|
Figures 6 and 9 look a lot like https://totalrealreturns.com/ , especially with the trendlines on these figures, logarithmic y-axis, (disclosure: my side project, recomputed daily at market close) It would be cool to merge in some longer-term historical data as the article author has done, instead of just using actually-tradable assets like I've done. Per the article, the author considers these charts "misleading": > Charts such as Figure 9, with their accompanying commentary, and combined with the distinctive behavior of the product function, may lead investors to mis-anchor their expectations about the future performance of bond and stock investments. Faced with a yawning visual gap, and apprised of the numerical dominance of stock returns (in Siegel 2014, estimated at 6.6% real versus 3.6% for bonds), an investor readily infers that bonds are never going to out-perform stocks over any lengthy period. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion. A log scale hides a lot of volatility, but it's still fairly obvious that the stocks line has a lot more volatility, prolonged periods of substantial drowdowns (painful!)... As another commenter points out, this article's use of price-only data (even if adjusted for inflation) is intellectually dishonest, ignoring returns from dividends. And yes, your typical price-only, non-inflation-adjusted charts from Yahoo Finance / Google Finance / Apple Stocks should probably be considered intellectually dishonest, or at least confusing, in my opinion... |