3 ms·
Yes, but that's because you cherry-picked the decade with the lowest return. Over the past 50 years, the average return on investment for 10 year periods has b
by JoshuaDavid 10y ago
Yes, but that's because you cherry-picked the decade with the lowest return.
Over the past 50 years, the average return on investment for 10 year periods has been [1]
1956 - 1966 9.21%
1957 - 1967 12.81%
1958 - 1968 9.91%
1959 - 1969 7.74%
1960 - 1970 8.08%
1961 - 1971 6.97%
1962 - 1972 9.83%
1963 - 1973 5.97%
1964 - 1974 1.29%
1965 - 1975 3.31%
1966 - 1976 6.66%
1967 - 1977 3.65%
1968 - 1978 3.24%
1969 - 1979 5.92%
1970 - 1980 8.50%
1971 - 1981 6.55%
1972 - 1982 6.70%
1973 - 1983 10.56%
1974 - 1984 14.61%
1975 - 1985 14.12%
1976 - 1986 13.62%
1977 - 1987 15.09%
1978 - 1988 16.13%
1979 - 1989 17.34%
1980 - 1990 13.80%
1981 - 1991 17.41%
1982 - 1992 16.08%
1983 - 1993 14.85%
1984 - 1994 14.32%
1985 - 1995 14.83%
1986 - 1996 15.23%
1987 - 1997 17.90%
1988 - 1998 19.04%
1989 - 1999 18.05%
1990 - 2000 17.30%
1991 - 2001 12.81%
1992 - 2002 9.26%
1993 - 2003 10.96%
1994 - 2004 11.95%
1995 - 2005 8.98%
1996 - 2006 8.33%
1997 - 2007 5.84%
1998 - 2008 -1.36%
1999 - 2009 -0.95%
2000 - 2010 1.38%
2001 - 2011 2.88%
2002 - 2012 7.03%
2003 - 2013 7.34%
2004 - 2014 7.61%
2005 - 2015 7.25%
So yes, you historically could just invest money in the stock market and get rich, and you will probably continue to be able to do so.
[1] http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/...
- MagnumOpus 10y agoThat was back when both inflation and interest rates were higher. Not necessarily comparable. (Why do you think that many experts pick 10 year maturity bonds with a 1.5% coupon over stocks?)