Even more amazing is the 3/2000-12/28/2018 S&P 500 return of 2.6% and with reinvested dividends 4.5%. These are bond-like returns. All floated by Fed QE of $3.5 Trillion.So where are the stocks for the long run?
Do you really think buying triple leveraged-up funds at a market peak is investing? You are speculating. One step away from gambling.
Good luck buddy.
purple martin wrote:
[quote]seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, it's hard to take your claims seriously./quote]
After 8 years, that's an understatement.
Huh? I first posted here March of 2015. The S&P 500 return over that period is 3.3%. Just wait until thing get bad.
Your continual projection illustrates the weakness of your position.
QF60 wrote:
Your continual projection illustrates the weakness of your position.
OK, I don’t have to fo anything other than point to the market. The weakness of your position is your allocation to overvalued equities.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, it's hard to take your claims seriously.
You make a claim that "the next year will take you back eight years."
Then to prove it you post a chart of the SNP 500 that purports to show how long various downturns took to recover to the previous highs. Well, okay.....
But no where does it show a one year period in which 8 years of previous gains were wiped out.
Don't get me wrong. If that were true and based on historical precedent, i would like to be aware of it. But it is simply not borne out by the data. In fact, by all appearances, the downturns have very closely mirrored the previous years uptrends, such that one year of losses would wipe out only approximately one year of gains. Yes, there are some brief stretches of a few months in which the loss excelerates, but if you look at most any 12 month period, it is equal in magnitude to one 12 month period of previous gains.
I find your claims to be not fully supported. I know, I know, ... I'll find out. I'm just saying, if you are going to attempt to assert your wild claims with data, one would think that the data would at least do that- support your claim. All it does is sensationalize normal market trends with the apparent purpose of inciting panic.
No, you are blind to facts. And you repeat myths that hurt investors. Similar posters are the problem and not me.
Simple address to your post: How do you explain the 3/2000-3/2010 S&P 500 return with reinvested dividends of -4.252%?
That doesn't address my post. You site the same rote responses regardless to the situation. In this case, it is a situation which you framed, for which i made a measured and reasonable response. If you are not willing to consider the possiblity that your assertions are false, misleading, or flat out wrong, i don't know how much longer i would feel it worthy to even read your posts.
Otherwise, I hope you are enjoying these holidays and are apparently in good health.
seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No, you are blind to facts. And you repeat myths that hurt investors. Similar posters are the problem and not me.
Simple address to your post: How do you explain the 3/2000-3/2010 S&P 500 return with reinvested dividends of -4.252%?
That doesn't address my post. You site the same rote responses regardless to the situation. In this case, it is a situation which you framed, for which i made a measured and reasonable response. If you are not willing to consider the possiblity that your assertions are false, misleading, or flat out wrong, i don't know how much longer i would feel it worthy to even read your posts.
Otherwise, I hope you are enjoying these holidays and are apparently in good health.
Seattle,
But you are forgetting a simple mathematical equation that the recent loss of -20% requires a positive return +25% just to get back to even. Market losses are reverse compounding. That is why you will compound at a faster rate with less risk because the drawdown is less.
Doing well, I ran and walked 50 miles this past week. I have a hard time running anything faster 9:00/mile. Enjoyed the Holidays with the family which is all in town.
Wish the best on your investments.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
QF60 wrote:
Your continual projection illustrates the weakness of your position.
OK, I don’t have to fo anything other than point to the market. The weakness of your position is your allocation to overvalued equities.
Again with the projection. Your position is built on sand.
Seattle,
You said: But no where does it show a one year period in which 8 years of previous gains were wiped out.
Igy says: 3/2000 S&P 500 reached 1,550 and hit a low of 666 3/2009, a period of 9 years, wiping out all S&P 500 reurns to 1996.
QF60 wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, I don’t have to fo anything other than point to the market. The weakness of your position is your allocation to overvalued equities.
Again with the projection. Your position is built on sand.
OK, what is your allocation to stocks.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, it's hard to take your claims seriously.
You make a claim that "the next year will take you back eight years."
Then to prove it you post a chart of the SNP 500 that purports to show how long various downturns took to recover to the previous highs. Well, okay.....
But no where does it show a one year period in which 8 years of previous gains were wiped out.
Don't get me wrong. If that were true and based on historical precedent, i would like to be aware of it. But it is simply not borne out by the data. In fact, by all appearances, the downturns have very closely mirrored the previous years uptrends, such that one year of losses would wipe out only approximately one year of gains. Yes, there are some brief stretches of a few months in which the loss excelerates, but if you look at most any 12 month period, it is equal in magnitude to one 12 month period of previous gains.
