3 ms·
1. No, you aren't "virtually assured". Past performance indicates that's the case over enough time (25+ years), but that isn't an assurance. 2. I'm not sure h
by bpt3 7y ago
1. No, you aren't "virtually assured". Past performance indicates that's the case over enough time (25+ years), but that isn't an assurance.
2. I'm not sure how this supports your argument, as an index fund investor is even more removed from the decision making process that leads to some sort of disaster.
- pmiller2 7y agoTake a look here and get back to me: https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns You don't need to go to a 25 year time horizon to have a very high chance of making money. By my count, the S&P only lost money in 20 out of the past 94 years. According to https://www.thebalance.com/rolling-index-returns-1973-mid-2009-4061795 https://www.thebalance.com/rolling-index-returns-1973-mid-20..., there was no rolling 15 year period since 1973 where the index lost money. The index lost money in only 11 of 80 rolling 10 year periods from 1928-2008.
- bpt3 7y agoYes, I'm aware. I picked 25 years because that's about how long it took for the market to surpass the highs just prior to the Great Depression. My point, since you seem to keep missing it, is that "a very high chance" is not the same as "virtually assured", and "virtually assured" is not the same as "guaranteed", yet you seem to be conflating these concepts, as well as minimizing the current consequences of investing in an irresponsible company (losing your investment).