Select to expand quote
AJEaster said..
Breaking that down to a p.a. basis, that is approx 9%pa for the ASX 200 (+ you could add in an extra 0.5% - 1% on average for franking credits), compared to CPI at approx 2.6%pa.
Yeah.
Select to expand quote
I would suggest that the last 20 years have been cracking for the ASX 200 despite the volatility.
Nah.
An i obviously thought about this a bit. And again correct me where you see different. It's interesting.So the 2.6% CPI is what irks me. Because as you pointed out that comes to 1.67, or 67% inflation, eating (well) into any profits.
You take that 451% that the ASX appreciated over the past 20 years, and if you'd invested $100 you'd of course have $451, which after adjusting for inflation is $270. (450 / 1.67)
$100 to $270, after 20 years. 270.06%, to be exact.
wow : |
Now, i do genuinely disagree with myscreenusername's example of the clearly speculative and hype driven return on a game
that sucks balls (c'mon myscreenusername;
nobody actually
plays it). but, you
could have cleaned up 20 years of returns on the ASX in
days.
Select to expand quote
Get to the point
In our current, er very interesting, economic climate a 50-100% return is kinda
normal. I mean the feds and even the .au reserve bank have created so much "money" by updating a row or so in a database (fact) that if you're
not making 20%+ you're not making anything at all. You have to make 20%+ to tread water!
Times have changed, is what i'm getting at. The point. Tech is and will and perhaps always has outperformed everything. And i get it and fully understand and even mentioned above that "you get rich (and poor (careful mysecreenusername)) by consolidating and rich by diversifying", but at some point you have to face the new reality (it's a constant, change is).
I am not particularly keen to share how much i've "made" or "beaten" or "won" or whatever (oh wow, i
am drunk (tequila)) ...in general how much of a difference there is between myself and the/a common investor ("winner", ...somehow : ( ), but it's just that 270%
over 20 ****ing years, which is longer than many people i know
even lived for, is, well, kinda sad.
Select to expand quote
...C R A C K I N G ! ! !!
Yeah. Nah.
Nah.
270% over
20 years is terrible. Just terrible.
It's the 20 years (!), and the compound inflation, that is killing that investment. At 20:1 (historically standard) you'd have made that this year in property (safe as).