So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
-
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:02 am
So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
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
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
Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
Mine as well of been 90/10 to be honest. The spread between 90/10 and 50/50 isn't exactly apples to oranges.
Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
The view is so clear in the rear view mirror. The windshield, not so much.
-
- Posts: 3289
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:30 pm
Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
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.
Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
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.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
In fact, you would have done equally well with a 50/50 portfolio and had much more sleep...
Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
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
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
Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
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
Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
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.Bastiat wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:39 am18% 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
There in lies the purpose of an AA. At least in my world.
Consistently sets low goals and fails to achieve them.
-
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:02 am
Re: So how would your $100k have fared since January 2008?
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!