Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Investor2 who wrote (11659)	2/3/2000 10:22:00 AM
From: MrGreenJeans	Respond to of 15132

I2 "For example, data from Ibbotson Associates shows that if you had invested $1 in the stock market in 1926, that dollar would have been worth $1,114 at year-end 1995 So if you were born in 1926 you would have been 69 years old in 1995 assuming your parents invested part of the money for you. So at age 69 you would be rich towards the end of your life and assuming you were in good health could probably enjoy the money for a few years. The problem with all these analyses is that assuming what period you examine you would be 69 years old, 85 years old, or pick your period. My point being great you are rich but of what value is the money to you when you are towards the end of your life.

To: Investor2 who wrote (11659)	2/3/2000 12:57:00 PM
From: Mr. BSL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

This is a one-sided analysis that is often used to support the buy-and-hold philosophy. Notice that they never state your return if you had been out of the market for the worst 35 months during the study period. Amen. From time to time, the Dorsey Wright paid site lists statistics for being out of the market on the worst days vs. being out on the best days. Being out on the worst days is always more benefit than being in on the best days, all things being equal. Next time it comes up I'll ask permission to reprint it here.