Down goes the Dow

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) INCORRECT! Possible, and HAVE. Remember that I'm talking only of the Dow here even though I don't ONLY invest in The Dow. There are a lot of indices other than the Dow. The "market" isn't The Dow. I just use the Dow as my measuring stick. Why? Why not?

2) You are correct that I don't know much about the market. I have never claimed to. I just invest and keep track of my investments. Making money in the market takes persistence and consistency...and of course investing enough. That's pretty much it. We invested half our income for the first 7 years of our marriage, and then we have averaged more than 25% of our income since then...including retirement accounts and non-retirement mutual funds.

3) I have said a TON of times that I invest in Vanguard and Fidelity funds. You are incorrect that I have very few. I have MANY mutual funds all spread out into different categories.

4) I have also explained in the past that I am NOT a buy and hold person. I am a BUY and BUY and BUY and BUY (oh, and BUY) and hold person. What does this mean? It means that if the market goes down a lot (usually has to be more than correction range), I will put in more money than planned. This is how I have turned some potentially bad years (compared to the Dow) into positive ones for myself. I have explained this before.

5) I haven't held ANY single fund for 34 years (would be 33 years for one, not 34). But, I didn't enter the world of Vanguard until 1998, and then I didn't add Fidelity to my portfolio until early 2000s (not sure of the exact date off the top of my head). Then, I have added funds since then, so I have a lot of funds that I have owned for less than 15 years.

6) So, you're just wrong...and again, The Dow is not "the market." Such a big error from such a wannabe pedantic source.

7) I know you think you bother me, but trust me, nothing is further from the truth. Usually I ignore you, because you are worthy of being ignored, but sometimes I respond if I feel like it. Today, I have actually been looking into our investments a lot (and it's OBSCENE), so I felt like responding. I'm sure you're good at something. Go find it. Trying to one-up me isn't it.

I appreciate your lengthy and reasoned response. I have followed the market (and I usually use the Dow as a measuring stick as well) for many years and just think the likelihood of beating the market for 32 out of 33 years is around 0.00001%. Again, if you have a number of index funds you would be very surprised how closely they mimic the overall market. To beat the market one year is almost like a coin flip. To beat the market 2 years in a row is harder. 3 years in a row becomes much harder. 4 years in a row really unusual. To beat the market 32 out of 33 years is just beyond the realm of believability. I am not going to beat a dead horse so will let this die. Peter Lynch is considered one of the best investors of all time and if I remember he had a return of 29% annually over about 20 years which was about double the S & P. But, he wasn't beating the market year in and year out. Just not possible to beat the market 32 out of 33 years. Regression to the mean. Again, don't plan on beating a dead horse.

Flagpole wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

I appreciate your lengthy and reasoned response. I have followed the market (and I usually use the Dow as a measuring stick as well) for many years and just think the likelihood of beating the market for 32 out of 33 years is around 0.00001%. Again, if you have a number of index funds you would be very surprised how closely they mimic the overall market. To beat the market one year is almost like a coin flip. To beat the market 2 years in a row is harder. 3 years in a row becomes much harder. 4 years in a row really unusual. To beat the market 32 out of 33 years is just beyond the realm of believability. I am not going to beat a dead horse so will let this die. Peter Lynch is considered one of the best investors of all time and if I remember he had a return of 29% annually over about 20 years which was about double the S & P. But, he wasn't beating the market year in and year out. Just not possible to beat the market 32 out of 33 years. Regression to the mean. Again, don't plan on beating a dead horse.

Well, you are wrong. I do not lie...not one time in my adult life.

Flagpole wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, you are wrong. I do not lie...not one time in my adult life.

AND...you apparently haven't learned anything here. Let me TRY to help you out again. As great a teacher as I am, the student has to have the ability to learn. Put on your thinking cap and try to understand what I tell you here.

1) Again, "the market" that you keep referring to is NOT The Dow. I corrected your ass on that before. Get it into your head.

2) I do not own ANY Index funds, so your mentioning of them has no relevance to me whatsoever.

3) Don't make me correct you again...best way to do that is to not question me, ESPECIALLY if you believe that I am lying. I NEVER lie...not once in my adult life. I MIGHT get a fact wrong, but that is not a lie and VERY rare, so you'd better be sure if you challenge me on a fact. If you catch me in a falsehood (a falsehood is not a lie), I will tell you that you were right and I was wrong.

agip wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

AND...you apparently haven't learned anything here. Let me TRY to help you out again. As great a teacher as I am, the student has to have the ability to learn. Put on your thinking cap and try to understand what I tell you here.

