This post is graphics-intensive. To see the entire thing, you may have to click the “more inside” link.
The recent market turmoil has the naybirds out in force, and they’re decrying the long-term viability of stocks. I think this is nonsense. Though I try not to be dogmatic around here, today is an exception. Today I am going to sing the praises of the stock market.
Learning from the experts
When I began to turn my financial life around, I made a habit of reading books about money. The more I read, the clearer certain patterns became. I wrote about these patterns in my very first post about getting rich slowly.
I’ve continued to read personal finance books, including books about investing. And I’ve continued to detect recurring themes. One of the most prominent themes — present in most investing books and present in most conversations with real-life financial planners — is that, in the long term, stocks produce attractive returns. They may fluctuate in the short term, and may even decline by 50% in a single year, but historically, they yield an investment return of about 10%.
But I’m no financial expert. I’m just an average guy who is trying to build his wealth. Let’s see what the actual experts have to say. In this post, I’ve included excerpts from four of my favorite books about investing.
From Yes, You Can…Achieve Financial Independence (2004)
This book by James Stowers contains some of the most complete information on investment returns that I’ve found. And Stowers presents it in interesting ways. Here’s what he says about comparing the short term to the long term:
[A $10,000] investment made on 01 July 1932 would have realized, one year later, the worst one-year result out of 425 [periods tested]: minus 69%. Most people, if they had experienced those poor results, would have assumed that this was an indication of future performance and would have become discouraged. Many would have traded their investment back for dollars and tried to find another place to invest their money.
Had they had confidence in the long-term opportunities of the Dow and left their investment undisturbed for another 29 years (30 years total), it would have been worth $556,563. The original investment, which began with the worst one-year result, grew at an average annual compound rate of 14.34% (the best 30-year result). As you can see, it is unwise to assume that short-term investment results are an accurate indication of long-term performance.
The following charts indicate the probability of obtaining a certain return from a $10,000 one-time investment. The top line of each chart indicates the one-year probabilities. So, for example, there’s an 55% chance that the S&P 500 Index will produce a 10% return over a one-year period. There’s an 85% chance of obtaining that return over a decade. But, historically, there is a 100% chance of earning that return over a 30-year investment career. (Ignore “Fund A” — it’s irrelevant to this discussion.)
These next three charts provide snapshots of 1-year, 15-year, and 30-year investments from January 1897 to December 2003. The “individual periods” have quarterly start dates. Each chart breaks returns into quartiles. Watch how the numbers move to the middle — at about 10%.
From Saving and Investing (2005)
Michael Fischer’s slim volume remains one of the best and most under-rated finance books of the last few years. It’s a shame it doesn’t have a wider audience. Fortunately, Fischer’s Saving and Investing channel on YouTube continues to grow. (1350+ subscribers now!) Here’s his take on the impact of time on investment returns:
The impact of time (7:15)
From his book:
In order to capture positive long-term returns from a volatile asset like equities [stocks], it has been easier to predict the result when the asset is held for a long time. Over short time periods the returns are very difficult to predict, and jump around a lot. A longer time horizon significantly increases the likelihood of having a good result.
One implication of this is that when we invest in volatile assets like equities, our investment horizon should be longer to increase our chances of achieving a positive result.
Here are series of charts tracing the annualized return of the S&P 500 Index for a variety of time periods ending from 1939 to 2003. Notice how the one-year returns are all over the map. As the investment horizon increases, the returns become smoother.
From The Four Pillars of Investing (2002)
If I could recommend one book to those who want to learn about the stock market, I think it would be The Four Pillars of Investing. The author doesn’t sugar-coat anything. As he describes the history of speculation, he explains that there’s every possibility that the U.S. stock market’s past performance could simply collapse in the future. All the same, he cannot offer a better long-term investment:
Short-term risk, occurring over periods of less than several years, is what we feel in our gut as we follow the market from day to day and month to month. It is what give investors sleepless nights. More importantly, it is what causes investors to bail out of stocks after a bad run, usually at the bottom. And yet, in the long-term, it is of trivial importance. After all, if you can obtain high long-term returns, what does it matter if you have lost and regained 50% or 80% of your principal along the way?
