[HN Gopher] U.S. stock market returns - a history from the 1870s... ___________________________________________________________________ U.S. stock market returns - a history from the 1870s to 2022 Author : getToTheChopin Score : 299 points Date : 2023-01-06 16:25 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (themeasureofaplan.com) (TXT) w3m dump (themeasureofaplan.com) | lvl102 wrote: | Would be wise to look at stock market side by side with bond | market. | theuri wrote: | Well - last time the pattern looked like this (the years around | ~1917) it eventually led to WWII. So will we see a WWIII in the | next 5-20 years? | DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote: | All that long-term data and presentation is lovely and all, but I | disagree with the conclusion of "buying and holding has been a | simple and straightforward way to build wealth". | | Saying investing $1,000 in 1871 would be $22M now doesn't help | me. Saying $1,000 in 1969 is now $23K doesn't help me - I wasn't | alive then. It's not practical. | | I didn't have $1,000 of savings until my late 20s. After paying | for bachelors and masters, I had to borrow $500 from friend to | eat and live until next pay check. Then car, house, furniture. | | And if that $1,000 I invested in late 20s turns into $2,260 in 20 | years - whoop-dee-doo, who cares. | | Conclusion should be "buying and holding has been a simple and | straightforward way to _store_ wealth ". But not going to build | wealth unless I'm active - building resume, building business. In | addition, I might as well take that $1,000 and swing for the | fences and turn it into $10,000 or more looking for the next | AAPL, GOOG etc. like venture capital. | anon23anon wrote: | I obviously can see your logic but I still think it's your best | bet. I also think it's important to point out there's an order | of importance. If you have low or no income you're first | priority needs to be getting a higher paying job and or up | skilling to enable you to get a higher paying job. From there | assuming you got a decent job most of us will have a 401k | option. You get a tax deduction, tax free growth and most | importantly most of us get matching employer contributions of | some form. If you put in enough to get the full match over the | course of you're career you're going to end up ahead. If you | have an HSA sames goes there. If you have a low enough income | to qualify for the deduction on an IRA same goes there. Oh yea | did I mention 529 for your kids future? Combining investing w/ | special accounts that can grow tax free and offer tax | deductions are going to maximize you're chances of overall | success but again I agree all this is kind of riding on you | being in a decent paying field and if you're not already that | should be your first priority. | DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote: | Yes, definitely need to optimize for the employer | contributions and tax savings, but that wealth is still from | the job. I guess disagree with the "look how much money | you'll have from compounded returns!"... the timelines are | too long to be practical in our life spans. | pacetherace wrote: | What you are overlooking is the risk aspect. If you are | guaranteed a return of say 6 to 7%, you are looking at doubling | the money in about 10 to 12 years. That kind of assurance means | you can invest much more with specific goals in mind. | | This is the reason people take a more balanced approach where | they split their investments in say a 70-30 or 90-10 ratio and | put a smaller percentage in short term high risk - high return | investment. | getToTheChopin wrote: | Generally, the idea is to invest each year, and hold those | investments over a long period of time. | | You can use this calculator to run different scenarios. | | https://themeasureofaplan.com/net-worth-scenario-tool/ | | Example inputs: a 25 year old with a starting net worth of $10k | and who invests $7k per year over 40 years, at a 5% average | annual return. | | Output: net worth of $915k at age 65. This provides retirement | spending of $37k per year (using a 4% safe withdrawal rate | assumption). | DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote: | If I start at 30 years old (as per my initial comment) with | $10K and $7K per year, it shows $687K. At 4% withdrawal rate | that is $27K per year in retirement. Of that $687K, I would | have kicked in $255K of it as principal. Sure it's something, | but that's over 35 year time frame. Wealth is going to come | from other sources. | | Doesn't really fit the "do what Warren Buffett did and be | wealthy" narrative that people imply with buy-and-hold. | Buffett made concentrated bets. He effectively used leveraged | (using insurance premiums) to make bets. He prefers to be a | business owner instead of shareholder (i know it's a subtle | distinction). The Warren Buffett quotes people use to justify | these strategies is misleading. | getToTheChopin wrote: | Warren Buffett is one of the greatest investors of all- | time. | | The average Joe can't expect to re-create his returns. | | There's a reason why Buffett regularly recommends (and bets | on) the S&P 500 as a solid investing strategy: https://www. | investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffe... | compumike wrote: | I think a useful analogy for engineers is that companies are | machines, a black box that takes some amount of resource as | inputs, and turn it into some outputs. | | If we collapse the vector of those inputs (such as labor, | materials, capital) and outputs (products, services) to a single | unit such as "dollars" by which we measure those things, then any | sustainable (i.e. profitable) business creates more output than | input. | | Personally, I like owning companies, because I like owning black | boxes that take money in and produce more money out. :) | | I do think the long-termist view, which this page promotes, | raises several questions: | | Do you believe that companies will, on average, continue being | profitable in the long term? | | Or do you believe that in the long term, profit margins drop to | zero? | | If capital is abundant, can companies remain profitable without | there being a positive return on capital? (I.e. do those profits | flow to entities other than shareholders?) | | Does a "steady state economy" exist? | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy And if so, are | steady-state corporate profits zero? Is there a "tendency of the | rate of profit to fall" | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit... | or is this in some degree compartmentalized with the turnover of | industry over time? | | I do appreciate the graphs on this page, especially the rolling | 5/10/20 year ones. When I get some free time, I may adapt that | concept for my side project https://totalrealreturns.com/ which | lets you graph the inflation-adjusted, dividend-reinvested | returns of any publicly traded stock, ETF, or mutual fund. | boole1854 wrote: | > Or do you believe that in the long term, profit margins drop | to zero? | | > If capital is abundant, can companies remain profitable | without there being a positive return on capital? (I.e. do | those profits flow to entities other than shareholders?) | | > ...are steady-state corporate profits zero? | | I learned the answers to these questions from economist George | Reisman. I recommend his book _Capitalism_ , specifically | chapters 16 - 17, where he explains the answers and how he | arrived at them. The book is available for free in PDF format | here: https://capitalism.net/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf | | In short, the net amount of profit in the economy every year is | the sum of the "net investment" plus "net consumption" during | that year. "Net investment" and "net consumption" are both | precisely defined in the text. Net investment is related to the | changes in money supply and to the difference between the | marginal productivity of capital versus the current rate of | profit. And net consumption is related to the consumption | behaviors of capital owners and the government. There is no | general tendency towards a zero rate of aggregate net profit | since there is no general tendency towards aggregate net | investment + net consumption being zero. | getToTheChopin wrote: | You're raising very valid questions. It seems to me that we'd | need to have continued breakthroughs in science, technology, | medicine, etc. in order to drive sustainable increases in | economic growth. | | Forecasters have predicted the end of innovation at many | points, but humans do seem to have a knack of finding something | new and valuable. | kridsdale1 wrote: | I don't think we need to worry about steady state economics as | long as we are on Earth. Ultimately the whole economy is a | proxy for measuring the flows of transformations of useless | material and energy in to useful ones. The sun shines every | day. That makes crops, which drive labor. Labor writes | software, profits go up. The true input is the hydrogen cloud | around the sun. | theandrewbailey wrote: | I remember people advising to buy things with loans and invest | your cash because your returns are more than your interest rate. | If you don't need that money for 10+ years, that _might_ make | sense, but when things go south, your money (and probably your | income) will be gone, but you 'll still have payments. (That's | assuming the money is _actually invested_ , and not frivolously | spent.) Advice like that is why Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and | JPMorgan are rubbing their hands in their shiny towers. F*** | them. | morninglight wrote: | A Fourier transform on the data is left to the reader. It reveals | soooo much more. | fallingfrog wrote: | Don't keep us hanging! | getToTheChopin wrote: | Any quick insights to share? | LanguageGamer wrote: | Since I don't see anyone else mentioning this: | | The geometric mean (6.9) is all that really matters for | investors, not the arithmetic mean (8.4) - the arithmetic mean | under-weights the importance of negative years to long term | performance. | | For example, if the market is down 20% one year and up 20% the | next year, the arithmetic mean will be 0%, but you'll be down 4% | (0.8*1.2 = 0.96), which is reflected in the geometric mean of | (about) -2%. | [deleted] | chazeon wrote: | Interesting, I am looking at (1+x) * (1-x) = 1 - x^2 < 1 | fallingfrog wrote: | Correct, because we're averaging together things that are | multiplied, not things that are added. Arithmetic mean is | rather meaningless here. | getToTheChopin wrote: | The arithmetic mean gives you a sense of the return you can | expect by investing in the market for a single year. | | When investing over multi-year periods, the geometric average | is more relevant. | | You can see the impact on this chart, where the average | return (and volatility) drops over longer time periods: | https://themeasureofaplan.com/wp- | content/uploads/2023/01/Rol... | Retric wrote: | Depends, dollar cost averaging shifts things around. For a | typical 401k style investor having down years mid career | improves returns at retirement, but then increases risks in | retirement. | aynyc wrote: | Not completely as typical 401K investor would change their | allocations from equity to non-equity. | kortilla wrote: | No, the typical 401k investor does not change their | allocations. | theandrewbailey wrote: | Target-date retirement funds automatically do. | adastra22 wrote: | And even these days the typical investor probably uses a | financial advisor, who would do such fund reallocation, | even if they don't use target date funds explicitly | (which they should). | tunesmith wrote: | The average investor also has less money to invest during | down years though. | scarface74 wrote: | The "average" investor gets paid cash and not in stock. | | The public tech company employee has less to invest because | a large portion of their income is in stock. | | The private tech company employee is screwed because | statistically, they have equity that won't amount to shit | in a bull market let alone a bear market. | loeg wrote: | > The "average" investor gets paid cash and not in stock. | | Not if they're unemployed, which is more likely in down | markets. | majormajor wrote: | The "average" investor is in jobs less hit by typical | recession/down market impacts, since the odds of a | hospitality worker or barista having a retirement account | in the first place is much lower than the odds of a white | collar employee. | Retric wrote: | The point of comparison would be average reduction in | investment vs average reduction in stock price. It's true | people invest less, but stocks take much larger drops | than the reduction in the workforce. | scarface74 wrote: | We have an existence proof that the stock market being | down is not correlated with widespread unemployment | Godel_unicode wrote: | So far, in this one specific downturn, sure. There is | however a strong historical correlation between market | downturns and widespread unemployment. | scarface74 wrote: | https://blog.tornado.com/the-stock-market-is-not-the- | economy... | Godel_unicode wrote: | That's not responsive to what I said. It's a snappy one | liner though, so I guess cool? | scarface74 wrote: | https://seekingalpha.com/article/4170913-unemployment- | rate-a... | | > An inverse relationship between level of unemployment | and forward stock market returns. In the current quintile | (2.5% to 4.4% unemployment), the average S&P 500 return | over the following year is 5.6% versus and average of | 12.7% in all periods. The best returns historically have | come after periods of high unemployment | tunesmith wrote: | I found a woman who is taller than a man, which is an | existence proof that being a woman is not correlated with | being shorter than men. | scarface74 wrote: | "Markets are not the economy" | | https://www.jpmorgan.com/wealth-management/wealth- | partners/i... | roperj wrote: | Are you arguing that the stock market is not correlated | with unemployment? That's a weird and plain stupid hill | to die on because anybody can disprove it with 3 seconds | of googling. | scarface74 wrote: | https://seekingalpha.com/article/4170913-unemployment- | rate-a... | | > An inverse relationship between level of unemployment | and forward stock market returns. In the current quintile | (2.5% to 4.4% unemployment), the average S&P 500 return | over the following year is 5.6% versus and average of | 12.7% in all periods. _The best returns historically have | come after periods of high unemployment_ | feet wrote: | So why don't you disprove it? | [deleted] | bunabhucan wrote: | The average investor includes people who lose their jobs | during downturns. | scarface74 wrote: | What's the unemployment rate - right now? | YPCrumble wrote: | How would that increase risks in retirement? | Retric wrote: | When spending down money you get the reverse of cost dollar | averaging. In a good year you might sell say 1,000 shares | but in a down year you might need to sell twice that to | take out the same money. This means more of your shares are | sold in down years than good years. | | This is why people say to increase the bond ratio in | retirement, but that also reduces expected returns. | cj wrote: | It shouldn't if you transition to heavier weighting of | cash/bonds as you approach retirement (which most people do | and most financial planners advise) | getToTheChopin wrote: | Agreed. Using an assumption of 5-6% annual real total returns | is more reasonable for financial planning. | xapata wrote: | I use a more modest 3.5% real return estimate. I'd rather | wind up accidentally rich than accidentally poor. | Ntrails wrote: | I would describe 3.5% _real_ as pretty reasonable, I would | not even call it overly conservative | getToTheChopin wrote: | The geometric average return of the market is 6.9%, | factoring in the re-investment of dividends and inflation | (i.e., the real total return). | | Based on this, I'd consider a 3.5% return assumption over | 20+ years to be conservative. | Ntrails wrote: | First, please repeat the standard mantra: past | performance is no guarantee of future success. | | Then tell me the 95th percentile and the median geometric | returns based of fixed periods (say, copy the 20 years.) | | Let us also grab what an inflation linked gov bond would | have given over those same periods. Classically I would | always think of pension returns as vs the risk free rate | (heh, us gov credit risk) which is essentially an IL | bond. | | Then repeat the analysis on, say, the G8 or G20 | countries. Oh, and lets do a variety of stock indexes as | well. I am a great believer in diversification - so | betting on the US is not my standard behaviour. | | 6.9% assumed return is mad for any individual. It would | be mad for a DB scheme _and they at least have some risk | pooling in their favour_. | | But. I am hella risk averse and see the world through | that lens. | getToTheChopin wrote: | I'll leave that analysis for you to do and share the | results. | | Using the historical data set for the S&P500 index, a | 3.5% average annual return over a 20 year holding period | is approx. 