3 ms·
Sure, you just might spend 33 years for a 1.4% real return annually https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&mode=1&timePeriod=4
by reducesuffering 4y ago
Sure, you just might spend 33 years for a 1.4% real return annually
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation?s=y&mode=1&timePeriod=4&startYear=1990&firstMonth=1&endYear=2023&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&asset1=IntlDeveloped&allocation1_1=100 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-all...
- p_j_w 4y agoWhat percentage of 30 year spans give a 1.4% return or less? Better question: what's the cumulative distribution function of a 30 year investment span on an S&P 500 index fund?
- reducesuffering 4y agoBoth are relevant. It’s good to know what your average scenario for a 30 year span is. It’s also good to prepare for the worst case…
- pc86 4y agoYes, you might. The vast, vast majority of people won't. Some people are unlucky. That doesn't mean the entire system is nonsense.
- danielmarkbruce 4y agoNo one is saying the system is nonsense. They are saying returns aren't predictable over decades. Buffett highlighted this a few years back: the returns from 1964-81 - zero. From 1981-99 - up about 12x. These periods highlight that the returns don't meet any common sense definition of "predictable". Maybe if everyone was more precise on the definition of predictable it would resolve the discussion, but it doesn't appear that the common sense definition of predictable is met here.