Anyone's account fully recovered from 2008 and 2009 losses?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Topic Author
marshall
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:06 pm

Anyone's account fully recovered from 2008 and 2009 losses?

Post by marshall » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:18 pm

I was checking my balance today and realized my accounts have fully recovered (even considering contributions) from the 2008 and early 2009 losses. I made some investments when we were at or near the bottom that have really paid off. I was at 70-80% stocks when the crash happened.

I was very surprised to see this progress occur so quickly.

thenextguy
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:58 am

Post by thenextguy » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:21 pm

Yes. Although I was mostly in cash in February of 2008.

yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:33 pm

Not yet, but I got a few years of cap loss carryforwards out of the recent crash, and am picking up lots of cheap (I hope) shares which will benefit me down the line.

Nick

User avatar
Fletch
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:25 pm
Location: USA

Post by Fletch » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:54 pm

Pardon me if this sounds sarcastic, but this is definitely not intended to be that way.

I have fully recovered and had not lost anything during or since the crash, because I did not sell anything. Thus, actual loss was zero, nothing to "fully recover". I try not to get upset by paper losses. If I had been forced to sell funds to live on to meet daily expenses, I'm sure I would have viewed this most recent "crash" differently.

Fletch
“Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless.

User avatar
tetractys
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: Along the Salish Sea

Post by tetractys » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:58 pm

This rapid recovery is surprising to me as well. My portfolio has recovered nominally since 1997; but I'm not counting my chickens until I see a substantial real 10+ year rate of return of %3+, which I've not seen since 2007.

Best regards, Tet
Last edited by tetractys on Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
RESISTANCE IS FRUITFUL

livesoft
Posts: 70383
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Post by livesoft » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:14 pm

Yes, I have noticed that my portfolio has gone up.

YTD Vanguard Total Stock Market is up 8.5%,
FTSE all-world ex US is up 20.5% and
short-term investment grade bond is up 9.2%

So 2009 is an above average year already. Everybody should be up over 12% already on average.

tibbitts
Posts: 9775
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Anyone's account fully recovered from 2008 and 2009 loss

Post by tibbitts » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:45 pm

marshall wrote:I was checking my balance today and realized my accounts have fully recovered (even considering contributions) from the 2008 and early 2009 losses. I made some investments when we were at or near the bottom that have really paid off. I was at 70-80% stocks when the crash happened.

I was very surprised to see this progress occur so quickly.
I was at 60/40 and am no where near back to where I was. I had/have a fairly diversified (not particularly tilted) account, so I don't see how you can be even close to even if you started where you did, unless maybe you did some very timely and abrupt rebalancing, or had/have a very concentrated portfolio.

Paul

gchan
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:00 pm

Post by gchan » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:18 pm

I haven't calculated yet but I am fairly close to break-even, because I am (rightly or wrongly) actively managing my stocks. And this is despite making some bad investments, like Idearc (now in bankruptcy court). And from doing research I realize that retail investors like me tend to get ripped off when investing in individual stocks and fall prey to promotional managements and the media (which can be manipulated via rumours and so forth).

Unfortunately, I also discovered buying the dip. It was very profitable for me... some of my bad trades became profitable trades because I bought the dip. But it can also be dangerous, e.g. Bill Miller buying the dip in financials before they tanked.
Re-balancing did work very well in 2009... I think it's something investors should do.

User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 14522
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Post by White Coat Investor » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:20 pm

The thread got me curious, so I had to check. I'm up almost 16% on the year, but was down almost 32% in 2008, so no, I'm not nearly recovered, despite adding lots of money along the way. In fact, I still have a negative 3% annualized return since I started investing in early 2004. My best fund is EM, with over a 55% YTD return for me. Worst fund is REITs, -7%. I lost just over $70K in the bear. I've gained about $46K of it back. I still need a gain of 15% to get back to where I was when the bear started. The OP must have done a better job investing at the bottom than I did, although I dumped a pretty good sum in pretty close to the bottom, and tax-loss harvested on the very best day to do so.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course

cheddy
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:47 pm

Post by cheddy » Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:45 pm

It sure seems like I recovered most of my losses but since I'm not going to cash in my ETFs anytime soon breaking even at this point means nothing, who knows what the next few months/years may bring.

