Best Mixed Portfolio?
- Thread starter Sam
- Start date
twaddle
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,703
I think Wildcat is referring to the Gordon Equation, which predicts future returns based on the current dividend yield and historic dividend (or earnings) growth.
It's similar to the idea of using current bond yields to predict future bond returns, which of course is a much better indicator than historic performance.
It's similar to the idea of using current bond yields to predict future bond returns, which of course is a much better indicator than historic performance.
twaddle
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,703
Did you forget the sarcasm emoticon? Some people might think you're serious.
Heh. Think of it this way. If you want to predict the future speed of a car, which is a better indicator?
1) The past speed of the car
2) The current speed of the car
Future returns are a function of future growth and current yield. We can only guess at future growth, but we know current yield.
You asked for it , everything you could possibly want to play with:
Global Financial Data
Scroll down (includes the effects of changes in currency):
http://forum.london.edu/lbspress.ns...A802571100063F24F/$File/06-07+GIRY+2006-1.pdf
Ok how about 1871, Schiller's US market returns since 1871 - not 1926?
Online Data
A good book at the library:
Amazon.com: Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns: Books: Elroy Dimson,Paul Marsh,Mike Staunton
I know about the 10% returns Sam. But again, strip out certain periods of HUGE returns and the numbers change. How much of that 10% could be the result of the past 16 years? A 16 year bull market is incredible. I think that was the point I was trying to make. Minus the HUGE returns following the Great Depression when they were giving away stocks, how do things look?
Food for thought:
Historical Stock Returns, Stocks/Shares/Equities Return, Performance, Data, Bond, Bonds, Dow, Nasdaq, S&P, Standard & Poors, NYSE, FTSE, Nikkei, Historic, ISEQ Irish Index, Gold Price/Market, 10, 20, 50, 100 year : from Finfacts Ireland
"So the timing of stock market investment is important. The last protracted bear market (period of falling prices) in US equities started in February 1966 and lasted until August 1982. The Dow Jones index value in February 1966 was 995 and 16 years later it stood at 777. So any investor who stayed fully invested in an average portfolio of shares in this period lost 22%. Yet over this time span there were four periods in which equities experienced strong rallies which boosted the Dow by 32%, 66%, 76% and 38% respective"
Hope that helps.
, everything you could possibly want to play with:Global Financial Data
Scroll down (includes the effects of changes in currency):
http://forum.london.edu/lbspress.ns...A802571100063F24F/$File/06-07+GIRY+2006-1.pdf
Ok how about 1871, Schiller's US market returns since 1871 - not 1926?
Online Data
A good book at the library:
Amazon.com: Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns: Books: Elroy Dimson,Paul Marsh,Mike Staunton
I know about the 10% returns Sam. But again, strip out certain periods of HUGE returns and the numbers change. How much of that 10% could be the result of the past 16 years? A 16 year bull market is incredible. I think that was the point I was trying to make. Minus the HUGE returns following the Great Depression when they were giving away stocks, how do things look?
Food for thought:
Historical Stock Returns, Stocks/Shares/Equities Return, Performance, Data, Bond, Bonds, Dow, Nasdaq, S&P, Standard & Poors, NYSE, FTSE, Nikkei, Historic, ISEQ Irish Index, Gold Price/Market, 10, 20, 50, 100 year : from Finfacts Ireland
"So the timing of stock market investment is important. The last protracted bear market (period of falling prices) in US equities started in February 1966 and lasted until August 1982. The Dow Jones index value in February 1966 was 995 and 16 years later it stood at 777. So any investor who stayed fully invested in an average portfolio of shares in this period lost 22%. Yet over this time span there were four periods in which equities experienced strong rallies which boosted the Dow by 32%, 66%, 76% and 38% respective"
Hope that helps.
Thanks wildcat for the links. I will take a look at them.
I fail to understand your logic here. Why stripping out any periods at all? We are looking at past numbers which together give us an overall picture. If we begin to pick and choose, then we might as well not studying the past at all.
I fail to understand your logic here. Why stripping out any periods at all? We are looking at past numbers which together give us an overall picture. If we begin to pick and choose, then we might as well not studying the past at all.
My logic is we are used to fantastic returns and the returns going forward could potentially look like some of those periods. So while we plug away at our spreadsheets, say we are planning and have 15 years to go, we have a return variable. Our results and our ability to FIRE depend on that return variable and then suppose a prolonged crappy market comes along -- everything changes. I guess my point is use the 7% but understand that the period you need those 7% returns may turn out to be very different, hopefully for the better
Given that we have been on the upper echelon of returns for 16 years, I think it is wise to fly low. No, I don't pull the 7% out of thin air. It is based on the Gordon model and what other developed markets have achieved over very long periods of time. But go with what you are comfortable with, just trying to provide a 2nd opinion.
I missed this suggestion. Please feel free to move it to where you think is most appropriate.
