So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
fundseeker
Posts: 1076
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:02 am

So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by fundseeker »

Some of these figures might be enlightening to those who weren't investing back around 2008-2009 and may not realize what can happen to their investments. Several conclusions can be drawn, e.g., know what you can stomach, and stay the course. The source is Money magazine, January/February issue, wherein they attributed the information to Morningstar.

How a typical $100,000 portfolio would have fared (assumes $100,000 on January 1, 2008, DOW at 12,743):

Stock %/Bond %

90/10
March 2009 - $58,956; 2012 - $109,986; 2015 - $170,675; Nov 1, 2017 - $227,453

70/30
March 2009 - $67,311; 2012 - $115,080; 2015 - $165,203; Nov 1, 2017 - $209,210

50/50
March 2009 - $76,507; 2012 - $119,384; 2015 - $158,311; Nov 1, 2017 - $190,250

January 1, 2008 - DOW at 12,743
March 2009 - DOW at 6,547
2012 - DOW at 12,397
2015 - DOW at 17,833
Nov 1, 2017 - DOW at ~23,400
Keepcalm
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by Keepcalm »

Mine as well of been 90/10 to be honest. The spread between 90/10 and 50/50 isn't exactly apples to oranges.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7711
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by midareff »

The view is so clear in the rear view mirror. The windshield, not so much.
Soon2BXProgrammer
Posts: 3289
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:30 pm

Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by Soon2BXProgrammer »

Keepcalm wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:49 am Mine as well of been 90/10 to be honest. The spread between 90/10 and 50/50 isn't exactly apples to oranges.
this is why the trinity study could show that a lot of asset allocations work. and its only when you've maxed what your portfolio can generate does it fail.

its more important to pick an asset allocation that you can live with, and stick with it... then what the allocation is.
Earned 43 (and counting) credit hours of financial planning related education from a regionally accredited university, but I am not your advisor.
Jags4186
Posts: 8198
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:12 pm

Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by Jags4186 »

fundseeker wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:39 am Some of these figures might be enlightening to those who weren't investing back around 2008-2009 and may not realize what can happen to their investments. Several conclusions can be drawn, e.g., know what you can stomach, and stay the course. The source is Money magazine, January/February issue, wherein they attributed the information to Morningstar.

How a typical $100,000 portfolio would have fared (assumes $100,000 on January 1, 2008, DOW at 12,743):

Stock %/Bond %

90/10
March 2009 - $58,956; 2012 - $109,986; 2015 - $170,675; Nov 1, 2017 - $227,453

70/30
March 2009 - $67,311; 2012 - $115,080; 2015 - $165,203; Nov 1, 2017 - $209,210

50/50
March 2009 - $76,507; 2012 - $119,384; 2015 - $158,311; Nov 1, 2017 - $190,250

January 1, 2008 - DOW at 12,743
March 2009 - DOW at 6,547
2012 - DOW at 12,397
2015 - DOW at 17,833
Nov 1, 2017 - DOW at ~23,400
Of course it looks good. However if you had invested in January 2000 you'd only have about $50,000 more than if you had started in January 2008. Much more pedestrian returns.

Image

In fact, you would have done equally well with a 50/50 portfolio and had much more sleep...

Image
jayk238
Posts: 911
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by jayk238 »

I think the point is you cant pick any one day and base it off of that.
You also cant compare to any other random day either.

I think the exercise in looking back -is just that, an exercise, that provides no tangible value
Bastiat
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 11:07 am

Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by Bastiat »

Keepcalm wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:49 am Mine as well of been 90/10 to be honest. The spread between 90/10 and 50/50 isn't exactly apples to oranges.
18% is quite a bit, I think. Might as well have been 90/10 if you were retiring in 2020; 2010, not so much.

Does adding a decimal place make a difference?

$1,000,000
Stock %/Bond %

90/10
March 2009 - $589,560; 2012 - $1,099,860; 2015 - $1,706,750; Nov 1, 2017 - $2,274,530

70/30
March 2009 - $673,110; 2012 - $1,150,800; 2015 - $1,652,030; Nov 1, 2017 - $2,092,100

50/50
March 2009 - $765,070; 2012 - $1,193,840; 2015 - $1,583,110; Nov 1, 2017 - $1,902,500
User avatar
corn18
Posts: 2867
Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 6:24 am

Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by corn18 »

Bastiat wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:39 am
Keepcalm wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:49 am Mine as well of been 90/10 to be honest. The spread between 90/10 and 50/50 isn't exactly apples to oranges.
18% is quite a bit, I think. Might as well have been 90/10 if you were retiring in 2020; 2010, not so much.

Does adding a decimal place make a difference?

$1,000,000
Stock %/Bond %

90/10
March 2009 - $589,560; 2012 - $1,099,860; 2015 - $1,706,750; Nov 1, 2017 - $2,274,530

70/30
March 2009 - $673,110; 2012 - $1,150,800; 2015 - $1,652,030; Nov 1, 2017 - $2,092,100

50/50
March 2009 - $765,070; 2012 - $1,193,840; 2015 - $1,583,110; Nov 1, 2017 - $1,902,500
Yes it does. I could retire on $1,902,500 or $2,274,530. But I would literally have crapped my pants and sold like a little baby if my $1,000,000 dropped to $589,560. I would have been scared if it dropped to $765,070, but I think I would have stayed the course.

There in lies the purpose of an AA. At least in my world.
Consistently sets low goals and fails to achieve them.
Topic Author
fundseeker
Posts: 1076
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:02 am

Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?

Post by fundseeker »

jayk238 wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:27 am I think the exercise in looking back -is just that, an exercise, that provides no tangible value
There is value in looking back, if someone has never looked at real world numbers to see how big of a hit their portfolio could take, so that they give some thought about whether they would be able to then leave their AA alone and ride it out. That...is the point of the initial information in this thread!
Post Reply