20th percentile. | tunesmith wrote: | Man, all these numbers seem so high to me. | | I'll just share this. I've recorded every retirement | contribution and date since I started saving for | retirement back in the late 90's. From that, I can figure | APY at any time by comparing to my balance. | | I had some learning experiences early on but never | totally lost my shirt. I went through the dotcom crash, | the finsys crash, and the more recent stuff. And I've | been following Bogle philosophy for a very long time, of | an allocation model with a percentage in US stocks, intl | stocks, bonds, and cash. | | I would _love_ to have 3.5% real over that time period. | | Now, it's possible I'm the world's lousiest investor, but | I don't think so. Because I did a similar exercise | pretending "what if I had just bought S&P500 on those | dates?" and looked at dividend-adjusted-close. And the | results there were also nowhere near as high as you'd | expect. | | People just can't equate "stock market performance" with | what their own performance will be. You might get laid | off when economy is bad and markets are down. You might | have more money to invest at the top of the market, and | less at the bottom, which totally screws up dollar-cost- | averaging. You won't be entirely in the stock market, | keeping some in bonds in cash. Your "well, I'm getting | old so I should keep less in the market" decision might | align with the beginning of one of the most irrational | bull markets in history. (All of the above have been true | for me.) | | I think the only real answers are just to save like | crazy, keep expenses low, and push for a better social | safety net. My own retirement projections assume Social | Security will only pay out at 74%, and I'm feeling the | need to have a _big_ buffer due to economic /political | uncertainty, which really sucks. | [deleted] | mrandish wrote: | Yep, long-term I'm okay at 3%, comfortable at 3.5%, happy | at 4% and awesome anywhere above 4.5%. I find the benefit | of going with a conservative plan is stress reduction | during downturns. | cs702 wrote: | Make sure also to read Warren Buffett's take, written way back in | 1999: | | https://fortune.com/1999/11/22/warren-buffett-on-stock-marke... | [a] | | For me, the most _shocking_ passage of his piece is this one: | | _> ...from the end of 1964 through 1981. Here's what took place | in that interval: DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE | Dec. 31, 1964: 874.12 Dec. 31, 1981: 875.00 | | Now I'm known as a long-term investor and a patient guy, but that | is not my idea of a big move. And here's a major and very | opposite fact: During that same 17 years, the GDP of the | U.S.-that is, the business being done in this country-almost | quintupled, rising by 370%. Or, if we look at another measure, | the sales of the FORTUNE 500 (a changing mix of companies, of | course) more than sextupled. And yet the Dow went exactly | nowhere._ | | -- | | [a] https://archive.ph/ZbKZK | vikingerik wrote: | Of course, those are cherry-picked selective endpoints used to | make the point look more extreme than it is. Look at any other | 17-year interval, or better yet the average of all of them, and | you will see that the expected value of growth is indeed | solidly high. | eldaisfish wrote: | Comparing the value of a stock market index at two arbitrary | points is not a good analysis. | | Here are some reasons why - does this include dividends? Are | the dividends reinvested? Does this include ongoing | contributions in the interim, perhaps at times when the index | was down, now leading to an increase in value? | roflyear wrote: | Generally it would include dividends in their returns, yeah. | However, unless your adjusting the size of the position when | the dividend was paid, these analysis would not reinvest the | dividends. | | Absolutely doesn't include ongoing contributions, I think | that is the big thing. It is rare to just buy a stock or ETF | and hold it for 20 years... usually people are buying more or | selling the position during that period. | cpncrunch wrote: | No, those figures are just the Dow Jones index at those | dates, it doesn't include dividends. You can use this site | to calculate total return with dividends reinvested: | | https://dqydj.com/dow-jones-return-calculator/ | | Plugging in those dates gives 0.078% return without | reinvesting dividends (basically the figures given in the | parent comment), 4.632% with dividends reinvested, and | -1.941% with dividends reinvested and taking CPI into | account. | | So, you still come out negative due to inflation, even | after reinvesting the dividends. | lotsofpulp wrote: | But no credible investment advice in the last many | decades has suggested investing in DJIA. | eldaisfish wrote: | I am almost 100% certain that the figures you quoted are | solely the index values. Dividends are not part of the | index values and never have been. | | Zero change in index value over any period of time does not | necessarily imply zero growth, especially when the time | frame involved is over a decade. | roflyear wrote: | I didn't quote anything, and I specified when looking at | returns. | [deleted] | lotsofpulp wrote: | Why is the DJIA relevant to any discussion about total stock | market returns? | | https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ | | This website shows a nominal 6.34% return with dividends | reinvested from Dec 1964 to Dec 1981. | cs702 wrote: | The point is that, despite massive economic growth (GDP | quintupled) and very high rates of inflation (in the 1970's) | during that 17-year period, at the end of those 17 years the | market was valuing what at the time was the most prominent | index of blue-chip companies at the same market | capitalization they had at the beginning of the 17 years. In | short, it seems that market valuations and economic | performance can decouple for a _very_ long time. | | Note that the compound rate of inflation over that 17-year | period was 6.5%. So, net of inflation, at the end of the 17 | years, the market was valuing the DJIA's blue-chip companies | at _two-thirds_ less (!!!) than at the beginning of the 17 | years. The S &P500, with all dividends reinvested, net of | inflation, returned -0.2%/year over those 17 years. | coldpie wrote: | > The point is that, despite massive economic growth (GDP | quintupled) and very high rates of inflation (in the | 1970's) during that 17-year period, at the end of those 17 | years the market was valuing the index of blue-chip | companies at the same market capitalization they had at the | beginning of the 17 years. | | Makes you think that perhaps the stock market is not a | great reflection of any on-the-ground reality, and that | then makes you wonder what it _is_ a reflection of, and... | well, best not to think about it. Let 's destroy pensions | and put all of our savings into this casino run by the | wealthy. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > Let's destroy pensions and put all of our savings into | this casino run by the wealthy. | | The pensions are the reason why the US federal government | will always bail out the stock market at large. All the | investments the defined benefit pensions make are in | those stocks (or correlated with them). | satvikpendem wrote: | > _Let 's destroy pensions and put all of our savings | into this casino run by the wealthy._ | | I'd rather take the gains from all companies in the US | (or merely even be allowed to invest in whatever I want) | than to utilize a pension from a specific company I | worked for, for 40 years. Pensions are not even | guaranteed to be paid out, there have been many examples | in the past 30 years about this case, if the company goes | bankrupt, doesn't have enough money, etc. | | More often, I notice the people who advocate for pensions | over 401ks or stocks know nothing about what the stock | market is really like. Yes, if you put it all on GME or | AMC, you'll lose your money, but as OP shows, you will | make considerable wealth if you put it into VTI or | another total stock market fund. | coldpie wrote: | > I'd rather take the gains from all companies in the US | | As the post I was replying to said: | | > The point is that, despite massive economic growth (GDP | quintupled) and very high rates of inflation (in the | 1970's) during that 17-year period, at the end of those | 17 years the market was valuing what at the time was the | most prominent index of blue-chip companies at the same | market capitalization they had at the beginning of the 17 | years. | | That's the point, the stock market is not related to the | economy. You're not getting the gains. You're getting | whatever scraps the bored rich people playing poker with | each other accidentally drop off the table. | satvikpendem wrote: | That's only a 17 year span. If you're funding retirement | you should look at longer timescales. Also, DJIA is not | the total market, and as someone else pointed out, S&P | 500 "shows a nominal 6.34% return with dividends | reinvested from Dec 1964 to Dec 1981." | | > _That 's the point, the stock market is not related to | the economy. You're not getting the gains. You're getting | whatever scraps the bored rich people playing poker with | each other accidentally drop off the table._ | | I am, though. I _am_ getting the gains. Over the past X | years, my and my family 's gains from investing in the | total stock market in the last 50 years (not even | outliers like Google or Amazon or GameStop) have been | enormous, on average 7% real as TFA shows. Maybe you're | not, if you're not investing, but the stock market has | consistently given us gains. Again, most people who | mention the kind of "rich boys club" reasoning have been | in my experience people who don't, won't, or can't invest | in the stock market. | coldpie wrote: | I'm glad you got lucky at the casino. You know all those | articles about how market downturns can affect your | retirement plans[1] or your compensation affecting your | shorter-term plans[2]? It's funny how the people with the | biggest impact on the market somehow never have their | retirement plans or lifestyle impacted by market | downturns. They don't even have to sell their yachts. | | The house always wins. | | [1] There's a bazillion, here's one. | https://finance.yahoo.com/news/worried-retiring-during- | marke... | | [2] https://www.parkworth.com/blogs/how-worried-should- | you-be-ab... | satvikpendem wrote: | You're still not getting it. I explicitly said we | invested in the total stock market, not specific stocks. | That's not a casino, much as you think it to be. There | are also ways to ameliorate market downturns for | retirement, it's not an unsolved problem. See guides over | at /r/personalfinance or /r/financialindependence if you | want examples of how. | | Again, if you're not investing, that's your problem, but | don't blame it on the stock market itself. Thinking it's | just another casino where you have to get "lucky" will | cost you a lot of money in the future. | | Edit: I just took a look at your links, they literally | contradict the retirement doom and gloom you're referring | to. From [1]: | | > Historically Speaking, You Shouldn't Panic When the | Market Crashes | | > Nevertheless, history says that most well-diversified | portfolios can and do recover over time. | | > What Retirement Savers Can Do | | > Even though the situation may seem dire given the long | time horizon to recovery, there are multiple ways to | guard against asset depletion. For example, investors can | avoid selling off assets in a down market by holding one | to two years' worth of planned withdrawals in cash. | Worldwide, high-net-worth individuals often keep 21-28% | of their assets in cash or cash equivalents, with the | percentage leaning towards the higher end of the range | during times of market crisis. This also opens an | opportunity for better buys when the market eventually | improves. | | > Being flexible with withdrawal rates is also key to | mitigating sequence risk. Morningstar analysts recommend: | withdrawing a fixed percentage of your portfolio's value | every year, not adjusting your withdrawal rate for | inflation (i.e. not increasing your withdrawal percentage | when inflation is high) or using a so-called guardrail | approach where you reduce your withdrawal rate if it | surpasses a set threshold. | coldpie wrote: | Yeah there's strategies to help ease a bad pull at the | slot machine, but it's still a slot machine. Remember the | 2008 crash? Lots of people got rich in the lead-up to | that, and the people who paid for their gains were the | people who had to cash out their chips during the | following decade for whatever reason. The people running | the market won, as they always will. | mrandish wrote: | The actual data of what's happened historically | contradicts what you're claiming because you keep | comparing poor strategy (eg individual or narrow stock | selection and/or limited time periods) with correct | strategy which demonstrably delivers the results claimed | within the quantified risk parameters. It's just math and | it is objectively correct. | | That doesn't mean that there are no risks. There are | always risks but the math allows us to quantify those | risks to make informed choices. Executing an effective | strategy requires understanding the data, identifying an | approach that fits your goals and then, most of all, the | financial discipline to rigorously stick to the plan over | many years despite emotional ups and downs (eg fear in | downturns, exuberance in upswings). | | Personally, I've been executing such a plan for decades | now and I can assure you it feels nothing like a "casino" | or gambling. Instead, it's downright boring. Once a year | I make a predetermined algorithmic rebalance to the broad | portfolio and otherwise I do nothing and don't even think | about it. When the portfolio was _way_ up a couple years | ago, I didn 't cash in any extra nor even 'celebrate'. | Now that the portfolio is down this year, I'm not selling | or thinking about cutting "losses." Why? Because they | aren't losses unless I need to sell and I don't need to | sell now because those prior "winnings" from a few years | ago are more than enough to cover several more years of | downturn if necessary. I'm not worried. The same thing | happened in 2001 and 2009 and both times the plan worked. | So far, the overall multi-decade results are so far ahead | of plan it would take a substantially larger and longer | global crash than has _ever_ happened to go negative | (just as the article predicted at >20 years). | | It's working, as predicted, and within parameters. What | I'm doing isn't even complicated much less clever. It's | just the standard "Bogglehead"-type strategy that's been | studied forever, used by millions and freely available | all over the web (eg buy and hold a balanced and broadly | diversified self-managed portfolio of very low cost ETFs | (VTI etc)). I have no stock broker, financial planner or | advisor, I'm no financial guru and I only spend about 90 | minutes once a year on my investment portfolio. Hell, | I've never even bought an individual stock. | woobar wrote: | Do you think pensions are kept in some other types of | investments? Here are holdings of California Public | Employees Retirement System: | | https://stockzoa.com/fund/calpers/ | orangecat wrote: | _despite massive economic growth (GDP quintupled)_ | | In real dollars it less than doubled | (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/gdpc1#0). | | _the market was valuing what at the time was the most | prominent index of blue-chip companies at the same market | capitalization they had at the beginning of the 17 years._ | | And during those 17 years those companies paid out roughly | their entire original value in dividends. | | It's true that the Dow lagged the overall economy during | that period, but not nearly to the degree that the quote | implies. | cko wrote: | GDP growth is uncorrelated with stock market valuations. | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DEV49qY0TP8 | cs702 wrote: | Exactly his point. | | In his example, a prominent group of blue-chip companies | grew for 17 years and their valuations remained flat (and | net of inflation, declined). | medvezhenok wrote: | Even less than that if you account for taxes. | cs702 wrote: | Yes. Anyone who bought the indices in 1964 lost money | _before_ and _after_ taxes for the better part of two | decades. | | In the past, the stock market has sometimes behaved in | ways that in hindsight make no sense to anyone, with | valuations staying depressed for _much longer_ than | anyone ever expected at the outset. I 'd be wary of any | predictions of stock market behavior for the next 5, 10, | and 20 years. | [deleted] | pc86 wrote: | My takeaway from that is that either DJIA has the wrong | companies in it, _or_ it 's representative of a sector that | experienced negative growth during that time. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > 5%. So, net of inflation, at the end of the 17 years, the | market was valuing the DJIA's blue-chip companies at two- | thirds less (!!!) than at the beginning of the 17 years. | | This means nothing because the DJIA means nothing, and is | not a good proxy for anything. | | >The S&P500, with all dividends reinvested, net of | inflation, returned -0.2%/year over those 17 years. | | This means something, which is that reward is proportionate | to risk. Investing in the broad US market means your | investment is backed by the federal US government, which | means it is riskless on a sufficiently long timeline | (assuming the US is still relatively powerful in the world | stage). | | You invest in SP500 (or Russell 3000 or whatever broad | market fund) to keep up with inflation, over many years, | not to earn more than inflation. If you want to do that, | you have to take risks. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | DJIA is a decent proxy for market returns. If you don't | think so, just look at the DJIA and the s&p total return | index. They track pretty closely overall. | | Buffett isn't a dummy. If DJIA meant nothing, he wouldn't | have quoted it. | [deleted] | rr888 wrote: | Outside America this has been pretty common or even worse. | FTSE100 (UK), CAC40 (France) are right now trading the same | values as 1999. Nikkei is the same level as 1988. HK is same as | 2007. | bityard wrote: | I read this as Buffet criticizing the validity of using the | DJIA as a proxy for real market performance. | | I'm not an economist or big time investor but even I know to | basically ignore the DJIA for all useful purposes. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | That's not what he was doing. He was pointing out that stocks | and the economy aren't the same thing. As in his example, if | prices are too high at point X, then over the next 17 years | prices can go down even if GDP is going up. | | It's an expectations market. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Buffett advises investing in SP500, because it does serve | as a proxy for the economy. Assuming you think the US is | going to be around in 10, 20, 30, 40 years in any | formidable form, then surely the performance of its largest | 500 businesses is some sort of proxy for the performance of | its economy. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | He advises investing in the SP500 because for people who | don't know what they are doing he doesn't see a better | alternative. And he's right. | | And sure, it will almost certainly track the economy in | some sense over decades, but it need not do that over | 10-15 (or 17 in his example), and it isn't some law of | physics type situation. The underlying factors that drive | returns on capital through time (strong property rights, | reasonable labor laws, stable government) also likely | drive economic growth. | getToTheChopin wrote: | Great call-out. Here's a non-paywall version to that article: | https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/1999ar/FortuneMagazine.pdf | | Interesting to note that if you'd bought and held the S&P500 | index for the 20-year period of 1998 to 2018, you would have | invested through the dotcom bubble and the great recession -- | but still ended with an average real total return of 3.3% per | year over that timeframe (adjusted for dividends and | inflation)! | | Edit: typo | roflyear wrote: | I never thought this was being too honest, as no one just | buys the SPY once and forgets about it. | | Most people invest at some interval (through their 401k, IRA, | or whatever) and it is much better to run some kind of test | that mimics this to some degree. | | If you bought the SPY once a year, once a month, once a XXX | from 1998 to 2018, what are your returns looking like? | scottLobster wrote: | Paul Merriman has a fun "lifetime investment calculator" | that can get you those numbers, it assumes investing Jan 1 | of every year (It's tuned to their recommended allocations | but includes the S&P 500 as a baseline). | | https://paulmerriman.com/lifetime-investment-calculator/ | | If you'd invested 100% in the S&P 500, say 10,000 a year on | Jan 1 every year from 1998 to 2018, you'd have $522,135 | from a $200,000 total principal, or roughly 13% annualized | return (not including inflation) | teraflop wrote: | That question is also relatively easy to answer: | https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest- | portfolio?s=y&t... | | The "rate of return" isn't quite as simple to define when | you're talking about multiple contributions over time. The | most straightforward approach is to look at it as a | weighted average, and the exact value depends on how you do | the weighting. But in this case, it's in the ballpark of | 7%/year nominal, which is probably 4-5%/year after | inflation. | | As you can see, you get a big boost (at least in this | cherry-picked example) by continuing to invest through the | downturn. | getToTheChopin wrote: | Agreed that an example of buying once per year (or quarter | / month) over time and calculating the return of that | scenario is more applicable to the experience of a regular | investor. | | This can be eye-balled on this chart: | https://themeasureofaplan.com/wp- | content/uploads/2023/01/Rol... | | The bottom graph shows the annualized return for each | 20-year period in market history. 20-year holding periods | have this behaviour: - Max: 13.2% - Min: 0.5% - Average: | 6.6% - Std. Dev.: 3% | | So, if you dollar cost average over time and hold each of | those investment cohorts for ~20 years, you should expect | an average annual return of roughly 6% (+/- 3%). | DMell wrote: | These backtests used to be fun when I had access to a | Bloomberg terminal. But, yes.. this discussion shows the | importance of dollar cost averaging. | roflyear wrote: | Yup! Also diversification. It is rare to have ONLY | equities (in my experience, though I only have equity & | cash positions!!) and having even 10-20% of bonds would | make a MASSIVE difference, especially through the 70s, | 80s, 90s!!! (when yields were an average, EYEBALLING, | like 8-9% or something!) see: | https://www.macrotrends.net/2016/10-year-treasury-bond- | rate-... | [deleted] | maxclark wrote: | Past results don't guarantee future performance ;) | paulpauper wrote: | Stock market up a lot today, almost 3%. It's days like today that | make it worthwhile. You cannot have upside without also having | some down days or even, occasionally, down years. | | It's interesting how the DJIA has done so much better then the | S&P 500. I think this shows the value of periodically removing | weak components from the index and choosing only the largest of | already large companies instead of 500 large companies. the DJIA | also held up well in the 2000-2002 bear market. | getToTheChopin wrote: | Yep. "Avoiding the market's downs may mean missing out on the | ups as well. 78% of the stock market's best days occur during a | bear market or during the first two months of a bull market. If | you missed the market's 10 best days over the past 30 years, | your returns would have been cut in half. And missing the best | 30 days would have reduced your returns by an astonishing 83%." | | https://www.hartfordfunds.com/practice-management/client- | con.... | getToTheChopin wrote: | This is an analysis of U.S. stock market returns over the past | 150 years. | | A few insights: | | The average return of the U.S. stock market has been 8.4% per | year over the past 151 years (1871 to 2022); this is the "real | total return" reflecting dividends and inflation | | While the U.S. stock market has trended upwards over time, the | market has declined in 31% of all years on record (47 years out | of 151 years in total); for example: in 2022, the U.S. stock | market dropped by 23.3% | | The range of returns across 1-year periods has varied | significantly (from negative 37.0% to +53.2%). However, the | annualized returns across 20-year periods have a much tighter | range (from +0.5% to +13.2%) | | In other words, the stock market has never declined over any | 20-year time period! | | Sources: Professor Robert Shiller and Yahoo Finance; note: the | "U.S. stock market" refers to the S&P Composite index from 1871 | to 1957, and the S&P 500 index from 1957 until today | retube wrote: | > The range of returns across 1-year periods has varied | significantly (from negative 37.0% to +53.2%). However, the | annualized returns across 20-year periods have a much tighter | range (from +0.5% to +13.2%) | | You'd expect something like this. For a normally distributed | iid, the annualised volatility of returns over n years scales | as sigma / root(n). So if your one year vol was 10%, the | annualised vol over a 20 year period would be 10%/sqrt(20) = | 2.23%. | xapata wrote: | Are they normally distributed? | pclmulqdq wrote: | Almost, but the distribution has slightly fat tails. | ttymck wrote: | Is it correct to say that makes it (slightly) more like a | uniform distribution, if viewed as a spectrum between | one-point distribution and uniform? | xapata wrote: | It's hard to imagine a uniform distribution over an | infinite domain, but that sounds right if you're think of | it as a half-open spectrum. | kqr wrote: | I don't think normality is required -- the sqrt(n) scaling | factor comes out of variance laws and the definition of the | mean. | | It should be true for any distribution that has a variance, | and the 150-year historic return certainly has a variance. | xapata wrote: | The sample variance is different from the distribution | variance, but I get your point. | fedeb95 wrote: | "In other words, the stock market has never declined over any | 20-year time period!" | | That's not true. It is if you cheat by taking useless averages. | It as declined, as you say too, a lot of times, and very badly, | many many times. | getToTheChopin wrote: | The linked page covers this in detail. The market goes down | often, and sometimes goes down significantly for several | years! | | The specific point being made is that there has never been a | 20-year period where the U.S. stock market declined -- when | comparing the start versus end value of the S&P 500 index, on | a dividend / inflation adjusted basis. | pc86 wrote: | There doesn't appear to be any period in question where you | could invest in a broad-based index of funds and withdraw | that investment 20 years later at a loss. That's what is | shown in the FA and what the comment above means. Nobody's | saying it has never declined. | | What isn't true about the above statement? It's incredibly | specific, yes, but it shows that at least historically buying | and holding over time limits huge gains but also limits | losses. | 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: | it's not an average. its saying you buy at the start of the | 20 year period and withdraw after 20 years. | albert_e wrote: | if I invest for say 10 years with a conditional exit/hold | strategy at tne end (i book profit and exit if I am in green, | or decided to wait up to 5 more years till i turn green / with | a minimum threshold) ...would that flexibility in investing | strategy bump up my annualized returns (and presumably | significantly reduce negative returns)? | kqr wrote: | This sounds at its core like a "wait until I've made my money | back" strategy. And yes, per definition you're guaranteed to | make your money back if you follow it. | | It's not E log X-optimal though. | pc86 wrote: | This doesn't sound like something you can know without back- | testing that assumption (which is fairly easy). | getToTheChopin wrote: | You can run a back-test on that type of strategy using the | underlying data from the linked post: https://drive.google.co | m/drive/folders/1hacdyPFJtLMybJrf4CwF... | | Edit: typo | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | When 99% of investors agree on an investment idea, usually that | means a bubble that is going to burst. | danhak wrote: | Of course a country's stock market will perform well as that | country ascends to become the world's dominant superpower. | | The question is whether the power and influence of the U.S. will | grow similarly over the next 150 years as it has over the last | 150. | | To invest mechanically without thinking about what's actually | happening in the world is cargo cult behavior. | getToTheChopin wrote: | Fair point. To add some context though, this data is based on | the returns of the S&P500 index. | | Companies in the S&P500 index are based in the U.S., but most | of them earn revenues internationally as well. | | "Roughly 40% of S&P 500 revenues are generated outside of the | U.S., and about 58% of Information Technology company sales | were sourced from abroad." | | Source: https://www.globalxetfs.com/sector-views- | sp-500-sensitivity-... | | So, the performance of the U.S. stock market in the next 150 | years will not rely solely on U.S. specific economic growth. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | I've always wondered, why do American investors get to | benefit from companies like Apple? Why does Apple choose to | be a U.S. company? We're obviously in competition with other | countries globally in terms of getting companies like Apple | to give us their tax dollars. | | I know Apple does this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_I | rish_arrangement#:~:te.... | | I just wonder, can they really not find a more favorable | country to route the gross of their revenue through? | froglets wrote: | Didn't Apple already move to Ireland for the tax breaks? | JackFr wrote: | The maturity and stability of the US stock market (by which | I mean institutional and structural stability rather than | price stability) make it the most frictionless, transparent | and predictable place to raise equity capital. Add that | dollars are also attached to a broad domestic market and | the US corporate form is strongly entrenched in a culture | of rule-of-law and there's a compelling case to create and | maintain your company in the US. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > The maturity and stability of the US stock market (by | which I mean institutional and structural stability | rather than price stability) make it the most | frictionless, transparent and predictable place to raise | equity capital. | | The number one way that Apple benefits from this is | giving shares to employees as compensation, right? | | They aren't commonly "financing" projects with stock as | far as I understand it. aka, they aren't diluting | existing shareholders by issuing fresh shares to take | advantage of the share price. | | Since they aren't doing that, how do they benefit | financially from their share price? | saltcured wrote: | They benefit from the stable marketplace every time a bit | of ownership is exchanged from one party to another via | stock transactions. | | Compare this to some partnership or other private | structure where owners may be unable to exit unless they | can force the company to liquidate some assets to buy | them out. Companies and investors who work that way can | face liquidity hazards compared to a similar-sized stock | corporation. | tylerhou wrote: | When Apple compensates employees with shares they issue | them out of thin air IIRC. These are dilutive and are | listed on their quarterly financial statements. So yes, | they are financing projects with stock. | snowwrestler wrote: | Do you think that people outside the U.S. cannot invest in | Apple stock? | MuffinFlavored wrote: | No, I'm saying why does Apple choose to be "home" in | America. | WoodenChair wrote: | 1. Rule of law | | 2. Mature financial system | | 3. Investment dollars | | 4. Talent/where talent wants to move to | | 5. Aligned values with California home base | | 6. USA represents their largest market for their products | | 7. The cost of moving | | 8. Cultural connection to where a company started | | 9. Existing investment in headquarters/infrastructure | around the country | | 10. Political clout that being a US company provides | | 11. Network economics of being near other big tech in | Silicon Valley/Austin/New York campuses | jpadkins wrote: | It's where they were founded / started up. And the cost / | benefit of leaving US jurisdiction has never been high | enough for them to relocate. | | There are a lot of benefits of being incorporated in USA | / Delaware. | xapata wrote: | What alternative would you suggest? | snowwrestler wrote: | Ah, it's a good question. Apple was founded in the U.S. | obviously, but U.S. companies can and sometimes do move | their headquarters to another country. Burger King did it | in 2014, reincorporating in Canada for primarily tax | reasons. You can look up "corporate inversions" to see | some other examples. | | But the advantages have be very large for this to be | worth it. The U.S. is a great place to do business in | many ways. And as you noted above, U.S. companies can | still get a lot of "foreign" tax benefits by shifting | assets around between foreign subsidiaries (Apple's Irish | trick for instance). | | There are also emotional complications. A company like | Apple is not just headquartered in the U.S., it is | tightly coupled with the U.S. cultural identity. Moving | out of the U.S. would break some of those ties, with | resulting harsh consequences for Apple in politics, | culture, retail sales, maybe even employees. You can look | up what happened after Burger King moved... people were | pissed. | | So the short answer is, they started in the U.S. and | staying here has a lot of benefits, while moving would | come with high costs and somewhat unpredictable risks. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > Apple was founded in the U.S. obviously, but U.S. | companies can and sometimes do move their headquarters to | another country. | | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193 | 180... | | Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. China | | Apple Distribution International Ireland | | Apple Europe Limited United Kingdom | | Apple Japan, Inc. Japan | | Apple Operations Ireland | | Apple Operations Europe Ireland | | Apple Operations International Ireland | | Apple Sales International Ireland | | Braeburn Capital, Inc. Nevada, U.S. | | It gets confusing to me as somebody "not in the know" on | domestic/international business law/practices. | | https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2 | 013... | | > According to a report by a Congressional panel, Apple | has avoided billions in taxes through the use of | international subsidiaries. | | > Apple has subsidiaries in Ireland where the company has | negotiated a special tax rate of 2 percent. These units | contract with manufacturers to assemble Apple products, | sell the products to other subsidiaries for distribution, | and return the profits up the chain of companies in the | form of dividends. But some of these subsidiaries do not | have a stated tax residence and pay no taxes at all. | | This is from 2013 so I'm sure it's out of date-ish. | | > These 3 subsidiaries are incorporated in Ireland, but | have no country of tax residence | | Looks like what I'm looking for is "country of | incorporation and tax residence" | | Seems like companies can choose to "file/create" their | corporation in any country, then have miniature | "subsidiaries" (is this the right word) in various other | little countries. | layer8 wrote: | Just invest in a world index. See for example | https://curvo.eu/backtest/portfolio/msci-world--NoIgsgygwgkg... | --> minimum investment horizon. | | Of course the whole world could go into a multi-decades-long | recession, but then we'll have much more serious problems | anyway. | Negitivefrags wrote: | I always hate this "If it doesn't work we have much more | serious problems" attitude. | | If the world did go into a multi-decade recession, what "more | serious" problems would you have then your investments doing | poorly? | | You might answer things like " buying food due to shortages" | or something, but surely whatever problem you name, being | more rich is going to solve it? | | Now you can invest on the thesis that this isn't going to | happen, but to argue that the whole concept of investment is | useless if it does seems very suspect to me. | 7steps2much wrote: | Different scale of seriousness. If the whole world goes | into a recession there is a big difference between food | shortages that you can buy your way out of with cash and | food shortages that come as a result of societal collapse | and money being worthless. | | Being rich only matters as long as your investments/assets | hold any value. If truly serious problems around your | investments go to 0, your assets are only worth something | as long as you can maintain control of them (police won't | be around, nor will judges be) and even then your car will | be worthless without gas. | | It all depends on what meaning a person assigns to | "serious" in this context. Personally as long as being rich | solves my Problems I wouldn't describe any situation as | serious. | paganel wrote: | > Being rich only matters as long as your | investments/assets hold any value. | | Also, as long as poorer people are not after you and your | properties (and your life, even) through a revolution, | which revolution could be caused by world-wide economical | and societal crisis (if not a revolution then maybe a | civil-war where the rich are of the wrong ethnicity etc) | [deleted] | layer8 wrote: | Okay, let's put it this way: There's no strategy that | avoids all risks. You have to balance risks and possible | gains. You can balance the risk of investments in the stock | market by allocating part of your money to other | investments or stores of value that you believe will do | better in the scenario where the markets go down long-term. | In other words, diversify and allocate according to your | risk aversion. This being said, a world index provides a | maximum of diversification in the equity market. | purpleblue wrote: | If everyone is in a recession, then no one is in a recession. | ketralnis wrote: | > The question is whether the power and influence of the U.S. | will grow similarly over the next 150 years as it has over the | last 150. | | I don't think that's required. Most of these analyses use US | stock data because it's so easy to gather compared to | international data. The do trends hold internationally, but the | magnitudes are reduced. So if you think the US will regress | closer to the international mean (and I'd agree) then you can | use things like the shape of the bell curve, just not the | height. And indeed, this bears out if you look at the markets | of the UK or most of the EU. Pretty much any reputable adviser | will tell you that that's the consensus, that future returns | will probably be lower for the next few decades than they were | for the last few. (Usually you see this in the media amplified | to a more ridiculous version but that's modern clickbait | reporting for you.) | | There are other possibilities like we could stagnate for 3 | decades like Japan. But yes, that's investing, that's the | nature of the bets you're taking. | | I'm having trouble finding the quotes but around the turn of | last century British economists were looking at the US's | explosive economic growth compared to the UK and attributed it | to the US having the equivalent of a sudden injection of | capital in the form of a whole continent full of free real | estate. That is, they reasoned that the UK's growth was limited | to what they could do on their existing, mostly already owned | and developed land but the US had more physical space for the | balloon to expand into. They reasoned that soon that would | happen though and the US would grow to fill that space and | eventually its economic growth would slow down closer to the | UK's. That clearly didn't happen then. I don't think the lesson | is the US is exceptional and will continue to outpace the world | forever, but I do think that a lesson is that predicting this | stuff is hard and reasonable-sounding ad hoc hypothesis don't | always bear out. | dangus wrote: | I would argue that borders are irrelevant. Large multinational | companies generally list on US stock exchanges. | | For example, Spotify is a Swedish company listed on the NYSE. | nemo44x wrote: | > The question is whether the power and influence of the U.S. | will grow similarly over the next 150 years as it has over the | last 150. | | Over the next 150 years I have no idea. But over the next 30-50 | then almost certainly. No other country is even close and most | seem quite comfortable with the global state of affairs all | things considered. USA hegemony has created a stable world | where the vast majority of people are far better off than their | ancestors. It isn't perfect of course but there's no reason to | think anyone else would do better. Especially when compared to | the previous tenant, Europe. | wintogreen74 wrote: | >> To invest mechanically without thinking about what's | actually happening in the world is cargo cult behavior. | | Maybe, but this describes the investment strategy of pretty | much every index-based fund and they've been the big winners | over a long time frame. Why do you care what happens to a | market 100+ or even 50 years from now? | nscalf wrote: | More interesting that power and influence, which is an open | question, is demographics. There is little to be done about | shifting world demographics. Even if the us stays the premier | world superpower, can that offset massive declines in the | amount of people producing and consuming _everywhere_? While | the us may actually be okay with shifting demographics (Zeihan | has some interesting stuff on this), most major economies are | facing rapidly declining populations over the next couple of | decades. | warinukraine wrote: | > There is little to be done about shifting world | demographics | | Hmmmm immigration. That's how fast growing powers have always | done it. | WeylandYutani wrote: | If population growth is the only way for our capitalist | system to survive we're screwed. | | Sad that nobody has been able to come up with something | better that doesn't involve "infinite growth". | badpun wrote: | You can't add 20+ million imigrants to Germany (and that's | what's they'd need over the course of the next decade or | two in order to avoid demographic collapse) without massive | social problems and/or Germany no longer being Germany. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _without massive social problems and /or Germany no | longer being Germany_ | | This is where America wins. There is no American | ethnicity. There may be, historically. But | mythologically: no. | warinukraine wrote: | Saying 20m is meaningless unless you mention a time | scale. | HDThoreaun wrote: | You can if you force every immigrant to be educated. | Germany's problem is that their immigrants are not. There | are more than enough educated people that want to | immigrate to America, start with allowing every | international college graduate to stay and your most of | the way to solving the demographic problem. | | Even still, the US is much less homogenous than germany. | A variety of cultures is not a problem. | ceejayoz wrote: | Demographic collapse won't cause "massive social problems | and/or Germany no longer being Germany"? | badpun wrote: | Yes, of course. My point is that they're screwed either | way. The time to fix this was 30 years ago. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Underrated comment. You can't print human capital, and if | fertility rates are declining everywhere, every nation is | competing for a shrinking young, productive talent pool. | mattnewton wrote: | The US is well suited to solve this problem with more | immigration, we already have more incredibly talented | people banging on the doors then our nightmarish | naturalization system can take. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Convince the electorate. People are challenging. | thebradbain wrote: | Convincing the electorate of most things is just a matter | of marketing, for better or worse. You'd be surprised how | many former PR and marketing execs now work in DC think | tanks and as lobbyists and political consultants. | | Coca Cola has made and kept its fortune by successfully | associating a syrup that is bad for you with Pure | Happiness. | | Marketing, media exposure, and subliminal messaging both | turned Americans completely against weed from the | 70s-2000s and then also now completely in support of weed | legalization in the past decade. | | Similarly, as we're seeing play out today, the right has | found success marketing the "danger" of drag queens to | turn political opinion against the LGBTQ community, which | itself gained overwhelmingly acceptance in the face of | once-overwhelming disapproval by powerful self- | determination and taking control of how they were | portrayed in the media. | | The same forces that convince people en masse to buy a | certain brand can just as easily be used to affect how we | view any political issue. | jpadkins wrote: | Look at the most recent republican immigration bill - it | was basically canada's or australia's immigration system. | The electorate very much wants to keep skilled, legal | immigration going. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | There isn't unified opposition to skilled labor. Look at | the purported nurse shortage: we're going to import our | way to wage stability. | toomuchtodo wrote: | You're right on the first part, but you don't need | unification to stop something. We're in the 11th or 12th | speaker of the house vote because of ~20 folks. | | https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/104vin7/discus | sio... | | To assume logic will prevail in a system with a | substantial emotional component is a dangerous | assumption. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | You're correct. But that preserves the _status quo_. | Immigration doesn't require reauthorisation. | scottLobster wrote: | More importantly every nation is competing for a shrinking | pile of consumers. Old people can be extremely productive, | but they don't buy nearly as much on average, so all that | productivity has nowhere to go if there are fewer young | people to sell to. | vl wrote: | I'm actually not concerned about demographics. With coming | automations and workforce becoming irrelevant societal | changes are going to be so tremendous, that age of the | population is not going to matter. | mypastself wrote: | Therefore investing mechanically in the _whole world_ might be | a safer bet. Other than currency risk, home bias investment | never felt like the optimal approach to me, even if your home | is the world's most powerful economy. | pacetherace wrote: | I find the inflation as a variable very interesting. Countries | that don't have strong economies generally tend to have higher | inflation. So we may continue to see the stock market continue | to rise indirectly due to inflation but the net return would be | much lower. | lastofus wrote: | > The question is whether the power and influence of the U.S. | will grow similarly over the next 150 years as it has over the | last 150. | | > To invest mechanically without thinking about what's actually | happening in the world is cargo cult behavior. | | This is why it's suggested that unthinking mechanical investors | invest globally, not just in the US. For example, VT, a single | set and forget index fund has 40% international exposure. | That's to speak nothing of the S&P 500 companies that do | business internationally. | | https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/vt/portfolio | WeylandYutani wrote: | Smart people invest globally. I have no illusions that American | billionaires care about borders or governments. | rsync wrote: | "The question is whether the power and influence of the U.S. | will grow similarly over the next 150 years as it has over the | last 150." | | No, I think the question is more subtle ... | | Will the _relative_ power and influence of the US grow | similarly. | | ... and I think that may be a very good bet. | | The three closest "competitors" - the Eurozone, China and Japan | - are, in their own unique ways, dysfunctional basket cases: | | Europe's northern savers and taxpayers have to pay for southern | workers to retire at 60 ... and southern workers need to eat | benefit losses to avoid further (br)exits. This is a not- | insignificant economic and cultural mismatch and the results of | even minor adjustments are _riots in the streets_ [1] ... or | boring, orderly referenda[2]. | | It is unknown whether the CCP can survive _any meaningful | slowdown in growth_ and whether much of the growth of the last | 10-15 years (enormous empty cities) was substantive or useful | at all. | | Japan is undergoing civilizational and cultural collapse. | | So ... while there is _much dysfunction_ - both economically | and politically - in the United States, it is an enormous, | resource rich country that can exist _wholly independently_ | from the rest of the world. | | It also enjoys absolute control of the worlds oceans and | brutally dictates economic and geo politics[3]. | | In a world of troubled and fraught investments, the US is | probably the least troubled and fraught. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests | | [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_withdrawal_from_the_Euro... | | [3] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabo... | dirtyid wrote: | >may be a very good bet | | Trend last few years is PRC closing gap and approaching | parity in indicators like GDP (already exceeded by PPP), % of | global gdp / trade, science and innovation indexes, value | chain upgrades etc. Even PRC military development and | diplomacy is sufficient to get countries hedge / not commit | to US alignment, which was unthinkable 10+ years ago. IMO US | will find it difficult to maintain relative "lead" when, in | the words of state department, "China is the only country | with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological | power to seriously challenge" US order. That said, I think US | has headroom via dictating economic and geopolitics within | her relatively wealthy bloc and grow at the expense of | others. | | >It is unknown whether the CCP can survive any meaningful | slowdown in growth and whether much of the growth of the last | 10-15 years (enormous empty cities) was substantive or useful | at all. | | Western fixation with PRC real estate waste as proxy | indicator of China (econ) collapse is particularly stupid. | It's like suggesting US who spends ~20% of GDP on healthcare | (approximately PRC real estate) with suboptimal result is | spinning development wheels. Same with PRC wasting a few | trillion in suboptimal real estate when significant | (majority) resources being invested to bring up other (above) | indictators that has substantively contributed more to PRC | "comprehensive national power". Like US isn't initiating | unprecented PRC containment policies because of a bunch of | empty of housing units. | vl wrote: | ([3] link) | | Are you implying that US sabotaged Nord Stream? | rsync wrote: | Yes. Or that it was sabotaged with our blessing. | | It was a Keyser Soze move that basically destroyed Russias | bargaining position. | | At the same time, it was an _enormous fuck you_ to EU | citizens and, in particular, Germany: _" Oh yes you will | buy our gas ..."_ | | It appears to be panning out in a non-destructive way for | the EU citizenry as they muddle through this winter but it | was not obvious that would be the case and this | (relatively) benign outcome could not have been predicted. | | If I were an EU citizen (particularly a German) I would be | upset. Even as an American I am disturbed ... | | EDIT: You know that thing ... that _crazy thing_ that Dick | Cheney said in that interview[1] ? About how there is no | reality and reality is whatever we say it is: | | "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own | reality." | | ... every day that goes by I become more and more convinced | that he could be right. NS2 sabotage makes it hard to argue | with him. | | [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/daily- | dish/archive/2009/04/were-... | lostlogin wrote: | > "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our | own reality." | | There is an argument going on in the thread about empires | size and distance from the capital. | | The person who makes out the US is an empire which | controls a bulk of the globe is getting down voted - I | think you are needed there. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34275668 | speakfreely wrote: | Another one of those interesting discussions that the news | seems to have forgotten. It seems Ukraine had the most to | gain, but from my limited understanding it's not so easy to | robotically place explosives at the bottom of the sea in a | precise, destructive manner unless you have a really well- | funded naval force. | | It kind of reminds me of the polonium poisoning that has | become a Russian signature move. Despite not taking credit, | the number of actors who have the capability to do it is so | limited that it's basically outing them regardless. | DontchaKnowit wrote: | No one seems to want to bring up the press conference | where Biden said that if Russia invaded Ukraine there | would no longer be a nord stream pipeline. When asked to | clarify he said something like " oh youll see" | | Everyone just forgot that happened. Strange. | bwanab wrote: | For a civilizational basket case, Japan's GDP/capita has held | up pretty well. Their industrial output is very strong for a | country with sparse internal resources. | | Europe's problems are not unlike the U.S. internal problems | where the tech and financial centers mainly on the coasts | subsidize the rest of the country. The difference of course | is that the states of the EU can exit, where the American | states cannot. I'm not sure which situation is preferable. | | China is a black box, but so far recent history has indicated | the populace will go along with a lot of pain to avoid chaos. | scythe wrote: | Japan's real limitation here is primarily that they're | relatively small (1/3 the size of US/EU), and their most | "aligned" neighbors (Korea, Taiwan, Phillippines) don't | like them very much. It's not like you could reasonably fit | many more people on the islands as it is. | | US wealth distribution is much flatter than European. The | GDP/capita ratio between Mississippi and Connecticut is | less than 1:2, while for Germany to Hungary it's more like | 1:4. | | China is... China. You can't call yourself the Communist | Party _and_ run the global financial system. The world can | only tolerate so much contradiction. | | The open question now is whether the dollar can be | dethroned by nothing: can a basket of currencies become the | default reserve? | bwanab wrote: | <The world can only tolerate so much contradiction.> | | My guess is the world can tolerate it as long as | everybody is making money off it. When that stops, the | contradiction might seem intolerable. | | The world needs a default reserve that's not tied to any | single central bank. For all the upsides there are also | real downsides for the US having its currency as the | default reserve. | malandrew wrote: | China is also expected to see population collapse. They are | rapidly aging and there's no sign that that is reversing. | dirtyid wrote: | IMO population "collapse" or demographic "decline" not | right lens for unevenly developed country with massive | population and high import dependency especially in context | of "relative power". TBH it's surface level PRC collapists | narrative. | | What will happen (by design or not) is PRC demographics is | being "strategically optimized" with the greatest | demographic uplift/upgrade in recorded history. Roughly | replacing 2 low skilled, under-educated workers with 1 | skilled worker with additional automation. Every ~10 years | for the next few decades, PRC will be upgrading / swapping | the human capita potential of 1 Nigeria for 1 Japan, it's | less people, but much more productive people. With PRC pop | base effect this is still multiple more educated labour | pool per year than US or other blocs can generate with | immigration, and 100s of million more in net talent. Less | people also alleviates import dependency, PRC with 1B (400M | less) people would have substantially more strategic space | to operate. It works towards close relative power | potential. CCP wants to smooth out the pyramid with more | births for better managed transition, which | structurally/culturally PRC with some of the highest house | hold savings rate and minimal expectation for safety net is | positioned to weather, but long term PRC comprehensive | national power is best improved by having less net people, | with more % skilled people. | cwkoss wrote: | [flagged] | Supermancho wrote: | America and Americans are not the same thing. | GalenErso wrote: | I am not American, and I think America is a very, _very_ | special country. See this article: | https://acoup.blog/2022/07/08/collections-is-the-united- | stat... | | > The result of all of this is the bizarre situation that | the world's foremost land power is also the world's | foremost naval power, which is also the world's foremost | diplomatic power, which is also the world's foremost | economic power, entrenched in the high ground of most of | the world's international institutions. One may of course | argue that this situation is changing, albeit slowly, but | at the moment the contrast is startling: the sphere of | Russian influence does quite reach Kyiv (about 150 miles | from the Russian border) and the sphere of Chinese | influence does not quite reach Taipei (about the same | distance, but over water), but American influence evidently | reaches both despite the former being 4,300 miles and the | latter 6,500 miles away from American shores. | | > That has never happened before; it may well never happen | again. We have seen regional hegemons similarly dominant in | their local neighborhoods (the Roman Empire, the Han | Dynasty, Achaemenid Persia, etc.) and to lack peers | locally, but the United States is the first and only | country to have done this on a global scale and to lack | true peer competitors anywhere. Even as the 'monopolar | moment' seems to be coming to an end, the United States' | position as 'first among equals' among the 'great powers' | is historically unparalleled; no state has ever been so | clearly without peers influence and power except for maybe | - wait for it - the Mongols. | andrewprock wrote: | Yes, for better or worse, the US navy is the moderating | force that maintains the Pax Americana. The US | essentially controls all oceanic trade. As one might | expect, having a global stranglehold over efficient trade | corridors puts the US in a very unique situation, | militarily, economically, and diplomatically. | karaterobot wrote: | Downvoted because the person you're responding to took the | time to make a case, right or wrong, and your response is | just this peremptory dismissal that adds nothing and only | lowers the tone. | cwkoss wrote: | > It is unknown whether the CCP can survive any | meaningful slowdown in growth | | Is what really peeved me. Besides wrapping an extreme | opinion in "it is unknown whether", it is ridiculous to | insinuate that China is on the verge of collapse. They | have built more wealth this century than the US and | Chinese median wages are rapidly approaching America's. | | Makes me wonder what nationalist propaganda has convinced | that poster that America isn't an even-more dysfunctional | basket case. | SilasX wrote: | That would have been a better insight to share in a | comment. | kurthr wrote: | Umm, I won't comment on nationalist propaganda, but | average annual wages in China are less than a quarter of | the US or most industrialized countries while debt/GDB | was 270% in 2020 and the last few years have not been | kind (US including states is <150%). Gini statistic for | China is also quite high, but since they don't release | enough reliable data it's hard to tell exactly. | | https://worldpopulationreview.com/country- | rankings/median-in... | cwkoss wrote: | Average annual salary for Chinese people has increased by | about 2.5x in the past 10 years: | https://www.statista.com/statistics/278349/average- | annual-sa... | | Average American income has increased by only 33% over a | similar period: | https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/average-us-income | | While wages in China are still only about 1/4 of US | wages, 10 years ago it was 1/12th of US wages. If the | trend continues, we should expect Chinese wages to reach | parity with US wages in less than 15 years. | kurthr wrote: | If you believe that will happen, you should probably | invest all your money there. I'll note that in your chart | the wage growth rate has plummeted over the last 10 | years, and that these are means not medians (meaning the | US is $87k in 2021?). During the same 10y period China's | debt grew by almost 200% accelerating and the US about | 30%. | | I worked in China for almost 20 years. When I first | arrived bicycles dominated the streets of Beijing. | Amazing to watch it grow. I would not speculate there on | anything longer than a 3-6month time horizon. I'll note | that most Chinese that can do not invest there either. | [deleted] | dmarucco wrote: | Are you sure that southern workers retires at 60? I don't | think so ... | sgu999 wrote: | If they are sure, they are wrong. Spain and Sweden retire | at the same age. Italy, Greece, Denmark and Norway as well. | [1] | | Yes, France retires at 62 but that'll change very soon... | | Writing that the "north pays for the south" by looking at | the GDP per capita instead of the GDP is... naive. [2] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_in_Europe [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_E | u... | acchow wrote: | > Japan is undergoing civilizational and cultural collapse. | | Certainly doesn't seem this way when you visit Japan. Sure, | they haven't experienced wildly growing excessive consumption | like some American states in the past couple decades, but | their society is far from undergoing any sort of collapse. | was_a_dev wrote: | The French rioting is just another Tuesday. | zitterbewegung wrote: | I don't think we were much of a dominant superpower until after | World War 2. Lots of Europe was decimated but our | infrastructure wasn't and we also won the Cold War . We had | large factories created also. | | If some other superpower does come around you could just try to | find a foreign index fund and adjust your investments. | huijzer wrote: | > Of course a country's stock market will perform well as that | country ascends to become the world's dominant superpower. | | There is probably more at play too. The number of banks, for | example, has been declining steadily over time [1] as has the | internet allowed single corporations connect to more buyers | (nationally and internationally). Just think of all the local | stores that Amazon has displaced. | | [1]: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the- | economy/2021/december/stea... | [deleted] | rr888 wrote: | Along with a 50 year bull market in bonds where yields have | dropped nearly every year (along with inflation). | FooBarBizBazz wrote: | It's weird how most of the return from bonds comes not from | yield but from capital appreciation [1], which happens | because yields are dropping. There's something perverse and | circular about it: "Make sure you buy your collectible widget | today! It'll go up in value, because next year's widgets | won't be as good! Prices only go up, because everything's | downhill from here!" | | [1] Actually, is this literally true? | FooBarBizBazz wrote: | About [1]: I'm wrong. If you look at TLT in TradingView, | adjusted for "dividends" vs. not, from 2003 to 2019 you see | nominal gains of about 150% (with) vs. 40% (without). So | most gain is from income. That's ignoring tax. | | Would also be good to compare to CPI to understand real | returns. Or whatever other number seems to be a truer | measure of inflation (house prices, for example). | rr888 wrote: | yes it has been true the last 50 years, as market rates go | down the existing bonds become more valuable. But it can't | continue forever. https://www.macrotrends.net/2016/10-year- | treasury-bond-rate-... | radiator wrote: | Actually it looks like