This, of course, is easier said than done. Even the most disciplined investors exited the markets in the 1930s, never to return…If you want to earn high returns, be prepared to suffer grievous losses from time to time. And if you want perfect safety, resign yourself to low returns…High investment returns cannot be earned without taking substantial risk. Safe investments produce low returns.
In this chart, Bernstein shows the 30-year annualized inflation-adjusted return on U.S. stocks.
From The Random Walk Guide to Investing (2003)
Finally, financial guru Burton Malkiel also makes the case for stock-market investment. Like the others, he notes that the stock market can (and does) enter prolonged periods of declining value:
Common stocks have been the big winner, providing an average annual return of about 10 percent. This 10 percent return includes both the dividends and capital gains resulting from growth over time in corporate earnings and dividends. But these generous returns have been achieved at the expense of considerable annual volatility, which is a good indicator of risk.
In some years, stocks have lost more than a quarter of their value. And sometimes there have been three years in a row of negative returns, as was the case from 2000 to 2002. In fact, equity investors have suffered through several severe bear markets over the past fifty years. The chart below shows the magnitude of the declines as well as the number of months it took the stock market to recover.
Later in the book, Malkiel writes:
It turns out that the longer you hold your stocks, the more you can reduce the risk you assume from investing in common stocks. The chart below makes the point convincingly. From 1950 through 2002, common stocks provided investors with an average annual return of a bit more than 10 percent…
Even during the worst 25-year period you would have earned a rate of return of almost 8 percent — a quite generous return and one that was larger than the long-run average return from relatively safe bonds. This is why stocks are a wholly appropriate medium for investing in long-term retirement funds.
The bottom line
All of the books say the same thing: over the long term, stocks have returned an average of about 10% per year. Obviously, there’s no guarantee that they’ll continue to offer these sorts of returns, but there’s no reason to believe that they won’t, either.
Yes, 2008 may blow a lot of these charts out of the water. But you know what? I have confidence (some might call it “faith”) that, in the years ahead, we’ll see a regression toward the mean. That is, the returns will tend toward the historical norms to which we are accustomed. If you do not share this confidence (or “faith”), then I’d argue that your risk tolerance is too low, and you should consider other investments.
It’s a stock-market crash at the back end of your investment life that will hurt you — if your asset allocation isn’t appropriate for your age — not a crash at the front end. A crash at the front end has, historically, been a good thing. What does this mean? If you’re in your twenties or thirties, the statistics would seem to indicate that your best bet right now is to buy into the stock market. That’s what I intend to continue doing.
This article is about Investing
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES

















Actively traded funds end up eating into what ever gains the investor makes. My understanding is that the more active the portfolio; the more you are paying in fees, thus less in gains. I am a novice when it comes to investing and I don’t mind putting in the time and effort it takes to learn about investing so that.. in time… I can make sound investment decisions on my own. Hopefully, reducing fees and expenses and maximizing returns.
Not easy! But very interesting!
loading....
The best investment you can make is in yourself. Nobody will ever care as much about your money as you do. Invest in your OWN business where you have control and can get the best cash on cash return.
loading....
I think Steve had a great point above about the US moving from an emerging market to a mature market. I’m no expert, but I’ve felt since I was a teen that the US wasn’t going to be as successful in my adult years as it was in my childhood and before I was born. This just rings true to me.
But whatever the long-term returns, I do think we are at a low right now and this is a great time to be buying in to the market. Which is where I am. Yay risk tolerance!
loading....
@Plex: This isn’t a completely fair statistic. Most stocks (about 64%) underperform the market too. Add in the fees, and that explains why most mutual funds underperform.
Has anyone ever seen an analysis of total average gains by mutual funds vs. the return of the market? I think it would give a much more accurate picture than the statistics on how many mutual funds underperform.
loading....
I’m not sure what the author considers to be the time frame for his ‘reversion to the mean’,Clearly, if you are using the last few years, then we’d be there… But if you go to Yahoo Finance and pull up a chart going back to the 30′s, you’ll see a DOW reversion to the mean which would put us at about 4000, or 1/2 of where we are right now.
