I was aware that changes in the index (such as the removal of IBM) understated the recovery, but the NY Times article also includes the impact of deflation. That makes the recovery 4 1/2 years after its low, or 7 years to recover from when the crash started (since it took 3 years to reach its low.) That was a very interesting perspective.dogagility wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:11 pmAccording to this article (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/your ... 6stra.html), the break-even point for the market after the 1929 debacle was 1936.
A few months after the market finally reached that point, it collapsed again, this time another 50% drop (similar in scope to 2008). This time it took a year to recover. (1937-38) There were also a couple of additional crashes in the early 1940's (-40% and -50%) but that involved World War II (at points when the Allies were losing) and are unique to the time. The government also managed the wartime economy and money system and didn't release all the controls until the 1950's.
All these crashes between the Great Depression and World War II are often bundled together by market historians as one huge bear market, and the NY Times article points out that that characterization probably isn't accurate.
The original question, however, is whether or not having 100% stocks is a good idea or crazy, especially considering that their core expenses are covered comfortably by pensions. Many people project retirement timeframes of 25-30 years. The time frame of 1929-1954 would have been a very tumultuous period to retire with regards to the stock market. That much fluctuation would probably be very unsettling. Probably people of that time would even have had concerns about whether or not their pensions would be safe.