User avatar
Dale_G
Posts: 3352
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Central Florida - on the grown up side of 82

Post by Dale_G » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:00 am

Shades of the Beards-town Ladies. It will be a very rare individual with substantial assets and a diversified portfolio who is back to even with the market highs of 2007 or even flat with year end 2007.

Accumulators starting with low assets could be ahead given substantial contributions, but otherwise the investors claiming gains or "break even" have to take an accounting course.

Dale
Volatility is my friend

traineeinvestor
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:52 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Post by traineeinvestor » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:39 am

I got lucky and am now well ahead of where I was in 2007. I quit my old job and received a long service payout in two installments. The first and larger payment was received in January. Since I knew the second installment would be paid in due course I put everything into new investments (mostly equities but also some ELDs, some CLDs and some corporate bonds).

The fact that the local property market has rebounded has also helped a lot.

Sometimes its better to be lucky than good.

User avatar
spam
Posts: 907
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:47 am

Post by spam » Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:44 am

Yes !

I have recovered 100% of my invested dollars, and I am finally in the black. The total for my accounts are at an all-time high.

Ron
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Post by Ron » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:35 am

Fletch wrote:Pardon me if this sounds sarcastic, but this is definitely not intended to be that way.

I have fully recovered and had not lost anything during or since the crash, because I did not sell anything. Thus, actual loss was zero, nothing to "fully recover". I try not to get upset by paper losses. If I had been forced to sell funds to live on to meet daily expenses, I'm sure I would have viewed this most recent "crash" differently.

Fletch
Same here, and I fully agree with your comments. It's a bit different when you look at your balances while in the accumulation phase vs. actually living on those balances in retirement.

Being in a position of having most of my income coming from my retirement portfolio (I'm pre-SS), I should be more in panic (according to most posts I see here). However, I'm not.

I have every single share I had since the end of 2007 (last time I sold off some profits) and even gained a few (since I reinvest all distributions).

Management of your portfolio, rather than being concerned of flux in the marketplace (either plus/minus) to take advantage of any scenario is more important, IMHO than any short term move in the market. The folks still in the accumulation phase should also ask the question of how they would live their life if they no longer had income, were in retirement, and had to manage their existing "pot" rather than just if the market was up for the day.

Preparing for (and living in) retirement is not a sprint; it's a journey.

Anyway, that's what this "greybeard" has to preach about, today 8) ...

- Ron

User avatar
SpringMan
Posts: 5421
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Michigan

Post by SpringMan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:02 am

Just calculated our percent loss from our "all time high" and we are still down 18% from that. At one point back in March we were down over 30%. Things are looking up. We were 60/40.
Best Wishes, SpringMan

User avatar
DrafterMan_MN
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:35 pm

Post by DrafterMan_MN » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:24 am

Still down about 10-15%, was down as much as 45-50%, I am 90/10.

edit: some of this is contributions. I am in the accumulation stage (whippersnaper)
Last edited by DrafterMan_MN on Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 14522
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Post by White Coat Investor » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:30 am

Dale_G wrote:Shades of the Beards-town Ladies. It will be a very rare individual with substantial assets and a diversified portfolio who is back to even with the market highs of 2007 or even flat with year end 2007.

Accumulators starting with low assets could be ahead given substantial contributions, but otherwise the investors claiming gains or "break even" have to take an accounting course.

Dale
Speaking for myself, I'm using XIRR for all my statements and not counting new contributions as earnings. I'm obviously an early accumulator with low assets compared to contributions. My portfolio is significantly larger than it was at the beginning of 2008, but due to new contributions over the last 18 months.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course

bigH
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Post by bigH » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:56 am

My breakeven point is about dow 9800. So another 9% or so should do it. I need to do the math though since I'm sure how much my bonds have returned in the period.

