If you are a leader, the example you set means everything.
Because it is the people in charge who have the responsibility for setting the priorities for those who work for them and also for shaping the environment in which they will do so. It is the people in positions of leadership who, by their policies and example, provide both the official and unspoken guidance that the people who work for them will follow in determining how they will act. Even when the boss is away - the cultural landscape they establish remains in effect.
In business, it's called "corporate culture". And it plays a massive role in how successful an organization can be. Especially during times of adversity, when challenges can become overwhelming in the absence of a solid organizational culture that can deal with them in a coherent, competent fashion.
As a case study of how important that aspect of leadership is and how much it is missed when it is lacking, let's consider a day in 2014 when the news of the death of 295 people aboard a Malaysian Airlines 777 commercial airliner became known around 11:30 AM EDT and how U.S. President Barack Obama handled it.
Here, we observe a large degree of disengagement on the part of President Obama that day, particularly after the news of the tragedy had become widespread. The White House press pool traveling with President Obama on that fateful day offered the following tidbit nearly an hour and a half after the news first broke:
At approximately 12:50 pm, the motorcade stopped at the Charcoal Pit, a popular, established restaurant just north of Wilmington, Del. Known for its burgers and sundaes. Obama shook hands and mingled with many of the diners, stopping at one point to pick up seven-month old Jaidyn Oates, and pose for a photo.
He invoked Vice Presiident [sic] Biden’s name a few names, noting to some diners, “Me and Joe, we share shakes all the time,” and to others, “Biden told me the burgers are pretty good.”
Just before hugging another young girl, whose mother lifted her across the booth to hug the president, Obama asked, “Do you give good hugs?”
At 1:01 pm Obama declared, “I’m starving!” He sat down to eat with Tanei Benjamin, who wrote the president a year ago. The president ordered a 4-ounce “Pit special,” which is burger with fries. He asked for it to be done medium well, and to have lettuce and tomato. He also asked for a water with lemon.
About an hour after lunch, President Obama finally noted the tragedy, inserting the following comments in a planned speech:
President Barack Obama offered his first public comments on Thursday about the Malaysia Airlines plane that crashed over Ukraine, saying his first priority is to find out whether there were any Americans on board the flight.
“Obviously, the world is watching reports of a downed passenger jet near the Ukraine border,” Obama said in brief comments before a planned speech in Delaware. “And it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy.”
Right now, we’re working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority. And I directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian government,” Obama said. “The United States will offer any assistance we can to help determine what happened and why. And as a country, our thoughts and prayers are with all the families of the passengers, wherever they call home.”
For the sake of context, here's the video of President Obama's remarks so you can appreciate how disengaged President Obama's first comments on the tragic events of 17 July 2014 really were, as the President gave them before going on to say that "it is great to be in the state that gave us Joe Biden":
Meanwhile, it was confirmed very early after the incident occurred that the lives of Americans had been claimed in the crash. In fact, the first reports of that fact were breaking at the same time President Obama was stopping for lunch, even though it would be some time for the exact number and their names were known.
But wait! Weren't there responsible people back at the White House to whom the President might have delegated the task of keeping up on tragic events as they occur? While President Obama's initial reaction was oddly disconnected, surely there were others that President Obama had placed into positions of authority who were on top of what the the President truly needed them to be doing.
Well, judge for yourself - our site saw the following site traffic at 9:08 AM PDT, or rather, 12:08 PM EDT, shortly after more extended news reports of the downing of the Malaysian 777 were hitting the airwaves:
Amazing the priorities that some have when commercial jetliners are shot down from the sky.
That odd level of extreme disengagement was also observed at other government agencies, including the State Department:
President Barack Obama is setting a very bad example of leadership. And it's showing all across the executive branch of the U.S. federal government.
