Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
27 for 27
Old 02-22-2017, 10:54 AM   #1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 45,620
27 for 27

Will this year make it 28 for 28?

Quote:
Since 1945, there have been 27 years when the S&P has achieved gains in January and February. The stock index then finished up for the year (on a total-return basis) in every one those years...
...by an average of 24%.

Of course YMMV, past performance is no guarantee of future results, yadda yadda...

Marketwatch
Attached Images
File Type: png MW-FG320_stoval_20170222061601_NS.png (77.4 KB, 90 views)
__________________

__________________
Numbers is hard

Charter resident of the lumpen slums of cyberspace

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-22-2017, 11:25 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
exnavynuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Acworth
Posts: 1,175
I'm up 24% YoY right now, so I'd be okay with another 19% or so gain over the rest of the year myself on top of that...
__________________

exnavynuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2017, 01:43 PM   #3
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Atlanta suburbs
Posts: 632
Do you know why they chose 1945 as the starting year? Is that all the data that they have? or were there different results before 1945?
DEC-1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2017, 03:46 PM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 23,427
No need to be greedy... I'll settle for the average of 24%.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2017, 03:59 PM   #5
Full time employment: Posting here.
EvrClrx311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 570
Quote:
Since 1945, there have been 27 years when the S&P has achieved gains in January and February.
I wonder what they mean by "achieved gains" in January and February. More than just 27 of the past 72 years were up by Mar 1st of the year.

Maybe it means gains in each January, and in February? Which I think is more likely, though lost in the context of how it's written. However, in 1962 the market was up in January 1.7% and up in February 0.1% (0.0996866989% to be exact) but then finished the year down 9% total. I suppose someone could use some creative math to round the February gain down to 0% and call it "not a gain" to exclude it from this chart... though the S&P did go from 70.22 to 70.29 that month... which is certainly a gain

Maybe it means, gains of more than X percent... in those first two months, which makes the lure of this statistic less majestic (and maybe why it was left out?).

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Anyway, I decided to look at the inverse of this for comparison... and see what Jan and Feb looked like in the years the S&P fell (which isn't as often as you'd think)

In fact, when counting for dividends, there have only been 16 years (in total return) that the S&P lost value since 1945. Here they are, along with what happened in January and February

2008 the S&P500 was down 4.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 37% for the year
2002 the S&P500 was -up- 1.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 22% for the year
2001 the S&P500 was down 11.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 11% for the year
2000 the S&P500 was -up- 1.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1990 the S&P500 was down 0.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 3% for the year
1981 the S&P500 was -up- 0.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 5% for the year
1977 the S&P500 was down 3.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 8% for the year
1974 the S&P500 was -up- 1.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 27% for the year
1973 the S&P500 was down 5.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 15% for the year
1969 the S&P500 was down 2.6% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1966 the S&P500 was down 4.8% by Mar 1st and finished down 10% for the year
1962 the S&P500 was -up- 1.8% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1960 the S&P500 was down 5.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 1% for the year
1957 the S&P500 was down 3.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1953 the S&P500 was down 0.7% by Mar 1st and finished down 1% for the year
1946 the S&P500 was down 2.7% by Mar 1st and finished down 12% for the year

Anyway, there are years the market was -up- in Jan and Feb (cumulative) but lost on the year. In fact, as recently as 2002, the market was up over a percentage in January/February but lost 22% on the year by Dec 31st.


References:
(yearly returns: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm)
(Jan 01 - Mar 01 returns per year calculated from Shiller data)
EvrClrx311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2017, 04:17 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DrRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,770
Great if it happens, but I'm not counting on it.
__________________
"The mountains are calling, and I must go." John Muir
DrRoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2017, 05:48 PM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
exnavynuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Acworth
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvrClrx311 View Post
I wonder what they mean by "achieved gains" in January and February. More than just 27 of the past 72 years were up by Mar 1st of the year.

Maybe it means gains in each January, and in February? Which I think is more likely, though lost in the context of how it's written. However, in 1962 the market was up in January 1.7% and up in February 0.1% (0.0996866989% to be exact) but then finished the year down 9% total. I suppose someone could use some creative math to round the February gain down to 0% and call it "not a gain" to exclude it from this chart... though the S&P did go from 70.22 to 70.29 that month... which is certainly a gain

Maybe it means, gains of more than X percent... in those first two months, which makes the lure of this statistic less majestic (and maybe why it was left out?).

