|
Interesting Long term study
02-17-2011, 10:53 PM
|
#1
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 3,361
|
Interesting Long term study
This document covers world stock and bond returns in the period of 1900 to 2008. It also breaks out 17 countries.
https://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/...e_yearbook.pdf
Summary for the world as a whole over that period real return with re-invested dividends was 5.2% for stocks, 1.8% for bonds and 1.0% for bills.
The figures for the US are 6.0% 2.1% and 1.0%
The world ex-us was 4.8% 1.2% and 1.0%
For Europe the returns were 4.5% .9% and 1.0%
This is another example of the advantage of stocks over the long term and shows that even Europe with 2 periods of self destruction (WWI and WWII) did not do to badly over the 20th century. Noting the real returns cited over this period, it looks like a 4% swr is not to bad based on history. Of course history is not necessarily a prediction of the future, but reversion to mean is not a bad way to look at things, given that a lot of other predictions are not much better than reading tea leaves or Harspex (consulting entrials of a chicken ala the Romans).
|
|
|
|
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!
|
02-18-2011, 07:33 AM
|
#2
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On a hill in the Pine Barrens
Posts: 9,686
|
Quote:
And so that Great Depression is now the one we remember, and that we are now desperate to avoid. Indeed, we can be almost certain that a 21st century version of the 1930s would lead to a revolt against the current system of global capitalism and relatively free markets, spark social unrest on a wide scale, and frustrate the ambitions of billions of citizens in the emerging world. Ultimately, peace as well as prosperity would be at risk.
|
That is prophetic.
The 2010 version of the report is available from this page.
|
|
|
02-18-2011, 07:49 AM
|
#3
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,393
|
The real issue is not average returns but the variability of returns. SWR reflects variability and sequence of returns. I'm not quite as sure that 4% is truly sustainable.
|
|
|
02-18-2011, 08:18 AM
|
#4
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 3,361
|
Re the depression comment, the 2008 version discusses why the 1930s crash was so bad, it was the Fed defending the gold reserves by raising interest rates after the UK went off gold that did it. The report notes that until 1931 things were tracking 1893 or no worse, then the Fed decided it had to defend its stash of gold (also the fed had weak leadership as Strong had died and there was a leadership vacuum). As a result in 1931-1933 production fell 35% and stocks 75% and there was a 25% deflation. This shows clearly what is also implied in the Lords of Finance, that gold was a fetish for Central Bankers at the time.
|
|
|
02-18-2011, 08:40 AM
|
#5
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danmar
The real issue is not average returns but the variability of returns. SWR reflects variability and sequence of returns. I'm not quite as sure that 4% is truly sustainable.
|
The real issue is.... What are the returns of my portfolio over the time-frame that I need it to fund my retirement ? Great gains, or average gains before and after that period are sort of irrelevant.
And yes, you just may be right about the sustainability of 4%.
|
|
|
02-18-2011, 12:02 PM
|
#6
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,983
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by target2019
|
Thanks for posting this page. Lots of interesting stuff here, and all free!
Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
|
|
|
02-18-2011, 12:10 PM
|
#7
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On a hill in the Pine Barrens
Posts: 9,686
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha
Thanks for posting this page. Lots on interesting stuff here, and all free!
|
Those Suisse, where do they find the time to study money? LOL
|
|
|
02-18-2011, 02:01 PM
|
#8
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 3,361
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
The real issue is.... What are the returns of my portfolio over the time-frame that I need it to fund my retirement ? Great gains, or average gains before and after that period are sort of irrelevant.
And yes, you just may be right about the sustainability of 4%.
|
Agreed about the time frame, but short of looking at the past (really ala firecalc), and looking at best and worst periods, everything else is just crystal ball gazing.
Reversion to the mean is about as good a tool for looking at the future, assuming that the market is going to wander around the mean value shown.
So if you look at returns and they have been higher than the mean expect lower returns over the next period and vice versa.
|
|
|
02-18-2011, 04:22 PM
|
#9
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
The real issue is.... What are the returns of my portfolio over the time-frame that I need it to fund my retirement ? Great gains, or average gains before and after that period are sort of irrelevant.
And yes, you just may be right about the sustainability of 4%.
|
Yes Sir!
Plus.... whether one is accumulating or spending.
If spending... the ability of the investor to actually harvest the superior return over time (actually realize it).
I am a stock investor.... but have a healthy respect for what can go wrong. Sometimes the "what can go wrong" has been me.
I wish I was the "super investor" that others seem to be with their superior insight and fantastic gains... I would probably be a gazillionaire.
|
|
|
02-21-2011, 10:58 AM
|
#10
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,856
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by meierlde
This shows clearly what is also implied in the Lords of Finance, that gold was a fetish for Central Bankers at the time.
|
One of the best books I've ever read, even though you already know how it ends...
__________________
*
Co-author (with my daughter) of “Raising Your Money-Savvy Family For Next Generation Financial Independence.”
Author of the book written on E-R.org: "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement."
I don't spend much time here— please send a PM.
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|