Labels: business, income distribution, management, performance, quality
In a recent edition of our weekly best-of-the-business-blogosphere wrap up, On the Moneyed Midways, we featured a video of Dan Pink speaking at TED about what has been learned by behavioral researchers on how to effectively motivate people in business, calling it "the most potentially rewarding use of 18 minutes and 40 seconds of your time today."
Today, we're presenting an animated discussion of another Dan Pink performance, which covers very similar material in just 10 minutes and 48 seconds. It's even better.
HT: Core77
Labels: management, performance
So it's probably no surprise to anyone reading this, and I realize I am not saying anything profound when I say it. But even from an insider's perspective - and someone who is not necessarliy [sic] inclined to dislike government, since I work there - Ron Sims is about as conveniently ethical as they come.
Sims is unbelievably shallow in convictions and in recognition of what's right. I am 100% not surprised that Ron has chosen to exercise what many folks recognize as a very special clause to sell this property w/o bid.
You have to understand that many government executives don't get that the paramount duty of government is to overtly refrain from bilking the taxpayers. That means that you have to be just a bit less 'efficient' (although you could argue that, hence the quotes), you have to have a bit more process, and you have to be willing to stand up to just a bit more scrutiny than if you were in the private sector.
As a free market guy, that all makes sense to me. And it actually works in favor of getting the taxpayers the best deal. The quote from Bob Thompson in the article is a perfect example of this. Follow the rules (ie the public process) and you will 999 times out of 1000 get a better product for the taxpayers in the same amount of time...that last 1 in 1000 will in all likelihood result in better product, but maybe longer time. Transparency is good (this holds in private sector too, BTW).
Unfortunately, Ron and/or his office doesn't see it this way. Witness many land and other deals, but most recently the Donut Hole as was ably covered in the Times article, and the Burlington Northern property, which at one point Ron wanted to buy straight from the railroad, as long as the RR would remove the track first, thus avoiding a public debate about what should be done with that corridor.
Ron Sims is an embarrassment to all of us in government who want to do the right (and economically rational) thing and who think the rules actually usually end up giving you a better product. If only SOMEBODY would nominate a credible candidate to run against him. He is really a serious detriment to improved quality of life to anyone who lives in King County.
Alas, if only bureaucrats and politicians had good incentives, tales of government failure like this expedient land deal would be much less common.
The Best Post of the Year, Anywhere!(TM)
Last Friday, we awarded our highest recognition of the best blog post contributed to the world of business and money-related blog carnivals to a post that specifically revolved around the topic of building trust through transparency. We couldn't pass up this example of how the same principle would apply to government!
Labels: economics, performance, politics, quality
When were the best years to have ever invested in the S&P 500 stock market index? Last week, we introduced our chart showing the best inflation-adjusted rates of return ever obtained from the stock market index, but today, it's time to introduce our dynamic table!
We returned to our database of the S&P 500's performance since January 1871, and scanned month-by-month through every period ranging from 1 year to 50 years in length to sort out what the highest ever real returns were for our hypothetical investments and when they began.
In our analysis, we assumed full reinvestment of dividends, adjusted for inflation, and did not consider the effects of taxes or commissions and fees, which vary considerably over time. Our results for our hypothetical investment's holding periods between 1 and 50 years are summarized in the dynamic table below. You may sort the data by clicking the column headings - clicking the column heading once will sort by the selected category from low to high values, and clicking a second time will re-sort the table's data from high to low values.