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Anyway, I decided to look at the inverse of this for comparison... and see what Jan and Feb looked like in the years the S&P fell (which isn't as often as you'd think)

In fact, when counting for dividends, there have only been 16 years (in total return) that the S&P lost value since 1945. Here they are, along with what happened in January and February

2008 the S&P500 was down 4.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 37% for the year
2002 the S&P500 was -up- 1.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 22% for the year
2001 the S&P500 was down 11.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 11% for the year
2000 the S&P500 was -up- 1.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1990 the S&P500 was down 0.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 3% for the year
1981 the S&P500 was -up- 0.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 5% for the year
1977 the S&P500 was down 3.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 8% for the year
1974 the S&P500 was -up- 1.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 27% for the year
1973 the S&P500 was down 5.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 15% for the year
1969 the S&P500 was down 2.6% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1966 the S&P500 was down 4.8% by Mar 1st and finished down 10% for the year
1962 the S&P500 was -up- 1.8% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1960 the S&P500 was down 5.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 1% for the year
1957 the S&P500 was down 3.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1953 the S&P500 was down 0.7% by Mar 1st and finished down 1% for the year
1946 the S&P500 was down 2.7% by Mar 1st and finished down 12% for the year

Anyway, there are years the market was -up- in Jan and Feb (cumulative) but lost on the year. In fact, as recently as 2002, the market was up over a percentage in January/February but lost 22% on the year by Dec 31st.


References:
(yearly returns: CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500)
(Jan 01 - Mar 01 returns per year calculated from Shiller data)
There is probably a reason they chose only those years where the market was up in both January and February instead of up cumulatively across those months, because the data makes a juicier story that way and a better story = more clicks.
exnavynuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 07:11 AM   #8
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvrClrx311 View Post
I wonder what they mean by "achieved gains" in January and February. More than just 27 of the past 72 years were up by Mar 1st of the year.

Maybe it means gains in each January, and in February? Which I think is more likely, though lost in the context of how it's written. However, in 1962 the market was up in January 1.7% and up in February 0.1% (0.0996866989% to be exact) but then finished the year down 9% total. I suppose someone could use some creative math to round the February gain down to 0% and call it "not a gain" to exclude it from this chart... though the S&P did go from 70.22 to 70.29 that month... which is certainly a gain

Maybe it means, gains of more than X percent... in those first two months, which makes the lure of this statistic less majestic (and maybe why it was left out?).

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Anyway, I decided to look at the inverse of this for comparison... and see what Jan and Feb looked like in the years the S&P fell (which isn't as often as you'd think)

In fact, when counting for dividends, there have only been 16 years (in total return) that the S&P lost value since 1945. Here they are, along with what happened in January and February

2008 the S&P500 was down 4.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 37% for the year
2002 the S&P500 was -up- 1.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 22% for the year
2001 the S&P500 was down 11.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 11% for the year
2000 the S&P500 was -up- 1.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1990 the S&P500 was down 0.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 3% for the year
1981 the S&P500 was -up- 0.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 5% for the year
1977 the S&P500 was down 3.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 8% for the year
1974 the S&P500 was -up- 1.4% by Mar 1st and finished down 27% for the year
1973 the S&P500 was down 5.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 15% for the year
1969 the S&P500 was down 2.6% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1966 the S&P500 was down 4.8% by Mar 1st and finished down 10% for the year
1962 the S&P500 was -up- 1.8% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1960 the S&P500 was down 5.2% by Mar 1st and finished down 1% for the year
1957 the S&P500 was down 3.1% by Mar 1st and finished down 9% for the year
1953 the S&P500 was down 0.7% by Mar 1st and finished down 1% for the year
1946 the S&P500 was down 2.7% by Mar 1st and finished down 12% for the year

Anyway, there are years the market was -up- in Jan and Feb (cumulative) but lost on the year. In fact, as recently as 2002, the market was up over a percentage in January/February but lost 22% on the year by Dec 31st.


References:
(yearly returns: CAGR of the Stock Market: Annualized Returns of the S&P 500)
(Jan 01 - Mar 01 returns per year calculated from Shiller data)
Hey, I love the work and analysis you did.

I see the March 1, 1962 closing price, which matches what you posted, but I can't find a source for the Feb 28, 1962 closing price. Maybe that's the number they used to determine if Feb 1962 was an "up" month. All I can find is the March 1 closing price.

Reason I asked is that I took this Marketwatch story at face value and figured it was accurate. I'm really watching to see if this Feb (as a standalone month) does in fact, close "up".

I'm in the camp that the promise of lower corp taxes, reduced regulation, and protectionism are going to drive the market for 2017. After that, who knows, but if Feb does close "up", I think it could be a good year. Again, I don't know...
tn3sport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2017, 08:14 PM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 45,620
Following up from this thread from February.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Will this year make it 28 for 28?

Quote:
Quote:
Since 1945, there have been 27 years when the S&P has achieved gains in January and February. The stock index then finished up for the year (on a total-return basis) in every one those years...
...by an average of 24%.
The answer is yes. However, the 19% gain by the S&P 500 was a little below average.

Looks like January and February gains in the index is a great predictor of market returns for the year - until it isn't.
__________________
Numbers is hard

Charter resident of the lumpen slums of cyberspace

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2017, 10:28 PM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 25,636
I somehow missed this thread when it started. But looking at the chart in the OP, what struck me was the return in 4 consecutive years.

1995 - 38%
1996 - 23%
1997 - 33%
1998 - 29%

I was too busy working those years, and did not follow the market at all. Did not even care to see what my 401k and after-tax MFs were doing. Good thing I had at least some money in the market.
__________________

__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:07 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×