4 ms·
Month over month volatility is a poor reason to put money there. Long term average growth is a good reason. Over the 10-20 year periods in the last century, wha
by ianhorn 6y ago
Month over month volatility is a poor reason to put money there. Long term average growth is a good reason. Over the 10-20 year periods in the last century, what widely available asset classes perform better?
- bryanlarsen 6y agoIf you invested into the German stock market in 1914, it would have taken over 100 years to get your money back. The America of the past 100 years has been quite exceptional. Using its history to predict the future is not a good idea, IMO.
- BozeWolf 6y agoLet that be a lesson: do not spend all your money at once. Buy chunks of stocks (etfs) periodically. Im sure the result would be much better then.
- armanboyaci 6y agoAre you sure about the German stock market? I've googled and found this https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CDAX-Kursindex.png https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CDAX-Kursindex.png
- svachalek 6y agoYou've always got to consider inflation over the long term, and in this case there is a well known hyperinflation period during the Weimar days. (I don't know about the GP statistic but this graph is clearly not meaningful)
- ianhorn 6y agoIf your currency is going to undergo hyperinflation, aren't equity or physical goods exactly where you want to keep your money?
- thephyber 6y agoI suspect the parent's statement might be accurate if you invested with another currency. The problem (or uncertainty) is that both the US and Germany left the gold-backed systems during those years and the exchange rate between our currencies changed quite a bit during the 1914-1924 period (which is probably why your parent chose that year). If you notice your image's description, it is denominated in 3 different currencies, depending on the years you are looking at.