the US is already on the way of demotion | from a global superpower to a regional power. There is no | single country which comes as a replacement, but a multipolar | world order instead. Many countries, mostly asian are emerging. | dpweb wrote: | You can only evaluate returns compared to the risk-free return | (ie treasuries) - and favor treasuries cause less variance. | | Stock market success depends entirely on when in history you | got in and got out. When it comes to US dominance over the next | century - who knows. I do trust in Fed interventionism and | willingness to print money - so that certainly favors stock | market investment. | | Personally I find stock market is too high a variance and I | prefer not speculate with money I can't afford to lose. | | Buffet himself said their biggest peak to trough was 50%. Fine | if you're already rich and investing a fund. Not so great if | it's kiddos college money. | catskul2 wrote: | I get what you're saying about "mechanically" but "cargo cult" | does not work as an analogy here. | dionidium wrote: | Rumors of our impending collapse have been, let's say, | _exaggerated_. I wouldn 't bet against the United States over | the next 30-50 years, at least. | TheFreim wrote: | > To invest mechanically without thinking about what's actually | happening in the world is cargo cult behavior. | | If things go badly then the money I would have from not | investing "mechanically" would probably be as useless as the | investments. If everything is going to decline continually it | seems the greater reward will almost always be in the | investment. This also assumes you only invest in the current | world superpower, seeking global diversification would probably | be wise if you see a major change in polarity. | [deleted] | hammock wrote: | I think about this a lot when you consider the world's largest | companies today aren't stocks but sovereign wealth funds and | oil reserves. Similarly in days past they were other state- | owned entities like the East India Company. | | The S&P 500 is not everything there is to be had... | FatActor wrote: | A long time ago, naive me learned that tech companies also | invest their money and that those returns count toward their | valuation, and that seems wildly backwards to me, but I'm an | engineer, not a financial expert. | [deleted] | snowwrestler wrote: | This has the causality backward. | | The qualities of the U.S. that helped it become a superpower, | also help it have a high-performing domestic economy. | [deleted] | paulpauper wrote: | _The question is whether the power and influence of the U.S. | will grow similarly over the next 150 years as it has over the | last 150._ | | It does not need to . What matters is how much profits large | companies are earning. There is no indication that profits are | slowing. Even if GDP only grows at 2%/year, if multinationals | generate 10% annual profit margins, that is $ that must still | go to investors even if GDP growth is much lower. | | When you compare foreign markets to the US, the US still comes | out ahead by almost every metric. There is little indication to | suggest this will change. Every problem that the US has, other | countries have worse. So relatively speaking ,the US still will | be ahead. | nimz wrote: | Your point is valid - we shouldn't take single-country risk in | investing. Assuming you believe the world as a whole will get | more productive and value creating, globally diversifying your | stocks is the answer. | | As an example that supports your point, the Japan stock market | (Nikkei) peaked in 1989 and STILL has not returned to that | high. | | However, even if you were incredible unlucky and had bought in | at the 1989 peak in Japan, if you had an internationally | diversified portfolio, you would be OK. E.g. a 30/30/20/20 Jp | Stocks/Intl Stocks/Jp Bonds/Intl Bonds portfolio purchased in | 1989 at the Nikkei peak would have more than doubled by 2014 | (see here: | https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=265807 and | also https://www.afrugaldoctor.com/home/japans-lost- | decades-30-ye...). | paganel wrote: | > Nikkei) peaked in 1989 and STILL has not returned to that | high. | | Also, the FTSE 100 has been almost flat since the financial | crisis, so basically just a little over 10 years. It was at | about 6300 in the first half of 2013, it's at ~7700 now, a | ~22% return over 10 years is nothing to write home about. For | comparison the SP500 was at ~2300 in the first half of 2013 | vs ~3800 now, a 66% return. And that's after last year's 23% | decline. | ar_lan wrote: | If you continued to invest in Japan throughout that period | after, you'd be up today. The only case you were forever | screwed is if you really aren't pouring more money into that | (e.g. retirement). | bionsystem wrote: | It's too hard to swallow for most people but you're right. | There are significant headwinds coming ahead for most markets | whilst productivity gains have stalled. See Robert J. Gordon's | paper "IS U.S. ECONOMIC GROWTH OVER? FALTERING INNOVATION | CONFRONTS THE SIX HEADWINDS". | | I really think millenials should consider hedging their bet, | maybe even spend 100% of their income. | ptr wrote: | Nominal Swedish stock market return 1879-2012: 10.9% arithmetic | mean, 9.0% geometric mean. Real return: 7.9%/6.1%. And Sweden | isn't really the world's dominant superpower. | https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/forskning/monetar... | jltsiren wrote: | Sweden, Switzerland, and the US are obvious outliers. Their | economies have been abnormally stable, because they have not | faced revolutions, civil wars, foreign occupations, and other | forms of widespread destruction in a long time. | gumby wrote: | Who cares about returns over the next 150 years? Even half that | is excessive. Someone investing at age 18 might care about the | subsequent 50 years. | | It's going to be a long time before some other country takes | over the "reserve currency/investment market of last resort" | position the US currently has. No other market is even close to | providing the deep liquidity and rule of law the US market has | over a wide variety of instruments. | | Sure, someone will eventually take over that role, but there | are no candidates today. And, to your point: it was clear by | the late 19th century that the US dollar would displace | Sterling, but it took another half a century for that to | happen. On the scale of current human lifespan, you can assume | it won't happen at all. | [deleted] | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > Someone investing at age 18 might care about the subsequent | 50 years. | | With a gradual decline in exposure to equities over time. | | https://www.google.com/search?q=what+asset+allocation+should. | .. | ideamotor wrote: | This is terrible advice. It's more complicated than this | and depends on your situation (age, social security, | pensions, tax deferred account timing) but generally you | want less stocks when you enter retirement but gradually | going back up in retirement. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > but gradually going back up in retirement. | | Why would you want to be more exposed to riskier equities | (a la they are down 20% in the past year) when you are 65 | years old and have no income other than dividends/bond | yields? | ambicapter wrote: | Why going back up in retirement? | ideamotor wrote: | I'll respond in more detail later but here is a paper | that examines it: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm | ?abstract_id=2324930: | | "Accordingly, as the results support, for those looking | to maximize their level of sustainable retirement income, | and/or to reduce the potential magnitude of any | shortfalls in adverse scenarios, portfolios that start | off in the vicinity of 20% to 40% in equities and rise to | the level of 60% to 80% in equities generally perform | better than static rebalanced portfolios or declining | equity glidepaths. Though as the results also reveal, in | particular scenarios where the equity risk premium is | depressed, the optimal glidepath includes less equity, | and in scenarios where the goal is to withdraw at a level | that stresses the portfolio and its expected growth rate, | higher overall levels of equity are necessary; with such | high-risk goals, having a relatively high-risk portfolio, | with the danger that entails, is still the optimal | solution (and for clients who cannot tolerate that level | of risk, the ideal solution is to choose not a less risky | portfolio, but a less risky and aggressive goal). | Nonetheless, for everyone else looking to maximize a | sustainable income level, or determine the amount of | assets to support a (reasonable) target income level, | rising equity glidepaths appear to both maximize the | likelihood of success and sustainable income and reduce | the magnitude of shortfalls when they occur." | | There is a a lot of discussion of this here: | https://www.bogleheads.org/index.php. Also, this article: | https://www.kitces.com/blog/should-equity-exposure- | decrease-.... | zie wrote: | > Someone investing at age 18 might care about the subsequent | 50 years. | | I get what you are saying, but your math here is a bit off. | | 50+18 = 68. | | People generally can live longer than 68 years old, If we go | out on longevity and assume people can live to 100 or 120, | then it's more like 100 years. | | Your next thought is, but people will retire before/around | 68, fair enough, but they stay invested generally the entire | rest of their lives. | | So if the US dominance ends in the next 100 years, then | today's teenagers might need to care about it. People in | their 30's or 40's probably don't though. | | The next 150 years, you are right todays teenagers might not | need to care, unless many/all of our aspirational longer | living goals happen. | purpleblue wrote: | No, this is poor investment advice. The closer you get to | retirement, the more your money should be in extremely | short term, non-volatile investments like T-bills. You | should not be invested in the stock market, because the | risk is too high that you could lose a lot of your savings | just before you really need it. | zie wrote: | I never talked about asset allocation, you did, but going | 100% equities to 0% equities is not reasonable either. | | Yes you probably want some bonds, but you still need some | equities. | | The default answer is something around 20% to 60% | equities in retirement. | FooBarBizBazz wrote: | Everybody says this, but stocks and bonds go up and down | together now. I guess it's less an issue if you're | holding bonds to maturity and laddering, but that might | just be psychological, not sure. | zie wrote: | Not really, they are somewhat correlated, but they are | not completely correlated. Duration has a lot to do with | it as well. Look up Long Term Treasuries(TLT/EDV are | funds that hold these) and compare that to US stocks like | VTI. | | Bonds are like buying future cash-flow, stocks are about | future growth. | | i.e. if you buy a bond that's paying you $25k/yr, then | you will get that $25k/yr regardless of what happens to | the NAV until maturity(and/or bankruptcy obviously). | hindsightbias wrote: | A future US Govt default is not exactly an infinitesimal | black swan event looking at Capitol Hill this week. | [deleted] | brianwawok wrote: | Not convinced bonds are useful. There are other things | that get you away from 100% equity. | bushbaba wrote: | That would depend on the drawdown rate and total wealth. | sokoloff wrote: | On the first day of a typical someone's retirement, they | should probably be 40-50% invested in equities. An often | cited rule of thumb is for your equity exposure in | percentage to be 100 minus your age in years; others | suggest 110 minus your age. | GCA10 wrote: | Directionally right. I saw older family members switch | out of stocks at 65, only to discover that their ultra- | safe fixed-income investments failed to keep pace with | the next 25 years' relentless increases in medical and | care expenses. Assuming that you're not facing an | immediate health catastrophe, your time horizon at age 65 | is still decades, not single-digit years. | itsoktocry wrote: | > _Someone investing at age 18 might care about the | subsequent 50 years_ | | Those 50 years are part of the next 150, and are no easier to | forecast. Most market projections are for numbers ~7% | annually, but periods worse than that would drastically alter | investing plans, and hence social infrastructure planning. | JustSomeNobody wrote: | That is why https://www.firecalc.com/ exists. The idea is | that you save enough that over all the possible starting | years, you would end up with money instead of broke, for | the length of time you think you'll be alive. | paganel wrote: | > Most market projections are for numbers ~7% annually, | | Too lazy to web search for an answer, but are those real | returns? (i.e. inflation-adjusted). | Spooky23 wrote: | It should give pause to people who think that the stock | market is some sort of science. Macroeconomic conditions and | policy influence this stuff. | [deleted] | acchow wrote: | How can anyone assume the next 30-50 years of the US economy | will be anything like its rise to superpower over the last | 150 years. | time_to_smile wrote: | Or we see a contraction in globalization in general in which | all economies shrink. | | It's entirely reasonable that we could enter a period of | long, slow decline across the board. Especially as we | continue to push the limits of natural resources and global | supply chains. | | For example suppose the US continues to move its push to | return chip manufacturing to the US. This might mean both | that US chip manufactures have a more healthy future than | other more fragile tech companies _and_ that they shrink in | size. We could see a return of manufacturing to the US which | leads to continued employment in US labor for while also | meaning that labor force gets paid much less. | | We're already starting to see evidence of this happening. | | The concerning thing is that I'm not at all sure that our | incredibly debt dependent global economy, which assumes | future growth, can really handle a gradual contraction to a | more sustainable economic structure. | | Either way, assuming up is the only way for the market to go | is a very naive assumption, but one nobody is happy | questioning. | vl wrote: | >We could see a return of manufacturing to the US which | leads to continued employment in US labor for while also | meaning that labor force gets paid much less. | | Interesting! Why is it happening? Shouldn't labor earn more | in this scenario? | bluGill wrote: | Depends. Manufacturing in the US implies high automation. | For those who maintain the machines there is a lot of | money, but there are far less jobs and in turn far less | in total in labor. | | Though I suspect there is more need for such labor than | people who can do the job. Hard to say, but there are a | lot of things we haven't automated yet. | verdverm wrote: | > a gradual contraction to a more sustainable economic | structure | | Why do you assume that it requires a contraction to reach a | sustainable economic structure? | | What prevents the economy from growing for the foreseeable | future while also becoming more sustainable at the same | time? | time_to_smile wrote: | Before answering your question, you need to first be | clear what "sustainable" means. For me sustainable means | that we can continue to life as we do indefinitely. | | Our current economic structure, due to its reliance on | credit, requires perpetual growth and development in | order to pay off today's debts. Debt in all forms has | been growing increasingly and rapidly in recent years. | | Infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet. | | In many areas we are already seeing the limits of growth, | from strains on oil supplies to global population growth | starting to slow down. This is already, today, putting a | strain on our economic systems. | | Since our current way of life can only be sustained by | future growth, it is by definition not sustainable unless | you sincerely believe growth to be without limit (this | would require near term interplanetary travel and energy | advances such as fusion). As mentioned, we are _already_ | seeing system strain suggesting we are hitting limits. | | Contraction is the preferable path of the two realistic | alternatives, the other is complete collapse. | | How do you propose the economy growth for the foreseeable | future _and_ becoming more sustainable? | ganonm wrote: | Keep in mind that the present value depends somewhat on the | discounted future earnings, which by definition extends to | the end of time. That being said, the associated time | discounting heavily reduces the impact of earnings envisaged | say 100 years from now (a 5% discount rate would mean ~13k | USD in 100 years is worth about 100 USD now, and that's | probably generous given historic market returns). | | So, the US doing extremely well 100 years from now vs. the US | doing very badly 100 years from now could have a non-trivial | impact on the perceived value of US assets. I suspect that | the large uncertainty about what the world will look like in | 100 years means there is just some sort of seldom changing | value baked into assets to account for this, but it | nonetheless exists, and could change if there was some huge | geopolitical shift. | | And before you mention anyone on earth would be dead in 150 | years, yes that's true, however you can always sell it to | someone later on who _will_ be alive in 150 years (or sell it | to someone who can later sell it to someone etc. etc.). | mint2 wrote: | Is that actually how it works? Money has to go somewhere | regardless of future. Whatever looks the least bad at | present is in demand, regardless of what the returns are. | Inflation was above tbill rates yet people bought because | they don't have better options. | | It's like food. Food in 100 years does not help the need | for food now. | kqr wrote: | Food perishes faster han equity indices. | | If there was a futures market in foodstuffs that | basically keep forever and is cheap to store (honey?) you | would see that the expected price of that food in 100 | years would have some effect on the current price. | dalbasal wrote: | Why is "reserve currency" the central issue? | | Also, the US stock market, US Dollar and US economy/gdp | aren't hard linked to one another these days. The companies | listed can be selling to non US markets, employing | internationally, founded internationally. They're just | listing on the US stock market because well.. that's where | the stock market is. The US could, in theory, become more or | less popular a stock market regardless of its currency's | popularity. | | Meanwhile, both the Euro and RMB have similar size markets | backing their currency. Neither one is currently _trying_ to | displace the USD. I think the importance of owning the | international currency is somewhat speculative. | bobthepanda wrote: | Yeah, China has already indicated that it would prefer the | ability to implement sudden, nearly total capital controls | rather than be annoyed with the day-to-day of a reserve | currency. | malandrew wrote: | Stock markets are natural monopolies. Liquidity begets | liquidity. What would cause companies to choose other | exchanges and what stops the dominant exchanges from | adapting to changes that threaten its liquidity advantage. | | Is there anything stopping the NYSE, Nasdaq or CME/CBOT | from handling trades in another currency? | PKop wrote: | The reserve currency built atop the petrodollar system | produces a cycle of the rest of world needing to acquire | dollars to trade for commodities and most other commerce | around the world. Because it gains this reserve status, it | has stability and confidence, and thus since countries need | it to buy input commodities and energy, they acquire | foreign exchange surpluses by selling goods to the US and | running trade surpluses. Since they have stockpiles of | dollars, it is conducive that these dollars are also used | for trade of other goods and also the creation of borrowing | and lending demand in dollars outside of the US. | | If countries then acquire dollar surpluses by running trade | surpluses with the US, the US by contrast has a trade | deficit. This is equivalent to having a _capital_ surplus | for the US. It means excess capital is funneled back into | the US into the capital markets buying stocks and bonds. | | This is maybe a chicken and egg phenomenon..is it the | demand to invest in the US creating a capital surplus that | creates the dynamic whereby the $ becomes reserve currency | and the US runs increasingly large trade deficits? Is it | the military/political power that creates all of the rest? | Probably all of above. But in any case the reserve currency | system has at its core the financial markets of the US that | the rest of world invests their surplus into, incentivizing | them to produce in excess and trade real goods and work | with US in exchange for paper IOU's that they can invest | into the US markets. | | A big aspect of this $ financial/trade system isn't just | the $ as currency itself but the unique and important | position of US treasury debt as the premier reserve _asset_ | that countries store their surplus and forex reserve in, | and which is the center piece of the eurodollar[0] lending | markets. | | [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eurodollar.asp | lottin wrote: | Trade deficits and capital surpluses go hand in hand. | This is easy to see. If the value of your imports exceeds | the value of your exports (i.e. you have a trade | deficit), the excess imports must be financed somehow-- | either borrowing money abroad or selling assets (such as | equity) to the rest of the world. This results in a net | flow of money into the country, i.e. a capital surplus. | hammock wrote: | 100-year bond spot rate: https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series | ?seid=HQMCB100YR&utm_sou... | kingkawn wrote: | Your assumptions presume that the pace of historical | developments is the same as it was in the late 19th century, | which seems clearly untrue. The rate that these things | transform today may be breathtaking. | [deleted] | mnky9800n wrote: | This justifies historical investment strategies like the very | simple buy and hold forever (only blue chips and salsa please) or | something marginally more sophisticated like dogs of the dow. The | real question is whether growth will continue, or at least during | our life times, be kept afloat by unfair practices by the | wealthy. | captainmuon wrote: | It's my understanding that the return on investment has been | slowly and constantly going down since at least the 70s, such | that it is getting harder and harder to find good investments. | That is made more problematic by low interest rates (can't just | "bring it to the bank") and high inflation (can't "put it into a | sock"). This is the cause of a lot of ailments. Money rushing | into real estate, investors requiring a certain ROI, thus | neccessarily raising housing prices. Something similar happens in | the health sector. | | How do I square that with this plot that seems to imply constant | (although not stable) high returns for over a century? Are the | stocks picked not representative (probably not) or not weighted | properly? What does "adjusted for reinvested dividends" mean? (I | could imagine in times of high inflation and low ROI, companies | would want to get rid of cash and pay dividends, rather than | investing it themselves for example.) | cheriot wrote: | > the return on investment has been slowly and constantly going | down since at least the 70s | | Curious if you have a source for that? | | > What does "adjusted for reinvested dividends" mean? | | Dividends are payed out in cash and this means the analysis | assumes they're used to buy more shares. | | There's an argument that the American economy in the 20th | century is itself a selection bias. It's the most successful | economic period in history. Other countries in the same period | or the world economy in other periods do not have such | spectacular returns. | legolas2412 wrote: | > Curious if you have a source for that? | | Some people think that we are facing secular stagnation, and | the economic growth is slowing down. The avg federal reserve | interest rates have been falling at 2% per decade for 5 | decades, and signifies less growth in the economy. Sure, this | low interest rates have actually fueled the stock market boom | as the value of future earnings is high, but the growth is | not sustainable. For one, we are going to end up with some | stable p/e ratio, and the growth of stock market because of | low interest rates will stop. And two, the interest rates | will also stop going down as fast, as a rate of say -10% | sounds pretty bad in what it means for the economy (negative | growth of that magnitude), so people do not think we will | have such a situation. | [deleted] | getToTheChopin wrote: | This data is based on the returns of the S&P 500 index, which | is made up of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the | US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500 | | Adjusting for reinvested dividends refers to an assumption that | the cash dividends paid out by a company are re-invested to buy | more shares of the stock. The concept being that a company can | pay out a cash dividend or use that money to invest / grow | their business. Therefore, to calculate a "total return" we | need to factor in the price increases of a stock + the | dividends that were paid by the company. | [deleted] | [deleted] | concordDance wrote: | This is actually horrifying if you think about it for a minute. | | Given GDP is growing at a slower rate than this, this means that | the rich will genuinely just get richer and get a larger slice of | the pie while the poor get squeezed. | | Land/house prices will increase to the maximum the market can | bear and as that market will be full of money from those | inheriting from their parent's patient investment... we'll end up | in a society where your quality of life depends on the wealth of | your ancestors. | fallingfrog wrote: | That's the basic premise behind Piketty's book "Capitalism in | the 21st Century". From wikipedia: | | "The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on | capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) | over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and | this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic | instability. Piketty proposes a global system of progressive | wealth taxes to help reduce inequality and avoid the vast | majority of wealth coming under the control of a tiny | minority." | nazgulnarsil wrote: | enerational wealth diffuses in 3 generations iirc | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _GDP is growing at a slower rate than this_ | | Over what interval are you observing this? | fallingfrog wrote: | https://www.statista.com/statistics/996758/rea-gdp-growth- | un... | fedeb95 wrote: | This is bullshit: past returns aren't indicative of future | returns. You can't predict the next catastrophe. "Zooming out" is | the perfect way to loose money, even better than CAPM or similar | stupid things. | | Edit: Since I'm being downvoted, go read: "The misbehaviour of | markets" by Mandelbrot or "The black swan" by Taleb, or just | reflect on what "zooming " really is: averaging to keep out | outliers. | | Edit 2: to put it in less salty terms: yes, now it's down 23% | from the previous year, so probably it will go up and you will | make a profit, as long as US economy doesn't collapse. But you | don't know the probability of such an event, since the | distribution of returns in markets is unknown (we're not yet at | the limit at which the central limit theorem holds). Not knowing | that probability, you may die before you see your return. Or, as | said, US economy may collapse, your bank or broker will, etc. | Meaningless risks? Perhaps in a world of gaussian distributions, | not our. | verdverm wrote: | If the US economy collapses (to black swan catastrophe levels), | you are going to have a much different set of problems and | markets will stop running all together, the world will | collapse. | | We do know that the probability of a collapse is so small that | it is not worth worrying about for investment strategy. Better | to worry about the things that might lead to such collapses and | strategies to mitigate those | fedeb95 wrote: | My main point isn't the only risk is the economy collapsing, | this is nitpicking | hartator wrote: | I think you have to see it more from "best alternative" | mindset. | | This shows that long term (20 years and plus) assets are best | held in low cost stock index funds. Over cash (inflation), | bonds, savings accounts, or other assets. It's the least bad | option. And you are not suggesting something else. Hence I | guess the downvotes. | | Of course, markets can be irrational forever or tomorrow we | could have a nuclear world war or aliens annex us or a meteor | can hit us. This is life 101 though. This is not a deep | insight. | fedeb95 wrote: | Not suggesting something else isn't an argument. Long term | from now you don't know anything, you know long term up to | now. The risk of a market crash isn't the same as of a meteor | hitting earth, since tails of the probability distribution | (as can be estimated, so not cast in stone) are fat. | ManuelKiessling wrote: | I don't know the probability of me being hit by a deathly- | traffic-accident, therefore I will never leave the house. | fedeb95 wrote: | It's not the same type of risk. I'm not against risk taking, | but betting everything in the stock market is plainly stupid. | I'm ok with many people believing it's not however, I can | keep benefiting from crashes ;) | rr888 wrote: | Credit Suisse does this every year in the Credit Suisse Global | Investment Returns Yearbook. https://www.credit-suisse.com/about- | us/en/reports-research/c... | | https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/ab... | StillBored wrote: | So at ~7% it takes 10 years to double your money. So that gives | one about 4 doublings in ones working career. So, a bad ten year | stretch like 98-08 which provided basically 0% over the decade | makes a huge difference in ones ability to retire based solely on | 401K/etc style returns and should be a strong argument in favor | of defined benefit plans that basically pool the risk over a much | longer horizon vs going it alone. | | I would have expected someone to create a retirement insurance | pool type thing that returns something close to the long term | average s&p returns. But if you go looking for such a thing, the | returns are closer to 1/2 the s&p. Its really the kind of thing | the government should backstop but... "socialism" even if the | math works out. Which really pisses me off because its apparently | ok to "socalize" the poor mgmt at $BIGCORP that gets a handout | once a decade or so at the current rate after spending billions | on stock by backs but not socialize individual retirement risk in | a meaningful way. | [deleted] | dangus wrote: | You're missing the part where ~7% is already the average | including the bear periods. During bull periods, the market | increases by more than that average. | | Between 2009 and 2021, the S&P 500 went up by 13.8% per year. | | Between 2005 and 2022, the S&P 500 went up by 8.3% per year | (which of course included some market crashes). | | > I would have expected someone to create a retirement | insurance pool type thing that returns something close to the | long term average s&p returns. | | Target date index funds are the way to go there: | https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-fun... | StillBored wrote: | Target date doesn't solve any of these problems except to | shift the investments from higher return/higher risk to lower | return lower risk as you approach the target date. It helps | with the problem that the market crashes right before you | retire but in exchange you lose a percent or so over the | lifetime of the fund. And while vangard is industry leading | WRT to the expense ratio, right there on their page they note | that the industry average is almost half a percent just in | expenses. Never mind the lower returns. | | And these days there really hasn't been anywhere to run since | everything is so correlated. People close to retirement in | those funds are going to be delaying retirement just like | everyone else. -15% YOY with "safe" low risk/return | investments really hurts. | https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual- | fun... | | The place I was at 15 years ago when I actually had money in | a target date fund had a 1.5% expense ratio that was buried | in a couple of different parts, fund expense ratio, and a | underlying security expense ratio. And then on top of that | the place I was at the "plan provider" or whatever they were | called