Live data from Hacker News

Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

awealthofcommonsense.com

411–420 of 433 posts

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#411

A really interesting thing happened in March 2020. The market crashed and we all remember how gloomy everything looked. Needless to say, some businesses were going to be directly affected by Covid (eg: travel, hospitality) and their stocks went down as much as 80%. But it also became clear that many stocks were just collateral damage (eg: most of the tech stocks), and that they were going to recover more quickly than…

It is also very easy to talk about all of this in hindsight. Prior to April 2020 I had 100% of my 401K in cash/equivalents. In April 2020 I put half of that cash into stocks. Now, of course, I kick myself and say I should have put most/all of it into stocks back then. But that kind of "of course!" and "that was such a recognizable pattern!" talk is a lot easier in hindsight. It's easy to forget what it was like at th…

> Prior to April 2020 I had 100% of my 401K in cash/equivalents.

I am not a financial advisor, but that sounds like an unusual strategy regardless of your age.

> It's easy to forget what it was like at the time, and that it could have easily gone down even further.

The only thing that matters is where it will come back, and when. Eg, once Facebook dipped below 50%, you were quite likely to make a profit on that buy in the next 2 years no matter how much further it was going to go in that time frame.

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#412
post #37

I decided to play with these numbers myself because I had some questions. I believe the data is the same as I found here[0] The average single-year return over that period was about 7.5%, not 10%- though in half of years, the market did better than 11%. But what happens if we bucketize by a larger period, like 5-year? My method was to take $1, multiply by the return for 5 years in a row, and then take the 5th root of…

~7% is after adjusting for inflation. I suspect OP did not adjust.

The linked data isn't adjusted, though - it's just raw open/close values for each year. The mistake here is ignoring dividends, which push returns up by 2-3% per year.

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#413
post #210

This article suffers from hindsight bias by virtue of focusing on the US stock market, for which this has been an exceptionally good century. If you were to include the markets of Britain, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, France, Poland, China, Argentina, and Switzerland, the picture doesn't look so rosy. Anything you invested in the Giełda Pieniężna w Warszawie in 01926, for example, would have evaporated in 01939;…

> obviously the investors 95 years ago in the F.W. Woolworth Company and the Kennecott Mines Company didn't do quite as well, which is precisely why nobody would write an article today about buying and holding Woolworth's stock. I don’t know about Kennecott Mines, but Woolworth’s never missed a quarterly dividend payment from 1926 until 1995, and they resumed again in 2003 (they are now named Foot Locker, FYI). Nobod…

What would their annualized return be? Kennecott's not out of business either. But these two were among the 12 stocks in the DJIA in 01926—the most blue-chip of the blue-chip.

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right and you probably do not follow the market very closely. Which is fine, that is most people. If you start watching it closely though (and I mean over several months to years) there are many patterns that emerge. I knew a lot of people that bought the dip last year. They weren't worried about how long it would take the economy to recover, or if it would go down further because they knew things were VERY cheap and…

“Buying the dip” sounds brilliant in theory but it fundamentally requires holding on to cash outside of the market waiting for that dip to happen. An order of magnitude more gains have been lost waiting for dips that never come than have been made holding onto cash waiting for those dips. I have a friend who sold it all in 2017 expecting the crash to come any day now. He’s still holding on to cash waiting for that di…

Yes and no. There's buying the dip when you actually have the time and money to do a lot of this.

And then there's buying the Covid kind of dip. Personally I didn't sell early enough and I didn't buy back in early enough either. However I also never held onto lots of cash to buy the dip. I simply sold stock I had been holding for a very very long time already anyway, so yes I lost some opportunities but still made enough for it to be worthwhile.

Made up numbers for simplicity but if you have been holding for a long time and your return is 100%, if you sell when it say dips to 90% or 75% or whatever doesn't really matter as long as it then goes down further. That's why big dips like Covid are great for casual investors if you ask me.

Let's say it then goes down to 25% and then goes back up. You don't look every day, you don't trust it yet, because it's been going up and down in between but ultimately dropping down to 25%. But at some point it's been going 2 steps up, one step down for some time and you decide to buy back in at 50% of what your previous holdings had been worth at the peak. You still made a ton of extra money by selling and buying back into the dip.

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you "miss" 10 days? Unless you are a day trader (aka gambler), "normal person investing" is about trickling cash into an account slowly over time into low-cost funds/etfs, covering the grid, and pretty much never selling until retirement. Maybe a rebalance here or there over the decades, but you're never "out" unless you're paranoid and liquidate into a cash position, but refer to point A. This is the strategy…

My old job 401K was shifting into the new job 401K, so for a week or so my $ was in a check in the mail between companies, and I think I missed like 2% gain. It's semi real $. It's annoying.

This is one reason why paying for a wire transfer, ACATS transfer or other ways to move money faster can make sense: like the top comment said, you lose the top 10 days and you lose half your return.

Unfortunately for a 401k transfer there's no wire or ACATS (or even ACH) options, so you're basically screwed there. As far as I know you're basically forced to wait around for the money to move by check. However, you can insure yourself against the "risk" that the market jumps while you're out of it by using a smaller, separate account and options.

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the DD you do, there is no predicting the future. Plus there is a very real incentive for companies to do shady things, e.g. Volkswagon or Enron. Are you sure those companies you're holding aren't lying out of their ass? Can you prove that? Like, unless you're in the accounting dept. at those firms -- or someone who can otherwise get those numbers -- you can't. At that point it's gambling. It may be akin to c…

Yes.

https://longbets.org/362/

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#417
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you "miss" 10 days? Unless you are a day trader (aka gambler), "normal person investing" is about trickling cash into an account slowly over time into low-cost funds/etfs, covering the grid, and pretty much never selling until retirement. Maybe a rebalance here or there over the decades, but you're never "out" unless you're paranoid and liquidate into a cash position, but refer to point A. This is the strategy…

> This is the strategy myself and many of my college friends took when we graduated in the late 80's. And we're all pretty comfy right now. I wonder if your Japanese peers in a Nikkei 225 fund over the same time period would agree with your strategy. Buy-and-hold for them is still down 50% over the last few decades.

