CRSP data service with 95+% probability. If you are an engineering or a CS student, the university contract covers you! You'll probably have to t…

just a nit, but especially given the economics outlook advanced by and named for the U of C, the line between the University of Chicago and a for-profit corporation is both thin fuzzy.
Post reply on HN