Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
Not speaking for Flagpole, but his views of the market are based on looking backward over the last 100 years. He is likely ignoring the dips because the overall trend is UPWARDS!
The trend IS always upward, yes. I have been investing since 1989, so my view is definitely not just looking at the last dozen years.
Stocks have gone through long period of time where they lag the return of Treasury Bills. So the narrative of stocks for the long run is largely dependent time horizon, both entry and exit.
“There have been three periods of at least 13 years when the S&P 500 underperformed what is considered the riskless benchmark, one-month Treasury bills — the 15 years from 1929 to 1943, the 17 years from 1966-82, and the 13 years from 2000-12. That’s 45 total years out of the last 91. Of course, over the other 45 years, there were huge equity risk premiums. But the only way you earned those great returns was if you were there all the time.
Over the 20-year period from 1929 to 1948, the S&P 500 underperformed five-year Treasuries, and over the even longer 21-year period 1929-49, they underperformed long-term (20-year) Treasuries.
Over the 17-year period from 1966 to 1982, the S&P 500 underperformed five-year Treasuries (though it outperformed long-term Treasuries).
Over the 31+-year period 1990 through April 2020, the Japanese large stock index, which returned 0.0 percent, underperformed the Japanese bond index by 4.4 percent per year.
Over the 40-year period 1969-2008, U.S. large and small growth stocks (Fama-French research indexes), which returned 8.5 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively, underperformed long-term Treasuries, which returned 8.9 percent.”
Source:
https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/is-it-really-stocks-for-the-long-run/