Which composite index?
Which composite index?
Doug Short gives a more detailed discussion that conflicts with your data.http://www.businessinsider.com/when-did-the-us-market-really-become-like-1929-2010-7
James KG wrote:
Between 1926 and 2016, there have been 72 periods of 20 calendar years (that is, December 31, 1925 to December 31, 1945; December 31, 1926 to December 31, 1946, and so on). Never has Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index or its large-capitalization predecessor recorded a loss over any of those 20-year stretches, and in more than half of them the average annual gain was in double-digit percentages.
I'm getting killed in my microcap portfolio - money is disappearing like snow in April. Just melting away.
Usually that suggests a correction coming, but not always. Could just be I own the wrong stocks.
But man this is ugly.
(my entire microcap porffolio is around 1% of my entire portfolio. It's just entertainment)
That has nothing to do with what I posted.
James KG wrote:
That has nothing to do with what I posted.
That's because you have no idea where that data was compiled and whether or not it is accurate. The relevant index in 1929 was the Dow Jones Industrial Average remained so thru 1949 and it did not recover in 20 years.
It's not just 1929. It's EVERY 20 calendar year period from 1926 to the present. I know exactly where the data comes from and it is completely accurate. You don't have to like the results because they go against your narrative, but they are 100% factual and nothing you say can change that.
James KG wrote:
It's not just 1929. It's EVERY 20 calendar year period from 1926 to the present. I know exactly where the data comes from and it is completely accurate. You don't have to like the results because they go against your narrative, but they are 100% factual and nothing you say can change that.
"That's because you have no idea where that data was compiled and whether or not it is accurate. The relevant index in 1929 was the Dow Jones Industrial Average remained so thru 1949 and it did not recover in 20 years."
You can't change that either, but it goes against YOUR narrative.
I've done a lot of reading on the problem of determining market returns for pre-SP500 times.
Basically, you can't rely on the Dow, because they were always finagling with it -putting stocks in, taking others out...I saw one study that the whole 1929-1944 (or whatever it was) zero return era is totally phony - if htey had left some big company in, the zero return era disappears.
From what I've seen, when academics reconstruct indices from old data....the market return was much better than the Dow.
agip wrote:
I'm getting killed in my microcap portfolio - money is disappearing like snow in April. Just melting away.
Usually that suggests a correction coming, but not always. Could just be I own the wrong stocks.
But man this is ugly.
(my entire microcap porffolio is around 1% of my entire portfolio. It's just entertainment)
Today: Trannies and Small Caps both closed below their 200DMA, S&P bounced off its 100DMA, Nasdaq tested towards its 100DMA, Dow tested and bounced off 50DMA.
Small Caps ended underwater for 2017...
agip wrote:
I've done a lot of reading on the problem of determining market returns for pre-SP500 times.
Basically, you can't rely on the Dow, because they were always finagling with it -putting stocks in, taking others out...I saw one study that the whole 1929-1944 (or whatever it was) zero return era is totally phony - if htey had left some big company in, the zero return era disappears.
From what I've seen, when academics reconstruct indices from old data....the market return was much better than the Dow.
OK, here is additional data that contradicts that posted by James:
http://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-dataSam Slade wrote:
agip wrote:I've done a lot of reading on the problem of determining market returns for pre-SP500 times.
Basically, you can't rely on the Dow, because they were always finagling with it -putting stocks in, taking others out...I saw one study that the whole 1929-1944 (or whatever it was) zero return era is totally phony - if htey had left some big company in, the zero return era disappears.
From what I've seen, when academics reconstruct indices from old data....the market return was much better than the Dow.
OK, here is additional data that contradicts that posted by James:
http://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-data
and how did they handle takeovers? dividends reinvested? dividends counted at all? companies in and out of the index?
I'm not even following your discussion with the other guy so I don't know what your issues are, but fact is stock returns are not easy to determine once you get more than say 70 years ago.
Sam Slade wrote:
OK, here is additional data that contradicts that posted by James:
http://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-data
The S&P 500 did not exist in 1927.
History Anne wrote:
Sam Slade wrote:OK, here is additional data that contradicts that posted by James:
http://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-dataThe S&P 500 did not exist in 1927.
Oh, Snap!
agip wrote:
Sam Slade wrote:OK, here is additional data that contradicts that posted by James:
http://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-dataand how did they handle takeovers? dividends reinvested? dividends counted at all? companies in and out of the index?
I'm not even following your discussion with the other guy so I don't know what your issues are, but fact is stock returns are not easy to determine once you get more than say 70 years ago.
The discussion was whether there were periods of time where the stock market did not recover previous high value in 20 years. The Dow did not recover previous high 1929-1949, the Nikkei still has not, and apparently the S&P 90 ("Composite Index") did not 1929-1949.
That is all.
Oh, Snap! wrote:
History Anne wrote:The S&P 500 did not exist in 1927.
Oh, Snap!
Data reflect S&P 90 also referred to as "Composite Index" which was the forerunner of the S&P 500.
On Snap!
Sam Slade wrote:
agip wrote:and how did they handle takeovers? dividends reinvested? dividends counted at all? companies in and out of the index?
I'm not even following your discussion with the other guy so I don't know what your issues are, but fact is stock returns are not easy to determine once you get more than say 70 years ago.
The discussion was whether there were periods of time where the stock market did not recover previous high value in 20 years. The Dow did not recover previous high 1929-1949, the Nikkei still has not, and apparently the S&P 90 ("Composite Index") did not 1929-1949.
That is all.
ok well my comments are relevant then. The Dow was not a representation of the stock market - it was just 30 stocks, changing all the time, price weighted...study I read said the actual market recovered a decade earlier or something like that.
And of course if you had a diversified portfolio with small stocks, foreign stocks, bonds, etc and you kept putting new money in during the 1930s...you recovered quite quickly.
"study I read said the actual market recovered a decade earlier or something like that"
I am confident the market even on a broader measure did not recover for twenty years and even longer inflation adjusted: Here is more data that supports this view:
Sam Slade wrote:
The discussion was whether there were periods of time where the stock market did not recover previous high value in 20 years.
Actually the discussion was about investment value at the end of 20 calendar year periods beginning with 1926. Please try to stay on topic.
That was not you original post.
Actually it was.
James KG wrote:
Between 1926 and 2016, there have been 72 periods of 20 calendar years (that is, December 31, 1925 to December 31, 1945; December 31, 1926 to December 31, 1946, and so on). Never has Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index or its large-capitalization predecessor recorded a loss over any of those 20-year stretches, and in more than half of them the average annual gain was in double-digit percentages.