Apr 21

In “Disappointing Returns“, I discussed how the typical investor lags the market indexes by quite a bit. Another thought recently occurred to me, somewhat related. I suspect that a market return at the beginning of one’s investing life can create an expectation that will impact one’s choices for the rest of their days, creating a different risk tolerance depending on that early experience.

For example, we look at the generation growing up in the 20’s and becoming of age (i.e. starting work, and beginning to have investment choices) right when the great depression started. They saw an annualized ten year return from 1928 to 1937 of .9%, and, given the loss of jobs experienced, likely sold out and saw not even that small return.

Skip ahead to the 80’s. A return of 17.7% annualized, and only one down year in the decade. The crash of 87? Easily forgotten, as the full year was a positive 5.7%. Only those who were trading were really impacted, along with those who chose to retire based on the numbers they saw at the peak. All in all, a good decade to start one’s investing life.

The 90’s were almost a repeat decade, returning 18.3%, again with just one negative year. This combined two decades set up an unrealistic expectation as the long term market average has been just less than 9% for the eight decades prior. A full generation with a mostly positive market experience.

Now, let’s look at the current decade, the return from 2000-2008 was a negative 6% annualized. That’s 6% lost each year not over the whole period. Having enjoyed the two decades prior, dollar cost averaging year after year, even these last 9 years haven’t scared me out of stocks. But I’m thinking that those who have graduated school and joined this current market cycle, one worse than the great depression when judged by stock returns alone, as their introduction to investing are destined to view the market as dangerous and less likely to be stock investors.

Joe

written by Joe \\ tags: , , ,

Dec 05

I just posted on Wednesday that we have been in recession a year already, and also noted that we’ve not seen two quarters of negative growth. The determination of whether we are in recession is a bit more complex than this simple two quarter rule, and this Q&A by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the agency responsible for dating the peaks and troughs of the business cycle) offers a glimpse into their rationale:

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER?s recession dating procedure?

A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them.? As an example, the last recession, in 2001, did not include two consecutive quarters of decline. As of the date of the committee?s meeting, the economy had not yet experienced two consecutive quarters of decline.

Their report titled Determination of the December 2007 Peak in Economic Activity makes for some interesting reading.
Joe

written by Joe \\ tags: , , , , , ,

Oct 03

Between the market, and lack of sleep due to JaneTaxpayer 2.0 getting her braces and being uncomfortable, it’s been quite a week. The highlight of this week was being invited to offer a guest post at the Fraud Files blog on some of the math behind my pet peeve, the Money Merge Account. I received one of the kindest complements there I could hope for, “Joe is possibly the most active and effective person warning the public about the Money Merge Account. His points are well-written and in a calm tone, and completely bulletproof.” This makes writing worthwhile for me.

But I digress. We seem to back to the vote on the bailout package that may pass later today, but meanwhile I found yet another primer on the origin of the mess we are in which I will add to my Subprime Meltdown links, titled “Great Depression 2.0: Tracing the Meltdown“. A good, brief, clear, explanation.

Joe

written by Joe \\ tags: , , , , ,