I think the best that can be said of this post is that the author has stated quite clearly that he is no financial expert.
Check out Pomboy, or Louise Yamada before you jump on this ship. Expect the DOW to hit 6000 by the end of next year and ask yourself if you really want to lose 30% of what you may still have by then.
jegan
loading....
I tend to look at stuff like this a bit differently. The generally accepted figure for long term stock market returns in the UK is 4% above inflation, on average. Housing in the UK (restrictive planning laws, in short supply) has grown at around 2% above inflation.
What else could the average investor be doing with their money? Bonds? Savings accounts?
I genuinely think that the stock market will be higher in 30-40 years time than it is now and over that time period I expect it to (probably) do better than cash or bonds that’s why I invest in stocks. I don’t have the capital to invest in property or that could be a real alternative (and it may be in the future).
loading....
Here, here.. Worry about only that which you can control. Your earning potential via education, vocation, etc. is the single most important financial aspect of your life… I guess expenses might be MORE important, but both are very controllable. Great call!
As far as investing… If you have a reasonable time horizon (call it 10 years), you could probably do MUCH worse if you only were invested equally in VTI, EFA, and EEM and rebalanced every 5 years… As you get older throw some bonds in the mix..
Control your income, control your expenses, control your fees, and control your taxes as best you can and you’ll be GOLDEN.
loading....
I love comment #57:
Control your income, control your expenses, control your fees, and control your taxes as best you can and you’ll be GOLDEN.
Preach it, brother!
loading....
*Watches JD tiptoe through the minefield*
Obviously we will all make the decision of asset allocation based on our personal evaluation of the markets. The flip side to the “risk tolerance” coin is “risk management”. You must have a balanced portfolio because while an outcome may not be LIKELY, it is usually POSSIBLE.
At work we use a tool for department resource allocation. A potential failure mechanism gets a score for likelihood (1-5) and a score for severity (1-5). The numbers are then multiplied and the items with the highest score are tackled first. I approach my personal finances and portfolio in a similar manner. What are the potential payoffs of an investment? How likely is it something bad will happen? And how bad would it be if it did?
Arguing over what will happen is silly. There is no way for the argument to ever end. We will all read and believe what we will. But since there can be no solution it is an endless cycle.
loading....
@throughnothing (#5)
You forgot to mention that the Nikkei was also trading at an average of 78 times it’s yearly earnings (P/E ratio)
Right now the US market is a bit below 13. Which, to the average Joe, indicates we probably are not in for anything close to as bad as what Japanese investors experienced.
To note, the average P/E for the US market over the last decade is somewhere around 15. The lowest ever recorded was around 6, which means we could still see the market drop 50% from where it is today, or more.
loading....
Another interesting perspective on stock market returns is provided by Malcolm Gladwell’s “Dependency Ratio.”
Gladwell basically says that the ratio of people in the workforce to people not working in a population is a very strong indicator of a country’s (or company’s) future. Apply that to the USA, keeping the baby boomer generation in mind, and you get a rather pessimistic picture of the US economy’s future.
See here for the article: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact
loading....
The growth of the US Economy was based on manufacturing and exports. I think the real play is to find the countries that are growing and have a heavy ratio of exports to imports.
The United States is the next Enron. I started to short the market @ 12,000 and shorted the HECK out of Oil @ 130 (my biggest position in my life and traded on margin for the first time in my life). I also have moved all of my US currency into Swiss Francs.
My only financial advice is to friends for the past few years : Look at the US as a company. Look at the money in vs. money out and tell me if you think it is going to survive. Would you invest in a company that requires this much debt to survive? Look to invest in the countries that are anti-union, anti-minimum wage and have a large positive trade deficit and no major trade sanctions. Once you narrow that list determine which ones have high concentrations of people that easily can deliver water, transportation & electricity. Stay away from the big ones (China, Russia, India, Brazil) but look in South America.
Superpowers change. It is OK. Large gaps of separation of wealth are OK. As long as you are on the upside of it
loading....
Tea,
Thanks for the link. In the case of GM (and to the others of the Big Three), I agree with his assessment about at least a significant part of their current problems.
loading....
One of the best GRS articles I’ve ever read. Thanks JD!
loading....
Wow, that dependency ratio article is interesting. Another piece of the economic puzzle made clearer. It really gets at the heart of the meaning behind dependency ratio statistics.
One thing I noted though, not all retired persons are dependents, they have to be people that are being directly supported by others currently working, such as through a social program like social security or a pension. This is another reason why Africa’s 1:1 dependency ratio is so bad for them, the dependents are all 100% dependents, children, rather than only partial dependents (retirees through some sort of social program).
loading....
Alright, another comment on the dependency ratio article (sorry for sidetracking).
I noticed that the article pointed out that a national/industry pension would likely save GM from bankruptcy. While this may be true, that doesn’t mean that it is still a good option either. Case in point, social security, a classic example of a national dependency program with the exact same problem now facing GM. It will eventually have more dependents than contributors, resulting in deficits.
The only way to avoid deficits is to make sure that a worker gets out what they put into such a program. This is essentially why 401k’s have replaced pensions, and I really don’t expect we will see pensions resurface again (unless people lose their sanity). That doesn’t mean something even better than 401k’s may eventually be developed, that is even a likely bet after enough time passes.
loading....
From the first graphics, it essentially shows that there is a 0% probability of making at least 20% annualized by investing in index funds. Index funds are not ideal! In that case, I’d rather have invested in a guru like Warren Buffett. He’s shown over 20% annualized in the past 40 years.
loading....
Great post! And interesting discussion via the comments.
loading....
Appreciate the follow-up, J.D. On par I agree with your analysis , but I found it very strange to not include the current situation (since it is at the forefront of all our minds) initially. Thanks for the additional data. As you said, all the same: diversity (including buying equities).
loading....
Thank you thank you thank you. No, this isn’t a guarantee of the future, but people have been saying this for hundreds of years. Every time some new downturn or fiasco happens, it’s the same thing: “The fundamentals have changed,” “This changes everything,” “Nothing will ever be the same,” “The old rules don’t apply,” etc. And guess what? Every time, we’ve gotten through it and that 8% return has been there in the long term.
loading....
When I started contributing to my 401K earlier this year, I couldn’t shake the feeling I was gambling. I tried to make a conservative portfolio, despite the advice from ‘experts’. My conservative portfolio plunged, so I shifted my new contributions to a government money market fund. Again, despite the advice of experts. I’m glad I did – my conservative portfolio plunged 40%. I can’t imagine what an aggressive portfolio recommended for my age would have done.
You should invest in the stock market after doing your research, and invest in healthy companies. This is advice I agree with. The American economy as a whole is NOT healthy. Thus putting money in the stock market is a gamble because we don’t KNOW which companies are healthy. If experts can’t figure it out, then I sure as heck can’t. I’m sure I will invest in index funds again, but not right now. I need to see that the economy is stabilizing. I only see signs that it is not yet bottom. I don’t know if I will have a job in 6 months, so I need cash in hand more than I need to take risks.
I don’t buy this group mentality that if I don’t contribute, then the economy won’t recover. I gave up my consumerist lifestyle long ago, and I’m sure as heck not going to start racking a balance on my credit card to “save” the economy. Nor am I investing my money in an unhealthy economy. I mean, look what happened with people who listened to Madoff. Look at all the dirt this crash is uncovering. No thanks…I’ll participate after the house has been demolished and rebuilt.
loading....
I’m a bit skeptical (it’s really one of my best traits) of the 17-4A chart. Specifically, how are there 11 30 year periods? Seems like there should be 127 years, – 29 years (you can’t count until 30 years have passed) should be 97-98 periods. Did he explain that in the book? I hope he didn’t pick ones to support his results.
Good points though. Makes me feel better about investing in October of last year (ungh, should have dollar cost averaged).
loading....