TheEternalVortex
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by TheEternalVortex » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:06 am

I had -29.77% in 2008, and +13.66% so far this year (using XIRR) so I am not recovered. Although if you include new contributions, then I am just about recovered.

Rose21
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:26 am

Post by Rose21 » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:26 am

Nearly so, thanks to having pulled out substantially during the summer of 2007, and having traded the volatility aggressively for the last year. (I know, nobody could have seen it coming.)

I suspect I'd be well ahead by now had I not been scaling out of the market once again for the last few weeks. I aim to be well out of harm's way by late summer. I don't see any end game here.

sscritic
Posts: 21858
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Post by sscritic » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:39 am

Down 6.9% from my peak on 11/1/07. (I only keep first of month data.)

ResNullius
Posts: 2091
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:22 pm

Post by ResNullius » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:41 am

If someone was 70/30 equity to fixed, or 60/40 equity to fixed, I think it would be impossible to have returned to even, regardless of what stocks or funds you're in. Of course, if you had a limited balance to begin with, then added a lot of new money, then you could be even. I don't like to question comments, but I doubt this one. I'm up huge on the year, but still down quite a lot since the high in late 2007, and I was 70/30 at the time of the crash. I'm now about 55/45 equity fixed, and moving towards 50/50.

User avatar
tetractys
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: Along the Salish Sea

Post by tetractys » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:01 am

Dale_G wrote:Shades of the Beards-town Ladies. It will be a very rare individual with substantial assets and a diversified portfolio who is back to even with the market highs of 2007 or even flat with year end 2007.

Accumulators starting with low assets could be ahead given substantial contributions, but otherwise the investors claiming gains or "break even" have to take an accounting course.
Dale,

Most of your points are valid, but your accusations are misplaced and don't apply to this thread. As a matter of fact the OP disqualified your acid immediately in his first post.

Also consider the potentials of good rebalancing.

It looks to me all the posters so far on this thread understand their accounting, and shouldn't be compared to the Beards-town Ladies. -- Tet
RESISTANCE IS FRUITFUL

dayzero
Posts: 1032
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:04 pm

Post by dayzero » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:37 am

I'm still net negative over my entire investing lifetime, not just 2008 and 2009. I need somewhere in the neighborhood of 1100 (S&P 500) to get back to zero.

dbr
Posts: 32197
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Post by dbr » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:48 am

mike_slc wrote:I'm still net negative over my entire investing lifetime, not just 2008 and 2009. I need somewhere in the neighborhood of 1100 (S&P 500) to get back to zero.
I'm so far ahead over my investing lifetime that 2008-2009 is irrelevant.

MTWC
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:58 pm

Post by MTWC » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:52 am

I am still down 40% from my principle. I started investing at the peak of the market. I didn't sell any shares. I am going to hold on to these babies for another 20 years.

neverknow
Posts: 2392
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:45 am

Post by neverknow » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:06 am

..
Last edited by neverknow on Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

retiredjg
Posts: 39981
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

Post by retiredjg » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:06 am

Up, but not recovered. Being up is nice though.

ResNullius
Posts: 2091
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:22 pm

Post by ResNullius » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:24 am

neverknow wrote: I remain at 30% which is appropriate for me. I think this is all nonsense about paper losses only being paper losses. A loss is a loss is a loss. If you never lost it in the first place, you do not need the risk to regain it. That said, I wonder - as that financial adviser took me through the 2000-2002 bear market at 85% in equities, and that worked out fine by 2006. I did not know she had me that high in equities, as I was counting the variable annuity as fixed income, while it actually was 100% equities. I consider myself extremely lucky to have escaped the financial adviser intact. So you folks, that believe it is only a loss on paper, may very well turn out to be right in the end.

