[somenameforme]

1989 was picked as it was the peak of the Japanese economy, the point from which people thought the economy could only continue to grow even larger, because that's what it'd always done - basically the same sort of stuff you're espousing here. But of course that's not what happened - anybody who invested at that time (or in many years around) would have seen nothing but losses over the decades to come. The end date was a typo, of course I picked 2023, the latest date the site supports. Do it 1989-2013 and you'd have lost 64% of your money!

Not only is markets declining longterm an obviously possible outcome, but as population levels start to decline, it's likely to become more the norm than the exception. When your population is growing, each year all businesses naturally grow. When your population is shrinking, all businesses naturally shrink each year. Fertility collapse is going to shake the world like nothing before.

[koonsolo]

1989 until 2023 gives a 8.765% positive return with inflation.

[somenameforme]

I was going from December, as per my earlier comment. In any case, if we're engaging in good faith then of course even 8.8% after near to 40 years is not what people mean when they talk about the market being a stable investment. The comment that started our little thread said,

---

It’s a shame, as ETFs, and hell, index funds if you must, outperform savings on a 3 year or even less horizon.

Yes, my portfolio dropped 7% this month. I’m still up 6% YTD and 13% in the last 12 months.

My horizon is well over 5 years. It would be an easy way to slow or even reduce my net worth if I were to put it all in a savings account.

---

He's clearly still expecting reasonable returns on mid-range time frames, which is what people mean when suggesting the market always goes up - not an annualized 0.25%, let alone loss, for the next 40 years.

[dgfitz]

If I understand your numbers correctly, that’s like, ~0.25% a year. Is that accurate?