Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
> I just think it's interesting they chose to compute returns over a 9
year
> period. Not 5, 10, 15, some usually used period of time. Yes, I know the
> stock market has been particularly interesting since 1999, but it's not
a
> very useful time frame.
I agree with you. My notes show S&P at 1286 then. Go back an extra year
and it was 1101, so they skipped a 17% return (plus div).
Lies, damn lies, statistics.
I'm sure with some effort, I can come up with the return seen had
someone started investing in 1999, monthly or quarterly deposits. They
did much better buying in 02/03 under 1000 and even under 900 for a few
quarters. I know that when I look at net worth numbers (my own) that it
appears I did far better than 2-3% during that 9 year period. Although I
may suffer from Beardstown Lady syndrome (recall how they underperformed
the market, but forgot to subtract their own deposits, so thought they
did very well.)
The combination of aggressive savings and 401(k) deposits right through
the tech crash was right for me in hindsight.
Joe
www.blog.joetaxpayer.com
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators
strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM
THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on
the
Newsgroup.
|