neverknow
Last night, my wife and I went to a food/drink thing at a good friend's house, where her son gave the group a pitch on behalf of AG Edwards. There were about 20 people present, all good friends from the neighborhood. It simply wasn't possible to turn down our friend, who asked us to hear her son out, along with free food and drinks. It's the only time in my life I've attended such an event, and it likely will be the last. Anyway, the pitch was for wealth management services for a flat percentage annual fee. He slammed annuities, tax exempt bonds, and mutual funds of all types, including index funds. He pitched stock picking, with AG Edwards and himself being the so-called stock pickers. The only thing that surprised me was his slam on tax exempt bonds of all kinds. The rest was fairly predictable. When done, we all left. My wife told me at lunch that at least two of the couples there planned to move at least some of their portfolio to the guy for management. I found that hard to believe, but what the heck. My wife knows that I would have to die first before any portion of our portfolio went under management by the blood suckers in the financial services industry.

ResNullius
Posts: 2091
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:22 pm

Post by ResNullius » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:24 am

neverknow wrote: I remain at 30% which is appropriate for me. I think this is all nonsense about paper losses only being paper losses. A loss is a loss is a loss. If you never lost it in the first place, you do not need the risk to regain it. That said, I wonder - as that financial adviser took me through the 2000-2002 bear market at 85% in equities, and that worked out fine by 2006. I did not know she had me that high in equities, as I was counting the variable annuity as fixed income, while it actually was 100% equities. I consider myself extremely lucky to have escaped the financial adviser intact. So you folks, that believe it is only a loss on paper, may very well turn out to be right in the end.

neverknow
Last night, my wife and I went to a food/drink thing at a good friend's house, where her son gave the group a pitch on behalf of AG Edwards. There were about 20 people present, all good friends from the neighborhood. It simply wasn't possible to turn down our friend, who asked us to hear her son out, along with free food and drinks. It's the only time in my life I've attended such an event, and it likely will be the last. Anyway, the pitch was for wealth management services for a flat percentage annual fee. He slammed annuities, tax exempt bonds, and mutual funds of all types, including index funds. He pitched stock picking, with AG Edwards and himself being the so-called stock pickers. The only thing that surprised me was his slam on tax exempt bonds of all kinds. The rest was fairly predictable. When done, we all left. My wife told me at lunch that at least two of the couples there planned to move at least some of their portfolio to the guy for management. I found that hard to believe, but what the heck. My wife knows that I would have to die first before any portion of our portfolio went under management by the blood suckers in the financial services industry.

LesterFreamon
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:19 am

Post by LesterFreamon » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 am

Fletch wrote:Pardon me if this sounds sarcastic, but this is definitely not intended to be that way.

I have fully recovered and had not lost anything during or since the crash, because I did not sell anything. Thus, actual loss was zero, nothing to "fully recover". I try not to get upset by paper losses. If I had been forced to sell funds to live on to meet daily expenses, I'm sure I would have viewed this most recent "crash" differently.

Fletch
Nonsense, you have a loss. A loss is a loss is a loss. You have an unrealized loss because you have not sold, but it is very much a loss. The whole notion of "I haven't lost anything until I sell" is garbage.

User avatar
Judsen
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:29 am
Location: Birmingham, Al.

Post by Judsen » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:29 am

I`m where I was back in 04.
On this recent gyration I didn't sell or buy.
My % stocks went down by 10% of total A-A.
At least it wasn't/isn't boring.
I think the market will go up or down if it changes, (Forgive me!)
Jud

bigH
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Post by bigH » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:30 am

ResNullius wrote:If someone was 70/30 equity to fixed, or 60/40 equity to fixed, I think it would be impossible to have returned to even, regardless of what stocks or funds you're in. Of course, if you had a limited balance to begin with, then added a lot of new money, then you could be even. I don't like to question comments, but I doubt this one. I'm up huge on the year, but still down quite a lot since the high in late 2007, and I was 70/30 at the time of the crash. I'm now about 55/45 equity fixed, and moving towards 50/50.
If you rebalanced along the way (perhaps every 3 months), you would be close to even. I'm in the allocation phase, so I bought on the way down with every massive drop. I'm almost even with the help of the rally and some dividends

bigH
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Post by bigH » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:34 am

