3 ms·
It should be noted that most stocks suck (emphasis added): > We study long-run shareholder outcomes for over 64,000 global common stocks during the January 199
by throw0101a 5y ago
It should be noted that most stocks suck (emphasis added):
> We study long-run shareholder outcomes for over 64,000 global common stocks during the January 1990 to December 2020 period. We document that the majority, 55.2% of U.S. stocks and 57.4% of non-U.S. stocks, underperform one-month U.S. Treasury bills in terms of compound returns over the full sample. Focusing on aggregate shareholder outcomes, we find that the top-performing 2.4% of firms account for all of the $US 75.7 trillion in net global stock market wealth creation from 1990 to December 2020. Outside the US, 1.41% of firms account for the $US 30.7 trillion in net wealth creation.
* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3710251 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3710251
> Four out of every seven common stocks that have appeared in the CRSP database since 1926 have lifetime buy-and-hold returns less than one-month Treasuries. When stated in terms of lifetime dollar wealth creation, the best-performing 4% of listed companies explain the net gain for the entire U.S. stock market since 1926, as other stocks collectively matched Treasury bills. These results highlight the important role of positive skewness in the distribution of individual stock returns, attributable both to skewness in monthly returns and to the effects of compounding. The results help to explain why poorly-diversified active strategies most often underperform market averages.
* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447
Of course those top-percentage stocks also change over time, so even if you pick the top 2% today, you have to make sure they're still the top ones in the future.
You also have to have a strong stomach at times: AMZN dropped 90% after the Dotcom Bubble. Further, a good portion of stocks that do have such extreme declines do not recover:
> Risk of permanent impairment. Using a universe of Russell 3000 companies since 1980, roughly 40% of all stocks have suffered a permanent 70%+ decline from their peak value. For Technology, Biotech and Metals & Mining, the numbers were considerably higher.
* PDF: https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/global/pb/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/eotm-the-agony-and-the-ecstasy.pdf https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/glob...
- nly 5y agoBenchmarking against Treasury Bills over an era of unprecedented interest rate decline (which means lower bond yields and higher bond prices)?
- throw0101a 5y agoBonds would have saved your bacon compared to just having the S&P 500 in the 2000s: * https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2010/12/17/the-lost-decade-was-a-golden-age-if-you-rebalanced/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2010/12/17/the-lost-de... Some of us have been through a couple of ups and downs. The second study has used data going back to 1926, which would be a time period where interest rates were quite varied.