On Mar 31, 3:49*pm, Bill Woessner <woess...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...ingertips.html
helped me recreate the comparison.

The rate of return with full dividend reinvestment is 4.22% over that
time frame. Although it might beat bonds(?), after inflation, the
return is -0.04%.

--
Ron

On Mar 29, 8:26*am, Beliavsky <beliav...[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

Adjusted for dividends and inflation, the S&P 500 was flat from June
1901 through September 1921. That's slightly over 20 years.

How quickly memory fades...

--Bill

"Igor Chudov" <ichudov[at]algebra.com> wrote

- quote -

Actually, I'm focusing on the future. I'm wondering what effect calling in
all of the money that's being printed will have on equity prices. A
shrinking money supply comes with subdued liquidity, inflation, and higher
interest rates to put the brakes on inflation.

- quote -

I agree to a point but I think it's relative. The are cheaper in dollar
terms but there are so many more dollars these days.

- quote -

Walmart is too. I've noticed a big increase in Friendly's breaskfast crowds
on the weekends as well. It must be the new "going out to eat" since
breakfast is usually the cheapest meal.

On 2009-03-30, Alvin <acorn[at]muncher.com> wrote:
- quote -

You are looking at the past, and recalling how a lot of people lost
their money by paying too much for all sorts of things in the heat of
the frenzy.

I am asking you to look at the future and note that those things are
finally much cheaper, on comparable basis. Therefore they are less
risky and will earn more money on every dollar invested.

As for McDonalds, they are doing very well and are not even losing
business, according to what I have read.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Igor Chudov" <ichudov[at]algebra.com> wrote

- quote -

Just not for the last decade or so :-) You have to stop and smell the roses.
When the markets are in turmoil globally and people are losing their jobs,
property valuations are in freefall, not a lot of people will be able to
pay $3,680 for a Big Mac. What happens to McDonald's then?

"dapperdobbs" <GeorgeCFL[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:373c1c71-84f4-4add-b18c-f4ff9ae87d4a[at]d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
- quote -


Gosh, I thought the problem in the premise was defining "handsome" as an
adjective to long-term returns. I don't know what that means now, in the
past, or in the future. Are stocks riskier when compared to other
investments? What kinds of risks are being considered?

Elizabeth Richardson

On 2009-03-30, Alvin <acorn[at]muncher.com> wrote:
- quote -

If you think of businesses in aggregate as machines that produce
profits from GDP, as a percentage of GDP, due to their economic
positions, then inflation is not a big concern as far as their ability
to extract profits is concerned. In other words, if a Big Mac would
cost $3,680.00, instead of $3.68, McDonalds would likely still be
making money. So stocks are to a large extent inflation protected,
some better than others.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Igor Chudov" <ichudov[at]algebra.com> wrote

- quote -

But in 1999 stocks were over-priced by more than 100%. Companies that never
had earnings and are now long since gone were going through the roof. Polls
had people believing that total returns would top 30% from then on. So, yes,
I think the risk is slightly less. What bothers me most is the
government/private partnership, the disappearance of M3, the overtime at the
currency printing presses. Here is a link to an interesting site:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Enjoy.

On 2009-03-30, Ron Peterson <ron[at]shell.core.com> wrote:
- quote -

THe risk is in how much you pay. It is not in volatility. According to
my calculations, considering ifnlation and earnings growth, stocks are
now about 70% cheaper than they were in year 1999. Hence, the risk is
less.


--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Mar 29, 7:26*am, Beliavsky <beliav...[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

What is "investors"?
What is "the stock market"?

It seems to me that the statistical mumbo-jumbo is what led to the
financial crisis, since it is, in a word, false.

On Mar 29, 7:26*am, Beliavsky <beliav...[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -

At current prices, the risk in owning stocks is lower than the past 20
years.

--
Ron

In article
<43aa7ca1-6d16-49a6-9b44-b2ed32279208[at]f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> ,
Beliavsky <beliavsky[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -


- quote -

Curves in Bogle's first book imply that you needed a 17 year period to
insure that stocks won. (I don't have the book at hand but I think that
he was referring to the S&P 500)

Now the Long Run Looks Riskier, Too
By MARK HULBERT
New York Times, March 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/yo...ds/29stra.html

CAN investors count on the stock market to produce handsome long-term
returns?

The conventional answer has been, emphatically, yes. After all,
despite downturns like the one we’ve endured recently, stocks over
periods of 30 or more years have almost always outperformed other
asset classes. And numerous studies have found that the stock market’s
long-term returns have tended to fall within a surprisingly narrow
range.

But those studies were based on the stock market’s past performance,
which, famously, provides no guarantee of future performance. New
research, using different statistical techniques aimed at capturing
the uncertainty of future returns, suggests that the market may be
much riskier than many investors have understood.

The new study, which began circulating last month as a working paper,
is titled “Are Stocks Really Less Volatile in the Long Run?” Its
authors are Lubos Pastor, a finance professor at the University of
Chicago Booth School of Business, and Robert F. Stambaugh, a finance
professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. A
copy is at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1136847.

<rest of article at link
The many people who think stocks are "safe" if only your time horizon
is long enough are wrong. They used to cite a 10-year period, but
given recent experience 15-years now seems to be a favored number.