ResNullius wrote:
neverknow wrote: I remain at 30% which is appropriate for me. I think this is all nonsense about paper losses only being paper losses. A loss is a loss is a loss. If you never lost it in the first place, you do not need the risk to regain it. That said, I wonder - as that financial adviser took me through the 2000-2002 bear market at 85% in equities, and that worked out fine by 2006. I did not know she had me that high in equities, as I was counting the variable annuity as fixed income, while it actually was 100% equities. I consider myself extremely lucky to have escaped the financial adviser intact. So you folks, that believe it is only a loss on paper, may very well turn out to be right in the end.

neverknow
Last night, my wife and I went to a food/drink thing at a good friend's house, where her son gave the group a pitch on behalf of AG Edwards. There were about 20 people present, all good friends from the neighborhood. It simply wasn't possible to turn down our friend, who asked us to hear her son out, along with free food and drinks. It's the only time in my life I've attended such an event, and it likely will be the last. Anyway, the pitch was for wealth management services for a flat percentage annual fee. He slammed annuities, tax exempt bonds, and mutual funds of all types, including index funds. He pitched stock picking, with AG Edwards and himself being the so-called stock pickers. The only thing that surprised me was his slam on tax exempt bonds of all kinds. The rest was fairly predictable. When done, we all left. My wife told me at lunch that at least two of the couples there planned to move at least some of their portfolio to the guy for management. I found that hard to believe, but what the heck. My wife knows that I would have to die first before any portion of our portfolio went under management by the blood suckers in the financial services industry.
My future wife went to a financial planner with a big firm. I stopped reading the proposal or plan for her when they recommended a front loaded mutual fund with a 1.5% ER (front load of about 3% i think). No thanks.

dayzero
Posts: 1032
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:04 pm

Post by dayzero » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:07 pm

dbr wrote:
mike_slc wrote:I'm still net negative over my entire investing lifetime, not just 2008 and 2009. I need somewhere in the neighborhood of 1100 (S&P 500) to get back to zero.
I'm so far ahead over my investing lifetime that 2008-2009 is irrelevant.
I hope I can say that someday.

gkaplan
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by gkaplan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:11 pm

I'm probably still down about fifteen percent. I don't have my portfolio balances right now, but I'm figuring from 09/30/2007, when the market seemed to take a sudden reverse, until 06/30/2009.
Gordon

dbr
Posts: 32197
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Post by dbr » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:16 pm

mike_slc wrote:
dbr wrote:
mike_slc wrote:I'm still net negative over my entire investing lifetime, not just 2008 and 2009. I need somewhere in the neighborhood of 1100 (S&P 500) to get back to zero.
I'm so far ahead over my investing lifetime that 2008-2009 is irrelevant.
I hope I can say that someday.
Well, actually there is not boasting in this as any economy which offers opportunities for the productive use of money will produce such a result.

We do all indeed hope that we are participants in such an economy.

dayzero
Posts: 1032
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:04 pm

Post by dayzero » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:22 pm

dbr wrote:
mike_slc wrote:
dbr wrote:
mike_slc wrote:I'm still net negative over my entire investing lifetime, not just 2008 and 2009. I need somewhere in the neighborhood of 1100 (S&P 500) to get back to zero.
I'm so far ahead over my investing lifetime that 2008-2009 is irrelevant.
I hope I can say that someday.
Well, actually there is not boasting in this as any economy which offers opportunities for the productive use of money will produce such a result.

We do all indeed hope that we are participants in such an economy.
I didn't read it as boasting. I just read it as you started investing earlier than I did. I know I'll be back in black eventually, and probably sooner rather than later.

User avatar
renditt
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:05 pm

Post by renditt » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:25 pm

Hard to see how you can be fully recovered when you were 70-80% in stocks?