was scraping another .20% off of everything. There was | a class action lawsuit, and the plan provider eventually | lost. But, of the probably tens of thousands I lost vs just | having my money in a IRA with vangard I think I got a check | for something like $100. | getToTheChopin wrote: | > I would have expected someone to create a retirement | insurance pool type thing that returns something close to the | long term average s&p returns | | This sounds like you're describing a defined benefit pension | plan, or an government old age pension plan like Social | Security (in the US) / Canada Pension Plan (in, well, Canada). | | As usual, higher risk begets higher reward. If you don't want | to face the prospects of volatile returns, you'll likely need | to accept a lower long-term average return in exchange for the | predictability. | StillBored wrote: | Traditional US pension plans are all but dead except for a | small number of people basically grandfathered into systems. | Social security doesn't have a way to "buy up" and invest | more to get it to say match ones yearly income. | | So really every individual investor is on their own until | they get to the point where they can sell the risk and buy an | annuity (although those tend to be terrible too largely I | guess because they want to make $$$$ and other reasons). | | So, in the US outside of Social security, which isn't a | retirement plan, there isn't any option other than to hope | you don't have to retire during a downturn, or that you have | to go live in a box for a few years to avoid burning all your | capital when its value temporary falls for a couple years. | Because there isn't any way to recover except to go work at | walmart as a door greeter. | | There have been a number of articles about this over the past | decade or two, which boil down to, in the US you can do | everything "right" but whether you can actually retire comes | down to a bunch of lucky decisions and market timing. So | basically its random, with some probably of "success" of | landing into a bucket that actually allows you to retire even | at 65 which is well into the "everyone is dying off" part of | the morality curve. | | Work till you die is the official plan, but then people might | start reconsidering their life choices when there isn't this | "you will retire happy" carrot at the end. | orangecat wrote: | You can buy very safe investments like treasury bonds. Of | course they won't give you the 8% risk-free returns you're | looking for, but that's the point, nothing will. | bernardv wrote: | Buffet's simple advice for anyone wanting to invest but not sure | how to start - Have at least some exposure the S&P500 for the | long run. Pretty sound advice. | Ekaros wrote: | Also interesting question from some perspective is putting a unit | of currency in a market now and then in 10 years it being worth | nearly double logical? Or in 40 years worth nearly 15 times? | jgeada wrote: | Note that there are 20 year periods where the net gain is close | to 0. People starting their economically productive life during | one of those intervals will not see any economic gains from | investing in the stock market, and to the extent that the market | echoes the economy their economic situation will likewise be | stagnant. And worse, there will be all the people from the lucky | intervals extorting these unluckly people to pick themselves up | by their bootstraps. | | People born in the lucky periods almost always describe their | results as due to hard work, never as due to luck. And unlucky | timing is almost always attributed to personal failures, not the | economic situation. | [deleted] | throwthere wrote: | Bogus. You're assuming they invested all their dollars at the | year 0 (peak) price an and sold everything at the 20 year | trough. Of course that's impossible, they invested over their | entire careers which included intervals of much lower prices. | So much should be obvious by just looking at the sp500 graph of | performance over time. There's no period where dollar cost | averaging over twenty years gave a result like you're saying. | leoplct wrote: | 6.9% as geometric doesn't look so attractive. I wonder if a | basket of bonds could perform better with less drawdown. | | If you replicate the same analysis using European or emerging | data the results are even worse. | waylandsmithers wrote: | Maybe it would have muddied the site's data but it gets a bit | better when you factor in dividends and dividend reinvestment | keewee7 wrote: | As long as I have been browsing the English-language Internet the | overall mood among Americans has been that the S&P500 and US | dollar hegemony will collapse in a month. | | Why is that? I'm European but the US doesn't seem too different | from most of Europe in terms of stability and the risk of unrest. | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | On the internet, you never know who are those "Americans". | Keywords such as "US dollar hegemony", "petrodollars" and | "Yellowstone volcano explosion" are strong indicators of a | certain country's troll operation. | [deleted] | [deleted] | boatsie wrote: | The argument that the US stock market always goes up over | relatively long periods of time seems somewhat flawed to me. If | it were true that it was always best to invest in US stocks, | everyone's (longish term) money would flow to that asset class, | thus undervaluing something else in return. So it just seems that | it can't be a dominant strategy or else everyone would be doing | it. Wouldn't that leave assets like bonds, real estate, foreign | stocks, etc undervalued? | danielmarkbruce wrote: | It isn't a zero sum game. The underlying businesses have | generated returns on the capital deployed. It can continue to | go up forever. | HDThoreaun wrote: | There is a limited amount of energy we can harness on this | planet. Seems extremely difficult to believe it can continue | to grow exponentially forever. | theandrewbailey wrote: | You're moving the goalposts. Capital is not energy. | paulpauper wrote: | Stocks also have much more risk compared to bonds , so more | risk compensated by higher returns . | sokoloff wrote: | I think you're conflating "consistently beats inflation" with | "always best investment". | | That US stock market real total returns are positive doesn't | say anything about whether all long-term money will flow into | it. | heneryville wrote: | You can use the efficient market hypothesis to talk yourself | out of pretty much any good idea. | cperciva wrote: | I see it the other way: Corporations can invest in anything, so | if any asset class outperformed equities we would soon see | corporations listed on the stock market which simply held those | assets. (This happened with BTC, with limited success, of | course.) | boatsie wrote: | Wouldn't it just be better for them to invest in more | equities, like an investment bank? | snowwrestler wrote: | REITs are a classic example. | dcolkitt wrote: | So there are a couple of reasons that things wouldn't | necessarily converge to equilibrium, and they're fairly well | documented in all the asset classes you mention. | | Foreign stocks: There's a well-documented effect called "home- | country bias"[1]. Basically, investors tend to buy much fewer | international stocks and are overly concentrated in their local | domestic stocks. There's all kinds of reason for this, but they | mostly seem to center around regulatory barriers (typically | harder to open a fund to invest outside the country), political | (major pension system are encouraged to invest at home for | patriotic reasons), and reputational (losing money overseas | tends to make the asset manager seem more reckless). | | Real estate: Most governments heavily subsidize real estate | from a combination of tax advantages and cheap credit. Look at | how easy it is for the average Joe to buy a house with 400% | leverage, no margin call, no capital gains on sale, and he gets | all kinds of tax credits. Which means if you are getting those | advantages than it's rational to invest in real estate, but if | you look at raw returns real estate tends to underperform | because investors with those advantages are willing to accept | lower returns. | | Bonds: The disparity between equity and bond returns is perhaps | the most studied in all of finance, and is known as the "equity | risk premium"[2]. There are numerous explanations, but two | major ones standout. First, bond returns tend to be anti- | correlated with the general economy. During recessions, when | people are most likely to need liquidity, bonds tend to go up | whereas stocks tend to go down. Second, many large classes of | investors are basically forced to invest in bonds instead of | stocks. For example insurance companies can only hold a tiny | percent of their reserves in stocks and are required to invest | in fixed income products. Similar story with banks, and to a | lesser extent pension funds. | | [1]https://www.gsam.com/content/dam/gsam/pdfs/common/en/public/ | ... | | [2]https://www.yardeni.com/pub/stockmktequityrisk.pdf | 1270018080 wrote: | Everything else goes up over relatively long periods of time | too. | julienchastang wrote: | How can we have infinite, exponential economic growth on a finite | planet? | jpadkins wrote: | energy and raw material per unit of GDP has been going down for | a few decades (basically digital economy is more resource | efficient). Sorry I don't have a citation handy. | | Your other assumption is we are going to stay on one planet, | which I don't think is true. We will consume asteroids + | resources on other planets when it is economically viable to do | so. | | Also, the economy doesn't permanently "use up" earth's | resources (other than a few exceptions that are fixed like land | or go through a 1 way process like uranium). Water, wood, food, | etc are all renewable resources. Even Petroleum might not be as | finite as we currently think it is (https://www.scirp.org/journ | al/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...) | dkokelley wrote: | I guess _eventually_ the earth will be swallowed up by the sun, | but for practical purposes economic growth happens when we | rearrange the atoms and bits at our disposal into things that | people consider more useful. All of the materials to create a | car existed here thousands of years ago, but we didn 't value | it as much until somebody figured out how to assemble it into a | useful form. | | What's more, an old junk car might be valued at $3,000, but we | can take most of the same materials and transform it into a new | car with $15K (or other goods we consider worth more than the | $3K car). The same finite resources + energy & labor (when used | productively) = economic growth! | dav_Oz wrote: | Depends on the metric and what you mean by _growth_ per se. | | If no physical object is involved but rather just _changes_ or | _reconfiguration_ of the - let 's say - human brain, in the | end, all possible states are limited by the (overall) entropy | of our universe. If multiverses turned out to be accessible | (i.e. empirical objects) then according to our current | understanding there seems to be no limit. | | The closest limit isn't "economical" but much more | "biological"/"societal". If we destroy the livelihood of our | species before understanding/appreciating it - let alone | transcending it fully (which some folks claim to be right | around the corner) - we are just another failed (alien) | civilisation who couldn't get past the threshold. | | The mathematical "exponential" part isn't the isolated problem | but in combination with our _limited_ understanding; _flawed_ | evaluation and the _gross deficiencies_ in our current social | structures (institutions, governments, bureaucracies, | corporations, distribution of resources, conflicts of | interests, "war" ...). The current economical incentives are | just a reflection of that. | mikeg8 wrote: | Growth isn't solely tied to use of finite resources. Services | also count. Two people can exchange a service, say a massage, | which extracts zero finite resources, and at the same time, | creates economic output. | | _edited typo_ | disqard wrote: | I've wondered about that, but it doesn't seem to add up. | Maybe you can help me find the flaw in my reasoning (below): | | There's (at minimum) Time being exchanged. If A gives B a | massage, A and B are investing that Time in this transaction | (also, A is investing a space, a massage table, electricity | for the physical space, etc.). _All_ of these things are | finite, and devoted to this service. If the service were not | provided, these finite resources would not need to be locked | up / extracted / used. | | To say that the providing of this service happened in a | vacuum of "extracts zero finite resources" seems a bit | disingenuous. | mikeg8 wrote: | Thanks for engaging, it's beneficial for me to also think | through this reasoning. I'm sure there are flaws in my | understanding/example as well, but here is how I would | respond: | | I think we are possibly using "finite" too loosely. A | googled definition of "finite resource" is, " _A resource | that is concentrated or formed at a rate very much slower | than its rate of consumption and so, for all practical | purposes, is non-renewable._ " | | I do not believe space would be considered finite as it | cannot really be "consumed." occupying a space does not | deplete the resource of the space itself. Space on earth is | more finite than "space", but still, there are many types | of spaces for a massage to take pace: masseuses residence, | the client's home, a park or yard, etc. In the economic | sense, space doesn't seem finite while it may be in the | Physics sense. | | A massage table doesn't seem finite either. If its made | from wood, leather/cotton, those would be regeneratable | resources and tables made with metal or plastics probably | does not meet the definition of finite as a table is | reusable and has a very very low rate of consumption | (replaceability in this sense). | | Finally the most controversial: electricity! hard to argue | against this without some squirming but 1) if the massage | is rendered in a space with good natural lighting or | outdoors, electricity is not mandatory 2) humans may find a | way to make this resource much less "finite" in the future. | | Using the massage example was not a full-proof attempt on | my part, but I can imagine others examples (vocal lessons, | tutoring, coaching, selling flowers/eggs from a farm stand | etc) that can be done without the "finite" resources we are | discussing. My main point was that not all economic output | is tied to the depletion of a finite resource. | mempko wrote: | A message isn't zero finite resources. People think software | is ephemeral. It's not. Software has a physical manifestation | (should be obvious, it runs on hardware and uses energy). | | By 2025 the internet alone will consume 20% of all energy. | mikeg8 wrote: | Hello. see my response to the other comment RE finite | resources and can you please provide a source for the stat | about internet anergy consumption? seems suspicious to | me... | INeedMoreRam wrote: | [dead] | pcurve wrote: | Negative annualized return for the 10 year period from 2000 to | 2009 is actually quite frightening. | | "As always, Warren Buffet put it best: "the stock market is a | device for transferring money from the impatient to the | patient"." | layer8 wrote: | That's only for the money you put in the stock market in 2000 | though. Usually you continually put new money into stocks, | which somewhat flattens out the risk. Nevertheless, you | arguably shouldn't invest unless you're prepared to hold for | 10-15 years. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | One might paraphrase that as "those who can afford to wait". | paulpauper wrote: | It helps too that he lived so long an has no use for the money | he has invested | radiator wrote: | Why? He has children, does he not? | paulpauper wrote: | he has billions but never spent more than a middle class | lifestyle. Saving money matters a lot when we're talking | compounding over decades. | therealcamino wrote: | He famously has said he will donate most of his money | rather than leave it to his children. | | https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=177 | | He's not leaving them zero or anything, and three of the | foundations he's funding are run by his three children, so | they benefit from his wealth. But they won't receive most | of it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-06 23:00 UTC)