[skolos]

For me this type of analysis is always suspicious because it doesn't consider timing. How do I know that when I buy stocks I'm not buying at a peak, or when I need to sell them I'm not going to sell at the bottom. So I ran an analysis [1] where I just used random timing and checked what distribution would be. Turns out if you are long term investor (> 10 years holding period) it is more beneficial to hold stocks than bonds.

"Even if you had to sell your stocks at the bottom of the Great Depression, but held them for more than 20 years before that, you would not suffer a loss in value of your portfolio"

[1] https://www.investingrus.com/blog/safest-bet/

[jeffreyrogers]

The problem with this is it assumes the macroeconomic conditions stay constant. But the macroeconomic conditions since 2008/2009 have been wildly different than ever before.

[skolos]

This is almost 150 years of data. There were regimes with very different macroeconomic conditions (great depression, wars). However I do agree with you that there is a chance that we will see something even more exotic.

[jeffreyrogers]

Your data is only for the US though. What happens if you try the Weimar Republic? That's an extreme case, but I imagine other countries have had similar, but less severe events, and certainly the US in in uncharted territory right now.