I am back to where I was last summer, but I had sizeable contributions along the way. I don't track my performance but track my realized / unrealized gains and I am almost flat in my taxable account since starting investing in 2002. Not great but not that bad either given that I invested a lot of money last summer after we sold our appartment (and if I would have waited with selling the appartment until now, I would have lost more than I have in the stock market).

I would think 401k is up lifetime but Fidelity allows me only to track the performance over the last 2 years.

dbr
Posts: 32197
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Post by dbr » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:27 pm

mike_slc wrote:
I didn't read it as boasting. I just read it as you started investing earlier than I did. I know I'll be back in black eventually, and probably sooner rather than later.
Of course :)

dayzero
Posts: 1032
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:04 pm

Post by dayzero » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:29 pm

My main problem is that I made sizeable contributions in December 2007 and July 2008. These two contributions alone account for about 46% of my lifetime contributions. I still agree with the strategy of lump-sum investing when you have the money, but sometimes the outcome hurts.

Ron
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Post by Ron » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:35 pm

LesterFreamon wrote:Nonsense, you have a loss. A loss is a loss is a loss. You have an unrealized loss because you have not sold, but it is very much a loss. The whole notion of "I haven't lost anything until I sell" is garbage.
Sorry, but I can't agree with your assumption.

Let's take a real life example of my (and my wife's) situation. We started investing for retirement in 1982. At the time, we had (and still have shares) that track the S&P 500 (FYI, Vanguard's S&P 500 Index fund, which we still have, started in 8/31/76).

Around the time of our purchase, the S&P was around 110-120. Today? Let's just say it closed yesterday, above 900. We still have some of those original shares. Do we consider the gain (disregarding reinvestment of dividends over the years) 9 times our original investment (or around 800%)? Nope.

We're old folk, and still believe in the old saying of "don't count your chickens before their hatched" :lol: Our "chickens" meaning holdings from many, many years ago cannot be looked at until we decide to cash in.

As I posted in this thread previously, the last sale of equities from my holdings (my wife still works; no need to sell) was back in late 2007, and I have not sold one share since that time. All distributions were reinvested, so I actually have more shares.

What are they worth today? Overall, if you want to be technical, per your view - a heck of a lot more than I ever paid for them.

Just looking back over my returns to give you a snapshot:

1993: +13.49% return
1995: +29.75% return
1997: +23.78% return
1998: +28.72% return
2003: +26.34% return

OK, here's some bad ones:

2001: -9.82%
2002: -12.30%
2008: -22.95%

The point of these numbers? Not much, IMHO. Looking from the period of 1982 through 2008, my personal return (XRR) is +8.40%.

You can slice/dice these numbers, but here's a fact. Regardless of any return, I don't count on it until I spend it.

I established a retirement cash bucket over a few years before I retired, and I last added to that bucket in late 2007. I have not sold any shares since that time. Why? Simply because I don't need to.

Sure, I may sell some at the end of this year because this may be an "up" year, but then again, I may not.

To look at a short span of time, and say that you gained/lost "x%" means nothing, and I (along with Fletch) seem to agree on this view.

As for you and your paper profits/losses? Fine. I just wanted to reflect that there is more than one way to look at it, if you have an open mind, and people's alternate views are not necessarily "garbage".

- Ron

LesterFreamon
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:19 am

Post by LesterFreamon » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:48 pm

Ron wrote:As for you and your paper profits/losses? Fine. I just wanted to reflect that there is more than one way to look at it, if you have an open mind, and people's alternate views are not necessarily "garbage".

- Ron
There are multiple ways of looking at lots of issues, but there is only one correct way to view the increase/decrease in the value of your portfolio. You've either lost money or you haven't. You can say that you have the same number of shares, or even more shares, but it doesn't matter. Your investments are only worth what you could sell them for at the current market price. If you don't need to sell and you think the market will recover, great, but that is still a loss. It's just unrealized because you haven't executed a trade. You can't "mark to historical cost" when a market price is readily available.