1) Again, "the market" that you keep referring to is NOT The Dow. I corrected your ass on that before. Get it into your head.

2) I do not own ANY Index funds, so your mentioning of them has no relevance to me whatsoever.

3) Don't make me correct you again...best way to do that is to not question me, ESPECIALLY if you believe that I am lying. I NEVER lie...not once in my adult life. I MIGHT get a fact wrong, but that is not a lie and VERY rare, so you'd better be sure if you challenge me on a fact. If you catch me in a falsehood (a falsehood is not a lie), I will tell you that you were right and I was wrong.

I consider myself a virtual friend of Flagpole but I think that the chances he has beaten the Dow 32/33 years are miniscule. I mean tiny. I mean virtually nil. I don't think he's lying - I think he has the facts wrong. But of course I don't have any actual data.

Let me ask you this, FP - have you been 100% in stocks all this time or have you also had bonds, cash, gold, etc also?

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

agip wrote:

I think the only way someone could beat the dow for 32/33 years is to own a virtually 100% tech stock portfolio except for the really bad tech years. Then it's possible. Tech stocks have done magnificently better than the Dow for the long term, but with giant holes. But who can know when to own tech and when not to?

Think about it this way if Flagpole is indeed an index type of guy. Index funds very closely track the overall market (be it the Dow, Nasdaq, S & P, etc.). Look at the most popular index funds like VTI and they all have Apple, MSFT, Tesla, and other tech stocks among their biggest holdings. Again, if you have mostly index funds (which track very closely the overall market) your chance of beating the market (let's say Dow) and it would only be by a little is 1 out of 2 or 50%. Beating it 2 years in a row would be 25%. 3 years in a row would be 1out of 8 or 12.5%. So beating it 3 years in a row is around 12%. Beating it 32 out of 33 is astronomically high.

agip wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

AND...you apparently haven't learned anything here. Let me TRY to help you out again. As great a teacher as I am, the student has to have the ability to learn. Put on your thinking cap and try to understand what I tell you here.

1) Again, "the market" that you keep referring to is NOT The Dow. I corrected your ass on that before. Get it into your head.

2) I do not own ANY Index funds, so your mentioning of them has no relevance to me whatsoever.

3) Don't make me correct you again...best way to do that is to not question me, ESPECIALLY if you believe that I am lying. I NEVER lie...not once in my adult life. I MIGHT get a fact wrong, but that is not a lie and VERY rare, so you'd better be sure if you challenge me on a fact. If you catch me in a falsehood (a falsehood is not a lie), I will tell you that you were right and I was wrong.

I consider myself a virtual friend of Flagpole but I think that the chances he has beaten the Dow 32/33 years are miniscule. I mean tiny. I mean virtually nil. I don't think he's lying - I think he has the facts wrong. But of course I don't have any actual data.

Let me ask you this, FP - have you been 100% in stocks all this time or have you also had bonds, cash, gold, etc also?

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

agip wrote:

I think the only way someone could beat the dow for 32/33 years is to own a virtually 100% tech stock portfolio except for the really bad tech years. Then it's possible. Tech stocks have done magnificently better than the Dow for the long term, but with giant holes. But who can know when to own tech and when not to?

Flagpole has already said he is a big Vanguard guy - and that means index funds and ETFs - which are mostly index funds. He might have some individual stocks but not a big percentage of his portfolio. He has also said he is a buy, and buy and buy some more and buy some more and hold! kind of guy. Which is my philosophy as well. I think he is pretty conservative so he is not often chasing the next Tesla or Facebook. I might be wrong but I am pretty sure he mainly does index funds whether that be mutual funds or ETFs.

Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

I consider myself a virtual friend of Flagpole but I think that the chances he has beaten the Dow 32/33 years are miniscule. I mean tiny. I mean virtually nil. I don't think he's lying - I think he has the facts wrong. But of course I don't have any actual data.

Let me ask you this, FP - have you been 100% in stocks all this time or have you also had bonds, cash, gold, etc also?

I had a period of time early on when I had some bonds. I decided after a while that that was a bad idea for a guy as young as I was then, so I got rid of them and have not re-purchased them.