This is a common misconception. It's so common that I feel it merits a decent explanation -why- it is incorrect. Not to pick on your comment - it was just the first one I saw that mentioned the Nikkei :)

You can't simply look at the price graph of an index or a stock and make judgments. Aside from dividends, companies can do all kinds of wacky things such as special distributions, perform buybacks, issue new stock, pay out class action settlements etc. Oftentimes stock holders can make extra money through stock yield enhancement programs: if I hold a share of Google in my account at Interactive Brokers, and it has a borrow fee of 5%, IB will automatically lend my share out to people who want it, giving me some decent cash on the side. They split this 50/50 between you and them, so if I had 1 share worth $1000 of Google, that'd be 5% * 1 * 1000 = $50/year lending cost, of which I'd get half, or $25 profit. (Worth noting: My share remains mine to do what I want with at all times - the lending doesn't affect me at all.)

Unfortunately it doesn't even stop there. Even the total profit is not a good enough indicator. Imagine a stock market that craters from 2020 to 2030, going from $50 to $20. With dividend reinvestment and other things added, your total account value is $25 in 2030, or half of what you put in. However, in the same time, the cost of living halved. Your investment would buy exactly as much bread, eggs, housing, Netflix etc as it would when you put it in. Was your investment a good one? You still can't know: you'd also want to take a look at things such as other foreign markets, exchange rates, risk, volatility, and alternative types of investments (bonds, housing, land, etc.) I'll ignore those factors for the rest of my comment, but if you want to see data on the Nikkei and CPI, this is great: https://dqydj.com/nikkei-return-calculator-dividend-reinvest...

Anyway, back to Japan. Buying the Nikkei at its absolute peak in 1989 and simply holding it (with dividend reinvestment), never adding a penny to your account, would have produced total returns of 54% in US dollars or 13% in Yen. Still poor returns on an annual basis, yes, but this is with two rather unusual assumptions - 1) buying at the absolute all-time peak way back in the eighties after a to-this-day unprecedented growth spurt, and 2) investing on that one unfortunate day and never putting in another penny. Most people put money in gradually over many years.

Specifically, what the gp comment said was "trickling cash in slowly over time". Assuming you put money in for the decade preceding the 1989 crash, your total returns today would be (by year, investing in December, US dollars):

1989 54%, 1988 71%, 1987 134%, 1986 261%, 1985 558%, 1984 821%, 1983 956%, 1982 1237%, 1981 1172%, 1980 1241%, 1979 1603%. Average 737.1%.

For the decade after the crash, and later:

1989 54%, 1990 130%, 1991 133%, 1992 187%, 1993 154%, 1994 106%, 1995 106%, 1996 120%, 1997 216%, 1998 215%, 1999 112%. Average 139.4%.

1999 112%, 2000 208%, 2001 356%, 2002 432%, 2003 272%, 2004 230%, 2005 163%, 2006 141%, 2007 157%, 2008 257%, 2009 189%. Average 228.8%.

If you had contributed $1000 per month from '79 to '89 you would have $1.1 million today; if you did the same from '89 to '99 you would have $316k; if you did that from '99 to '09 you'd have $434k.

Over any span of time, if you contributed a few hundred dollars per month to the Nikkei during the length of a typical career, you would be a US dollar millionaire today. I would say his Japanese peers are doing just fine.

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#418
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it going to suddenly pop? Unlikely, I disagree. https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/models/buffett-indica... Unless you mean will it pop tomorrow, then yes that is unlikely. But the chances it pops “soon” seem quite likely. And it will be very ugly. I don’t know if we have ever seen a spring coiled this tight from money printing. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

but what is a 'pop'? maybe ordinary swings in both directions due to various minor panics and manias and profit-takings that average out to a decade of nominal gains but depressed real returns?

2003 and 2009 style drawbacks but much worse. The SP500 has had 12 years of straight bull market, it's like an earthquake fault line that hasn't slipped in a long long time.

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#419
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The martingale strategy works because this theoretical gambler has infinitely deep pockets to withstand the losses. Setting bet limits can reduce the effectiveness of the martingale strategy.

I don't think it matters, even with infinite pockets. Let's say 3 is the max number of losses we will accept. 50-50 coin flip, start of betting a dollar. 7 out of 8 times we win a dollar. 1 out of 8 time we lose a dollar, double lose 2 dollars, double, lose 4 dollars quit. (7/8)(1) + (1/8)(-7) = 0 Generally: n = number of losses before quit. E(x) = (1-.5^n)(1) + (.5^n)(-2^n+1) = (1) - (1/2^n) - (2^n-1)/(2^n) = (2^n)/…

The crazy thing about infinite pockets is that the strategy will favour the gambler even if the odds are 1-99 (or any nonzero probability of winning).

Using expected value for assess winning strategies don’t work with infinite bankroll.

Re: Stock Market Returns Are Anything but Average

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my sentiment too. People seems to give the market far more importance than what it is in reality: an exchange for second-hand stocks, with money just circling that can never touch the company and the economy. And they also forget that if they don't invest for dividends they are just betting that they'll be able to dump the bag for a higher price in the future.

Owning a stock is more than just dividends. You own part of the company, if it is liquidated you are paid based on the assets of the company.

My point is that market participants seems to not care about what a stock intrinsically is when they choose one to buy (like also voting and governance), they just care about the price of that stock.
Post reply on HN