crestmontresearch.com

[Greg]

For those interested, here's a good website for seeing real annualized gains of stocks since 1900. If you go back to the main page of crestmontresearch.com, there's plenty more graphs as well.

http://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/S ... -11x17.pdf

[Pointedstick]

I feel for those who were taken by the "stocks always go up over the long run" mantra in 1968 and then went on to face 24 years of negative or zero real returns. I guess the real trick is how you define the long run, but it's clear from this fascinating chart that it may be quite a bit too long for an individual who starts at the wrong time.

[MediumTex]

I feel for those who were taken by the "stocks always go up over the long run" mantra in 1968 and then went on to face 24 years of negative or zero real returns. I guess the real trick is how you define the long run, but it's clear from this fascinating chart that it may be quite a bit too long for an individual who starts at the wrong time.

A Japanese investor who bought stocks because of their long term returns 22 years ago is currently down over 75%.

[MediumTex]

Clive,

So a Japanese stock investor who invested in 1985 before the big runup is basically even today after holding stocks for 27 years?

[atrchi]

If the PP has some assets that are up, others that are down, but generally the two cancel each other out and leave a surplus (overall profit) - then what if you held a bunch of stocks and at the year end you grouped all of the worst performers into one basket and called those the losing pot, grouped all of the best performers into a pot and called those the winning pot, and then split the remainder mediocre performers equally into two other pots, then overall wouldn't you have something like a PP?

What if you deliberately chose stocks that naturally anti-correlate... like Oils x Airlines, Natgas x Fertilizers, ? (I've pondered this question in another posting)

I'm intrigued by the idea of a PP-like portfolio with no gold or treasuries.