A loss is a loss is a loss. It's not permanent if you don't sell, but it is a loss any way you slice it.

P.S. Thank you for your service.

Ron
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Post by Ron » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:50 pm

LesterFreamon wrote:A loss is a loss is a loss. It's not permanent if you don't sell, but it is a loss any way you slice it.
In that case, my portfolio consists of funds that have (since I've owned them) have gained 900%!

No - don't think so (at least I don't look at it that way).....

- Ron

LesterFreamon
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:19 am

Post by LesterFreamon » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:54 pm

Ron wrote:
LesterFreamon wrote:A loss is a loss is a loss. It's not permanent if you don't sell, but it is a loss any way you slice it.
In that case, my portfolio consists of funds that have (since I've owned them) have gained 900%!

No - don't think so (at least I don't look at it that way).....

- Ron
You should, you have unrealized capital gains. If you had to sell today, what would be the outcome? A gain of 900%. If you choose to continue holding the funds, what could happen? Maybe a gain of 1000% or perhaps a total loss. Either way, at this current moment you have a gain of 900% in at least some of your funds. I'm jealous!

You can certainly use the "don't count your chickens before they hatch" idea. No need to spend the gains from your investments until you have realized them.

Oh, when it comes time to "means test" for SS, tell the government that you don't have any gains until you sell :)

User avatar
SpringMan
Posts: 5421
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Michigan

Post by SpringMan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:57 pm

There are many situations where paper losses never come back. Anybody want to buy my original Kmart stock (KM) or maybe my Delphi (DPH), Federal Mogul (FMO) or Global Light Telecommunications (GBT). I believe my portfolio is worth exactly what Vanguard (or Fidelity etc.) says its worth. Mutual funds have no memory and are not obliged to go back to or surpass their highest obtained value.
Last edited by SpringMan on Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Best Wishes, SpringMan

LesterFreamon
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:19 am

Post by LesterFreamon » Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:07 pm

SpringMan wrote:There are many situations where paper losses never come back. Anybody want to buy my original Kmart stock (KM) or maybe my Delphi (DPH), Federal Mogul (FMO) or Global Light Telecommunications (GBT). I believe my portfolio is worth exactly what Vanguard (or Fidelity etc.) says it worth. Mutual funds have no memory and are not obliged to go back to or surpass their highest obtained value.
I think JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citi, and Wells Fargo should NOT have to mark-down the value of the sub-prime mortgages as long as they continue to hold them :shock: :wink:

YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Re: Anyone's account fully recovered from 2008 and 2009 loss

Post by YDNAL » Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:53 pm

marshall wrote:I was checking my balance today and realized my accounts have fully recovered (even considering contributions) from the 2008 and early 2009 losses.
marshall,

Unless 100% Fixed or didn't hold stocks that dropped 50% (more or less), there's NO way you are "fully recovered" since the March 2009 lows.

VTSMX-Total Skt Mtk is down -26.22% for one year ending June 30th.

VGTSX-Total International is down -30.51% for one year ending June 30th.
Landy | Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
bobbyrx
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:14 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Post by bobbyrx » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:08 pm

25% equity/ 75% fixed since 1998.
Fully recovered since 2008 decline and about 8%/annual return since 1998.

User avatar
madsinger
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:26 pm

Post by madsinger » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:15 pm

A madsinger view of this:

The last two months of 2007 was a -4.91% loss. 2008 was a -28.85% loss. YTD through yesterday, I was up 11.14% for 2009. So, from Oct 31, 2007 through yesterday:

(1.0-0.0491)*(1.0-0.2885)*(1.0+0.1114) = 0.7520,

or, down about 25%. This sure beats where I was on Feb 28 this year when I was down almost 43%! I'm up about 31% since then!

(I didn't compute my return on March 9, which was quite a bit lower than Feb 28!).

-Brad.

Post Reply