Live data from Hacker News

If you invested $1 a day, starting when you were born

stockchoker.com

1–10 of 99 posts

Re: If you invested $1 a day, starting when you were born

#4

Does this take into account commission fees ? If I am charged $7 per trade and I invest 1$ per day I am losing 6$ per day to commission. Or are you assuming this is commission free ?

How about if you don't pull any return or if you don't make and good investments?

What would this look like with government bonds?

Re: If you invested $1 a day, starting when you were born

#5

Does this take into account commission fees ? If I am charged $7 per trade and I invest 1$ per day I am losing 6$ per day to commission. Or are you assuming this is commission free ?

Assuming this is going into an index fund. I'm guessing that fund management fees are not included.

Re: If you invested $1 a day, starting when you were born

#7

I was kind of expecting it to be more. Not that I'd complain about an extra $114k right now. But after 40+ years I was thinking it would be more.

If you invested $1/day on margin, and sell or buy more over time to maintain a debt/equity ratio, it would be a lot more.

Re: If you invested $1 a day, starting when you were born

#9

I was kind of expecting it to be more. Not that I'd complain about an extra $114k right now. But after 40+ years I was thinking it would be more.

$1 per day isn't much money as far as initial investments go. They are also using the S&P 500 which by it's nature is mostly mature companies that aren't typically going to see explosive price doubling growth.

Re: If you invested $1 a day, starting when you were born

#10
Interesting, but I doubt people tend to invest this consistently and regularly. They probably have an easy time investing when times are good (and they actually have a few extra bucks to gamble with), and tend to not invest when times are bad (they're trying to eat).

Take someone who was doing pretty good during the tech and real estate bubbles, and decided to invest their spare change in 1998, 1999, 2005 and 2006, but did not invest in the "leaner" years. I bet that person overall would have lost money on the stock market. Oh, wait, I can tell you that that person would have lost money, because it was me!

I'm so tired of the constant drum-beat of "The only way to retire is to invest in the stock market!!" that only seems to serve the interests of Wall Street. I wish there were viable alternatives.

Post reply on HN