Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Try learning.
I’m Dr. Know.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Try learning.
I’m Dr. Know.
Yes, I know.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Gruntz wrote:
His lying has been well documented here.
Bug off troll. I have never lied. @$$ wipe.
If you’re trying to be funny, it’s not working.
Gruntz wrote:
His lying has been well documented here.
I don't believe he lies about everything. I actually believe he did go running with his mates, and shampooed the carpet for the wife. He's actually very fact based when he avoids the subject of investment.
mister wrote:
Gruntz wrote:
His lying has been well documented here.
I don't believe he lies about everything. I actually believe he did go running with his mates, and shampooed the carpet for the wife. He's actually very fact based when he avoids the subject of investment.
OK, and this from the guy that claims he divorced his wife over conservative investments.
seattle prattle wrote:
And it recuperated every bit of the 2009 downturn within 4 short years.
Fun fact of the day : if you adjust for inflation, it took the Dow thirty years to recover from the Great Depression crash that started in 1929. Kinda crazy to think about
Racket wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
And it recuperated every bit of the 2009 downturn within 4 short years.
Fun fact of the day : if you adjust for inflation, it took the Dow thirty years to recover from the Great Depression crash that started in 1929. Kinda crazy to think about
Fun Facter - Are you reinvesting dividends? If you are the S & P did an annualized return during those 30 years of over 6% inflation-adjusted. Without inflation-adjustment, the S & P returned over 8%. Those are some pretty solid numbers. Oh, since Christmas eve, the NASDAQ had skyrocketed 20%. Wow!
Sally Vix wrote:
Racket wrote:
Fun fact of the day : if you adjust for inflation, it took the Dow thirty years to recover from the Great Depression crash that started in 1929. Kinda crazy to think about
Fun Facter - Are you reinvesting dividends? If you are the S & P did an annualized return during those 30 years of over 6% inflation-adjusted. Without inflation-adjustment, the S & P returned over 8%. Those are some pretty solid numbers. Oh, since Christmas eve, the NASDAQ had skyrocketed 20%. Wow!
Even more incredible for that 6% annualized return even inflation-adjusted during that time span, is that you had some years like 1941, 1942, 1946 and 1947 when the inflation rates were 10%, 9%, 18% and 9%. respectively. Amazing to have done like it did during that time when some of the highest inflation rates in history occurred.
Demographics totally different today than that earlier time period. You all seem to miss the point that it has taken extraordinary Federal Reserve policies to extract meager gains the last nineteen years, and during that time period two over 50% market collapses. Of course one can believe a camel can fit thru the eye of a needle.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Demographics totally different today than that earlier time period. You all seem to miss the point that it has taken extraordinary Federal Reserve policies to extract meager gains the last nineteen years, and during that time period two over 50% market collapses. Of course one can believe a camel can fit thru the eye of a needle.
Why do you always want to begin in 2000? Always! Because the three years immediately following that year were bad years. But, even if you pick 2000, the stock market has done quiet well in spite of those three dismal years.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Demographics totally different today than that earlier time period. You all seem to miss the point that it has taken extraordinary Federal Reserve policies to extract meager gains the last nineteen years, and during that time period two over 50% market collapses. Of course one can believe a camel can fit thru the eye of a needle.
Exactly what do you mean the demographics are different today? Do you even know what the word "demographics" means? Please please please elaborate on how the demographics are different today.
3/2000 = first Federal Reserve induced stock market bubble
demographics = 1940 6.8% population over age 65, 2016 figure 15.2%; that number increased 36% 2006-2016; fewer productive workers, ie more takers than makers
your belief = naive in my view
my opinion = take it any way you like
market = will decide which view is correct
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
3/2000 = first Federal Reserve induced stock market bubble
demographics = 1940 6.8% population over age 65, 2016 figure 15.2%; that number increased 36% 2006-2016; fewer productive workers, ie more takers than makers
your belief = naive in my view
my opinion = take it any way you like
market = will decide which view is correct
Can we PLEASE quit bringing 2000 into the equation. Let's focus on how the market how done long-term - (11%) or even short-term (20%). Name one other investment that even remotely approaches those numbers. Name one.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
3/2000 = first Federal Reserve induced stock market bubble
How did the Fed create that bubble?
I won’t live 130 years so I will let you invest via market long term averages. I am more interested in the best investment in 2019, you think it is stocks, I say it will be CDs. On 12/31/2019 we will know who was right.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I won’t live 130 years so I will let you invest via market long term averages. I am more interested in the best investment in 2019, you think it is stocks, I say it will be CDs. On 12/31/2019 we will know who was right.
Ghost - we will NOT know who was right in 12/19. Investing is about the long-term. Who gives a damn what happens this year. We only want long-term appreciation over the LONG HAUL. NOt one year.
Sally Vix wrote:
Racket wrote:
Fun fact of the day : if you adjust for inflation, it took the Dow thirty years to recover from the Great Depression crash that started in 1929. Kinda crazy to think about
Fun Facter - Are you reinvesting dividends? If you are the S & P did an annualized return during those 30 years of over 6% inflation-adjusted. Without inflation-adjustment, the S & P returned over 8%. Those are some pretty solid numbers. Oh, since Christmas eve, the NASDAQ had skyrocketed 20%. Wow!
No, I mean the inflation adjusted value of the Dow was about 5,500. It took 30 years to get back to that after the Great Depression (again, inflation adjusted). It's meant to be a fun fact only. I don't even want to look into how many dividends were eliminated or drastically reduced during that time to begin with
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Fun Facter - Are you reinvesting dividends? If you are the S & P did an annualized return during those 30 years of over 6% inflation-adjusted. Without inflation-adjustment, the S & P returned over 8%. Those are some pretty solid numbers. Oh, since Christmas eve, the NASDAQ had skyrocketed 20%. Wow!
Even more incredible for that 6% annualized return even inflation-adjusted during that time span, is that you had some years like 1941, 1942, 1946 and 1947 when the inflation rates were 10%, 9%, 18% and 9%. respectively. Amazing to have done like it did during that time when some of the highest inflation rates in history occurred.
Inflation in those ranges is usually bullish for stocks. A weaker dollar makes goods and services cheaper abroad
wondering wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
3/2000 = first Federal Reserve induced stock market bubble
How did the Fed create that bubble?
Kept interest rates too low in the late 1990s inflating the Tech Bubble, same with housing 2005, and now plus QE inflated The All Everything Bubble.
Racket wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Fun Facter - Are you reinvesting dividends? If you are the S & P did an annualized return during those 30 years of over 6% inflation-adjusted. Without inflation-adjustment, the S & P returned over 8%. Those are some pretty solid numbers. Oh, since Christmas eve, the NASDAQ had skyrocketed 20%. Wow!
No, I mean the inflation adjusted value of the Dow was about 5,500. It took 30 years to get back to that after the Great Depression (again, inflation adjusted). It's meant to be a fun fact only. I don't even want to look into how many dividends were eliminated or drastically reduced during that time to begin with
So just ignore dividends? Isn't part of investing incurring dividends? Don't you want to look at how an investment does overall? Or you just have an agenda?
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
Congrats to Kyle Merber - Merber has left Citius for position w/ Michael Johnson's track league
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion