<<The dividend was higher, though, than today which is not factored in when looking at just stock prices alone.>>
Gee, that's funny. I had the distinct impression that y'all were indeed looking at stock prices alone.
You invite a precipitous slippery slope when, by broaching the idea that stock behavior is reflective of a wide array of events occurring during the time, you acknowledge there actually exists an outside world with tremendous deterministic input. 1966-1980: need I regurgitate all the social, military, domestic-political, and global economic crises that occurred? The last 20 years have been Shangrli-La by comparison...and conditions for the US, Europe, and many other countries continue to improve (IN GENERAL).
There may be some sort of whacky pleasure in informing us of these broad swaths of time when stocks were flat so as to permanently quash the pom-pom crowd. I do not doubt the advice would have been significantly more strident when, in 1982, the Dow was at ~800 and obviously going nowhere fast.
The contributors to SI need neither to be lectured on the history of stock performance nor about excessive optimism (or pessimism).
However, we are reminded of the ease with which the historical record can be mined to satisfy whatever theory beckons. And when stock market prognosticators come a callin', wooooo Nellie: historical data is the most willing concubine.
[There is also the semantics around statistics: for example, the following statement is true, 'The NASDAQ and S&P have been in trading ranges over the past three years'. This completely distorts the actual events underlying the behavior but by strict definition (trading range = the index is at the same level on each end of the designated time frame), the statement is fact-based.] |