I’m about to enter the workforce for the first time, and you bet your behind that I’m taking all the 401K match my employeer is going to throw at me (100% of the 1st one percent, 50% of the next 5%). At my age (22), the stock market isn’t even a gamble. Its a discount store with huge store-wide sales. I’m putting every extra penny in the stock market, and I know I’m going to get huge returns for this!
loading....
@Ellie: While IN PRINCIPLE, I agree with a 22 year old going whole hog on the 401k up to the match. It’s like “free money”.
HOWEVER, I would caution some exceptions that might temper that “advice”:
(1) an Enron-like 401k where you have to take 100% company stock and your locked in for eons. There were many horror stories out of that debacle that you should study.
(2) Investment options that are horrendous. High fees. Limited choices. Private label funds. Incestuous relationship between the company and the 401k provider. I have heard many sad tales of woe where the employee lost their money and suffered from terrible ROIs.
(3) Any “fishiness” with respect to all the hands involved in the transactions. I’d be looking for SPIC or such insurance and what the LIMITS are. SIPC of 300k on a million dollar 401K ain’t good enough.
(4) Labels on choices that may or may not reflect the underlying investments. I’ve seen “fixed income” that was leveraged; small caps that had options in the portfolio; a bond fund that was leveraged and optioned.
(5) Unit trusts, annuities, insurance “products” in the “401K”. No joke, I’ve seen an annuity with its cruddy load 2% mutual funds advanced as “required” for a 401k. (I called a friend at the SEC on that one.)
In summary, there is a POLITICAL risk in 401Ks now. The congresscritters are talking about “taking” them in exchange for an “enhanced” Social Security benefit. I think this would cause blood in the streets, but never underestimate the perfidy of a politicain who thinks there is money to be “stolen”!
So, proceed, but remember the old psuedo-Russian movie proverb, “trust but verify”. So I say to you: “Trust but verify”!
The market is a crooked casino. But it’s the only game around for you.
May I also plug my formula: “Success for your generation is: (1) ruthless financial discipline — no bad debt; (2) a life long interest in learning — education — a degree — they can’t take it away from you; (3) a white collar job in order to save big bux; (4) a blue collar skill for hard times — never saw a poor plumber; (5) one or more internet based businesses — your store is always open; (6) a free time hobby that generates income; and (7) a large will-maintained network of people who can “help” you.”
Hope this helps … … everyone.
loading....
JD,
you post is nice, but your idea is utterly flawed.
First you need to factor in inflation. You can’t just disregard this.
Second you need to factor in fees and commissions. Sure low load index funds will help, but I’ve never seen a “fee free” trading account or fund.
Third you need to figure in taxes. 401K and IRAs will help, but these have a yearly cap.
Its’ very distinguish of you to just brush all these aside.
loading....
The amount of research you put into this post is really impressive- you have done quite a job,diving into a very complicated subject, and stimulated some very intelligent conversation via the comments.
To put my thoughts succinctly isn’t always my strong suit, but I’m with Steve – an estimated 6% return, at such a high risk…makes you wonder if the stock market is worth the roller coaster ride?
loading....
Like Wayde McKelvy, I am equally impressed with the amount of research here. The bigger issue, however, is taxes. The tax laws were written for business owners not employees. Businesses spend what they need and pay taxes on the balance. Employees pay taxes first and then get to spend/invest what is left.
There are pros and cons to tax deferral in qualified plans, but the point is this: employees will always get HAMMERED
loading....
Just remember to re-organize your investments as your age progresses. If you were nearing retirement age and still had your money in a volatile place, and you saw a downturn like we’ve seen lately, your nest egg would be in serious jeopardy.
loading....
Why look at the favorable 30 years only? Why not look at 60 years? Why only pick those 30 years that are favorable? Why not pick any other 30 years? Long term investing is a very big myth and actually makes people lose money. And that’s how Goldman Sachs make money in short term. People lose money in the long term (adjust for expense ratio, inflation, etc.) and companies like Goldman Sachs make money in the short term.
loading....
This analysis is missing something crucial. Don’t most people invest x amount of dollars in regular intervals as opposed to one time investment of 10K and wait 30 years? How do the returns compare if one invests say $100 every month for 30 years?
loading....