No gold or precious metals or anything speculative ever.

Cash? Yes, I have had some cash. I do not count that as part of my investments.

Well, I have beaten the Dow every year except one since 1989. I keep it all in a spreadsheet, and numbers don't lie.

agip wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Think about it this way if Flagpole is indeed an index type of guy. Index funds very closely track the overall market (be it the Dow, Nasdaq, S & P, etc.). Look at the most popular index funds like VTI and they all have Apple, MSFT, Tesla, and other tech stocks among their biggest holdings. Again, if you have mostly index funds (which track very closely the overall market) your chance of beating the market (let's say Dow) and it would only be by a little is 1 out of 2 or 50%. Beating it 2 years in a row would be 25%. 3 years in a row would be 1out of 8 or 12.5%. So beating it 3 years in a row is around 12%. Beating it 32 out of 33 is astronomically high.

well ok but fact is if you have owned mostly tech funds for 32 years you've outdone the Sp500 or the dow. BUT in 2000.2001,2002 and a few other years you got absolutely clobbered. Put another way, anyone who has owned primarily tech stocks for 32 years has probably beaten the SP500 and dow overall. but not 32/33 years.

But I think Fp probably has miscalculated somehow. It's just not possible with a normal portfolio.

Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

I consider myself a virtual friend of Flagpole but I think that the chances he has beaten the Dow 32/33 years are miniscule. I mean tiny. I mean virtually nil. I don't think he's lying - I think he has the facts wrong. But of course I don't have any actual data.

Let me ask you this, FP - have you been 100% in stocks all this time or have you also had bonds, cash, gold, etc also?

I had a period of time early on when I had some bonds. I decided after a while that that was a bad idea for a guy as young as I was then, so I got rid of them and have not re-purchased them.

No gold or precious metals or anything speculative ever.

Cash? Yes, I have had some cash. I do not count that as part of my investments.

Well, I have beaten the Dow every year except one since 1989. I keep it all in a spreadsheet, and numbers don't lie.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I had a period of time early on when I had some bonds. I decided after a while that that was a bad idea for a guy as young as I was then, so I got rid of them and have not re-purchased them.

No gold or precious metals or anything speculative ever.

Cash? Yes, I have had some cash. I do not count that as part of my investments.

Well, I have beaten the Dow every year except one since 1989. I keep it all in a spreadsheet, and numbers don't lie.

If you had bonds then it is highly unlikely you were beating the market. If you had mostly index funds and bonds then it is almost impossible you were beating the overall market. Bonds would have been a huge drag on your portfolio. AGip is correct that over the long haul many of the tech funds have done great but they have great years interspersed with terrible years.

agip wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

That doesn't make any sense at all. The Dow is just made up of just 30 companies. My stuff is well-diversified including all kinds of sectors and caps and international stocks. Managed funds with Vanguard and Fidelity. Again, when there have been big dips, I have put in extra money. That has kept me ahead of the Dow in more than a couple cases.

well what can I tell you. I don't believe you. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't see any way a portfolio of managed funds with their management fee drags could possibly beat the market 32/33 years. It's possible but such a small possibility that I don't believe it to be a credible claim.

I don't think you are lying - I think your record keeping is faulty. I mean finding one or two managed funds that have beaten the market for 32/33 years would be remarkable. Having an entire portfolio do it is too much for me to believe.

If you want to list a few of the funds you've owned that have beaten the market for 32/33 years that would be interesting.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

If you had bonds then it is highly unlikely you were beating the market. If you had mostly index funds and bonds then it is almost impossible you were beating the overall market. Bonds would have been a huge drag on your portfolio. AGip is correct that over the long haul many of the tech funds have done great but they have great years interspersed with terrible years.

Here is how the S & P did in some years since 1989 ...

1989 31%

1991 31%

1995 37.5%

1997 33.3%

1998 29%

2003 29%

2009 26%

2013 33.3%

2019 31.4%

2021 29%

You really expect us to believe you beat the market 32 out of 33 years? Good years AND bad years. No way in heck did you. If you beat the market 17 out of 33 years would be considered great. No way in heck did you beat it 32 out of 33 years. What investments you had in the really good years would have been detriments in the off years. Come on Flagpole - show us your spreadsheet! LOL. We did not just arrive on the turnip truck.