- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: what's supporting the market?
Posted on 4/9/11 at 4:42 pm to Interception
Posted on 4/9/11 at 4:42 pm to Interception
quote:
I am not disagreeing on historic data but instead on the modern day instruments people are using to reach this 9-10% "historical" ROI percentage.
The historic averages are based on time weighted prices - not dollar weighted.
Fact is, people tend to invest more money in the market when it is overvalued, and less when it is undervalued. This is partially due to economic reality - when the market is down, the economy also tends to be down, which means people have less to invest in the market - and vice versa - and partially due to psychology
From what I've read actual dollar averaged returns are 2 % points less than time averaged.
2
Posted on 4/12/11 at 11:43 am to OohPooPahDoo
I have no idea why you continue to discount past results as a predictor of future economics. How anyone can look at this chart and tell me our economy will be weaker in 30 years than it is today is beyond me. Barring some end-of-the world scenario that makes this whole conversation moot, the pie will be larger in 30 years, and hence the market will be higher.
This post was edited on 4/12/11 at 11:45 am
Posted on 4/12/11 at 11:51 am to OohPooPahDoo
quote:
The historic averages are based on time weighted prices - not dollar weighted
I would love to hear you explain this.
Posted on 4/12/11 at 11:57 am to Nyala
Nothing today
Posted on 4/12/11 at 12:49 pm to kfizzle85
Many factors influence the global stock market. But in the context of US economic growth (as measured here by US GDP growth), US economic growth is definitely an influencing factor on long-term domestic stock market returns.
He was asking why the US stock market will be higher in 30 years than it is today. Among the hundreds of reasons, long-term economic growth is one of them.
He was asking why the US stock market will be higher in 30 years than it is today. Among the hundreds of reasons, long-term economic growth is one of them.
This post was edited on 4/12/11 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 4/12/11 at 12:53 pm to JPLSU1981
Morgan Stanley thanks you for not reading their 6 page research report and continuing to talk in incredibly broad statements to mask the fact that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. 
Posted on 4/12/11 at 12:55 pm to kfizzle85
So you are asserting that GDP growth has no long-term affect on the stock market?
Posted on 4/12/11 at 12:57 pm to JPLSU1981
Did you read the link?
Posted on 4/12/11 at 1:05 pm to kfizzle85
Yes, but I'm still trying to establish the point that you are making ... There's really only three choices:
1. long-term GDP growth has no affect on long-term stock market returns
2. long-term GDP growth has some affect on long-term stock market returns
3. long-term GDP growth has a large affect on long-term stock market returns
Your link shows that the data leans toward #2 and not #3
This is way off topic, though, as GDP growth is merely one of a hundred different things I could point to in my assertion that the US stock market will be higher in 30 years than it is today.
1. long-term GDP growth has no affect on long-term stock market returns
2. long-term GDP growth has some affect on long-term stock market returns
3. long-term GDP growth has a large affect on long-term stock market returns
Your link shows that the data leans toward #2 and not #3
This is way off topic, though, as GDP growth is merely one of a hundred different things I could point to in my assertion that the US stock market will be higher in 30 years than it is today.
This post was edited on 4/12/11 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 4/12/11 at 1:12 pm to JPLSU1981
Really? Please tell me you've at least heard of the word correlation before.
Posted on 4/12/11 at 1:15 pm to kfizzle85
Where in that article does it say there is no correlation? Again, I'm failing to see your point ... although I presume it's masked somewhere in your condescending tone.
Posted on 4/12/11 at 1:22 pm to JPLSU1981
The entire article is about correlation. Where did I say there was no correlation? Its not about whether GDP does or does not have any impact on stock returns, its about how much and in what direction. You're asserting GDP Up = Stock Market Up. They're are saying GDP Up =/= Stock Market Up (and to the point about correlation, by what magnitude those factors move together). That is my point, that is the article's point, and I'm being condescending to you because you're being condescending to other people.
eta: Granted, the other people were being dicks too.
eta: Granted, the other people were being dicks too.
This post was edited on 4/12/11 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 4/12/11 at 1:42 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
They're are saying GDP Up =/= Stock Market Up
Actually, they are saying that GDP UP does not always equal Stock Market Up.
And if I was condescending to someone in this thread, it didn't warrant a few of the comments you threw out toward me IMO.
Posted on 4/12/11 at 1:44 pm to JPLSU1981
Yes, you're right, that's the entire premise of...correlation (which was clarified in the immediately following sentence). I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but you're generalized theories are an inch deep and deserve to be called out when you act bombastic.
Posted on 4/12/11 at 2:00 pm to kfizzle85
The amount of 
on this board has gone from a 
level to a 
level and has arrived at a 
level in the past few months. It really makes me 
because I'm pretty moderate and the idiots on both wings 
until I get to the point of 
.
on this board has gone from a level to a level and has arrived at a level in the past few months. It really makes me because I'm pretty moderate and the idiots on both wings until I get to the point of .Posted on 4/12/11 at 2:54 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
. How anyone can look at this chart and tell me our economy will be weaker in 30 years than it is today is beyond me.
For one thing, the chart doesn't go up to 2041.
Its also not a logarithmic plot, making it kind of useless.
Also, it only goes back to 1870, meaning less than 5 independent 30 year periods - so even if you were using historical data to predict the future (which is silly) - you sure don't have much historical data. 5 complete data points? Not much of a sample.
For another thing - it only includes the U.s. economy and most of it is in the 20th century.
That's some massive selection bias. The U.S. economy in the 20th century was exceptional in modern history - to select that period in that nation and call it the "norm" is absurd.
This post was edited on 4/12/11 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 4/12/11 at 2:56 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
He was asking why the US stock market will be higher in 30 years than it is today. Among the hundreds of reasons, long-term economic growth is one of them.
How do you know how much the economy will have grown in 30 years?
This post was edited on 4/12/11 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 4/12/11 at 3:15 pm to OohPooPahDoo
quote:
OohPooPahDoo
You're pretty uninformed for acting like such an arrogant prick on the Poli Board.
Posted on 4/12/11 at 3:24 pm to OohPooPahDoo
Because the IMF says so.
And also, back to the beginning, population growth is definitely a measurable thing, and it plays a big role in the economy long-term as well as the stock market.
And also, back to the beginning, population growth is definitely a measurable thing, and it plays a big role in the economy long-term as well as the stock market.
This post was edited on 4/12/11 at 3:29 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News