Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Barely.

In real terms US bills have returned 0.4%/yr over the last 120+ years



sort by: page size:

For those curious, it's about a 9.49% annualized rate of return over the last 91 years.

True. But in a period 1969-1989 it had a return of, IIRC, 5700%.

Long term returns over the last century have been about 3%, after taxes, inflation, etc. If have to do some digging to find the chart.

"Long term" is longer than 20 years.


Over the long term all historical stock outperformance (over treasury bills) ome from like 4% of stocks, so this is not unusual.

Real annual returns (%):

Bills Bonds Equity Housing

1.03 2.53 6.88 7.06

Nominal annual returns (%):

Bills Bonds Equity Housing

4.58 6.06 10.65 11.00


Adjusted for inflation, long term is more like 7%. There have been some really ugly periods where returns were a lot less, however, sometimes lasting more than a decade. For a 30 year timeline, though, it's been a pretty good bet.

"Adjusted for inflation, the historical average annual return is only around 7%. " from your link.

Depends on your timeframe. The S&P returned -22% from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2010, and only +43% from 1/1/2000 to today. The annualized return is nowhere near the 11% quoted in the article.

Not quite true. Early money dwarfs later money in any calculation. But the last 15 years would certainly put a damper on things. Would be nice if the app calculated real interest return for us!

Well obviously nothing is guaranteed, but something like 90% of 20 year windows in the last 100 years would in fact result in positive real returns.

http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/...

Note that the light red color is actually still indicating a positive real return, this is particularly relevant in the 70s and early 80s when a 2% real return would be a much higher nominal return.

Agreed that some people expect returns for time horizons as short as 10 years though, which is clearly a mistake.


And that's less than the return of the s&p in the same period (~880k).

>"We have a hundred years of investment data in the United States that says this isn’t true."

An average over extended period of time. Maybe my fried is lucky and it's only been 3-4 years of such return for him


You must be very young. Just about any index fund would have returned ~0% pa from mid 2000 to mid 2013, i.e. not very long ago.

That’s what I said. Don’t be surprised when the return over the next 10 (to 100) years isn’t anywhere near its historical return rates though.

those numbers are on the high side, but yes indeed.

Also all those calculations are completely forgetting that money is a time-sensitive value. If invested wisely, the first $ from 4 years ago would be 1.7$ today if invested into a typical low cost SP500


It hasn’t. Adjust for inflation and include the risk free rate of return and it’s an ugly picture.

Picketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" gives ~5% as the historical rate of return of capital after inflation, which is remarkably consistent across countries and decades.

1% is way off.


Incorrect, please re-read my statement. An average 10% annual return over 10 years. As the other reply to this notes, history shows in general this rule has held since 1970ish.

24% in 7.5 years? Stock market returned 100-150% over the last 7.5 years.

Seems pretty close to break even when you consider interest rates, upkeep, commissions.

next

Legal | privacy