I find your claims to be not fully supported. I know, I know, ... I'll find out. I'm just saying, if you are going to attempt to assert your wild claims with data, one would think that the data would at least do that- support your claim. All it does is sensationalize normal market trends with the apparent purpose of inciting panic.
No, you are blind to facts. And you repeat myths that hurt investors. Similar posters are the problem and not me.
Simple address to your post: How do you explain the 3/2000-3/2010 S&P 500 return with reinvested dividends of -4.252%?
Cherry Picking.
It's no different than picking another set of dates--perhaps March 2009 to October 2018 which would show a 9 year annualized return of close to 15%. If you pick a low at the start, and a high at the end, the returns are skookum. If you pick a high at the start, and a low at the end, the returns are disappointing.
Seattle: “Yes, there are some brief stretches of a few months in which the loss excelerates, but if you look at most any 12 month period, it is equal in magnitude to one 12 month period of previous gains.”
Igy: That is not true because of reverse compounding. The 3/2000-10/2002 S&P 500 decline of 54% took returns back to 1997 levels. The 10/2007-3/2009 S&P 500 decline of 59% took S&P 500 levels to 1996 levels. The S&P 500 did not surpass the 3/2000 level until spring 2013.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle,
But you are forgetting a simple mathematical equation that the recent loss of -20% requires a positive return +25% just to get back to even. Market losses are reverse compounding. That is why you will compound at a faster rate with less risk because the drawdown is less.
A. That’s not an equation.
B. No one is forgetting that. It’s irrelevant.
C. Market losses are NOT reverse compounding. Whoever you borrowed that idea from is an idiot.
Guy who says Skookum a lot wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No, you are blind to facts. And you repeat myths that hurt investors. Similar posters are the problem and not me.
Simple address to your post: How do you explain the 3/2000-3/2010 S&P 500 return with reinvested dividends of -4.252%?
Cherry Picking.
It's no different than picking another set of dates--perhaps March 2009 to October 2018 which would show a 9 year annualized return of close to 15%. If you pick a low at the start, and a high at the end, the returns are skookum. If you pick a high at the start, and a low at the end, the returns are disappointing.
OK, then how do you explain the 3/2000-9/2018 S&P 500 annualized return of 3.851%. That is a high point to a high point. Your belief in double digit annualized equity reurns is a myth. Of course it will work if yo can time travel back to 1880 and project those returns forward. Problem is you will not live that long and the economic potential of this country is nowhere near the post-WW II era.
I you just believe Toto it will make it so.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
QF60 wrote:
Again with the projection. Your position is built on sand.
OK, what is your allocation to stocks.
Do not answer! He’s LRC’s biggest stalker.
Snookum wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle,
But you are forgetting a simple mathematical equation that the recent loss of -20% requires a positive return +25% just to get back to even. Market losses are reverse compounding. That is why you will compound at a faster rate with less risk because the drawdown is less.
A. That’s not an equation.
B. No one is forgetting that. It’s irrelevant.
C. Market losses are NOT reverse compounding. Whoever you borrowed that idea from is an idiot.
A. Sure it is.
B. Well you have little historical perspective.
C. Of course it is compounding in reverse, that is why more is required to get back to even.
STALKER ALERT!!! wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, what is your allocation to stocks.
Do not answer! He’s LRC’s biggest stalker.
No that is you, the Igy infatuated guy.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Snookum wrote:
A. That’s not an equation.
B. No one is forgetting that. It’s irrelevant.
C. Market losses are NOT reverse compounding. Whoever you borrowed that idea from is an idiot.
A. Sure it is.
B. Well you have little historical perspective.
C. Of course it is compounding in reverse, that is why more is required to get back to even.
A. No, it’s not.
B. Yes, I do. Again irrelevant.
C. You clearly have no idea what ‘compounding’ means.
OK, enjoy the ride in 2019....
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle,
You said: But no where does it show a one year period in which 8 years of previous gains were wiped out.
Igy says: 3/2000 S&P 500 reached 1,550 and hit a low of 666 3/2009, a period of 9 years, wiping out all S&P 500 reurns to 1996.
you are confusing wiping out 8 years of gains within one 12 month period (which is what you claimed) with taking 8 years to recover previous highs. They are different things entirely.
Yes, you can cherry pick dates to prove a very different thing, but that is not what you said is "the next year will take you back eight years."
I don't think you concern yourself with these distinctions since to you, they are subtle distinctions. But they are a big deal. If you look closely at the charts you posted, the declines roughly mirror the prior ascents. One year of declines does not equate to 8 years of previous gains. Not even close.
Glad to hear things are going well.
Interested to see what the next few days hold on the market since i'm hoping we've formed a bottom.