| Best Case Inflation-Adjusted S&P 500 Rates of Return for Investment Holding Periods of 1 to 50 Years |
|---|
| Holding Period (Years) | Starting Date (Year-Month) | Ending Date (Year-Month) | Nominal Return (%) | Inflation Rate (%) | Real Return (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1932-07 | 1933-07 | 139.8 | -03.7 | 143.5 |
| 2 | 1932-06 | 1934-06 | 53.1 | -00.7 | 053.8 |
| 3 | 1926-09 | 1929-09 | 38.7 | -00.4 | 039.1 |
| 4 | 1932-06 | 1936-06 | 39.4 | 00.4 | 039.0 |
| 5 | 1924-09 | 1929-09 | 33.6 | 00.2 | 033.4 |
| 6 | 1923-09 | 1929-09 | 31.4 | 00.1 | 031.3 |
| 7 | 1922-01 | 1929-01 | 25.6 | 00.2 | 025.4 |
| 8 | 1921-09 | 1929-09 | 27.9 | -00.1 | 028.0 |
| 9 | 1920-08 | 1929-08 | 23.0 | -01.8 | 024.8 |
| 10 | 1919-09 | 1929-09 | 19.6 | -00.3 | 019.9 |
| 11 | 1918-09 | 1929-09 | 20.3 | 00.9 | 019.4 |
| 12 | 1949-06 | 1961-06 | 19.4 | 01.9 | 017.5 |
| 13 | 1948-12 | 1961-12 | 18.2 | 01.7 | 016.5 |
| 14 | 1942-04 | 1956-04 | 20.1 | 03.7 | 016.4 |
| 15 | 1954-07 | 1969-07 | 18.2 | 02.1 | 016.1 |
| 16 | 1982-07 | 1998-07 | 19.7 | 03.3 | 016.4 |
| 17 | 1982-07 | 1999-07 | 19.7 | 03.2 | 016.5 |
| 18 | 1982-08 | 2000-08 | 19.0 | 03.2 | 015.8 |
| 19 | 1980-04 | 1999-04 | 18.4 | 03.9 | 014.5 |
| 20 | 1980-04 | 2000-04 | 17.9 | 03.8 | 014.1 |
| 21 | 1942-05 | 1963-05 | 16.3 | 03.0 | 013.3 |
| 22 | 1942-05 | 1964-05 | 16.4 | 02.9 | 013.5 |
| 23 | 1942-05 | 1965-05 | 16.3 | 02.9 | 013.4 |
| 24 | 1932-06 | 1956-06 | 16.0 | 02.9 | 013.1 |
| 25 | 1932-06 | 1957-06 | 15.6 | 02.9 | 012.7 |
| 26 | 1942-05 | 1968-05 | 15.1 | 02.9 | 012.2 |
| 27 | 1932-06 | 1959-06 | 15.6 | 02.9 | 012.7 |
| 28 | 1932-06 | 1960-06 | 15.1 | 02.8 | 012.3 |
| 29 | 1932-06 | 1961-06 | 15.2 | 02.7 | 012.5 |
| 30 | 1932-06 | 1962-06 | 14.2 | 02.7 | 011.5 |
| 31 | 1932-06 | 1963-06 | 14.7 | 02.7 | 012.0 |
| 32 | 1932-06 | 1964-06 | 14.7 | 02.6 | 012.1 |
| 33 | 1932-06 | 1965-06 | 14.6 | 02.6 | 012.0 |
| 34 | 1932-06 | 1966-06 | 14.3 | 02.6 | 011.7 |
| 35 | 1932-06 | 1967-06 | 14.1 | 02.6 | 011.5 |
| 36 | 1932-06 | 1968-06 | 14.1 | 02.6 | 011.5 |
| 37 | 1932-06 | 1969-06 | 13.7 | 02.7 | 011.0 |
| 38 | 1921-08 | 1959-08 | 11.8 | 01.3 | 010.5 |
| 39 | 1920-12 | 1959-12 | 11.5 | 01.1 | 010.4 |
| 40 | 1921-08 | 1961-08 | 11.7 | 01.3 | 010.4 |
| 41 | 1920-12 | 1961-12 | 11.6 | 01.1 | 010.5 |
| 42 | 1921-08 | 1963-08 | 11.4 | 01.3 | 010.1 |
| 43 | 1921-07 | 1964-07 | 11.6 | 01.3 | 010.3 |
| 44 | 1920-12 | 1964-12 | 11.4 | 01.1 | 010.3 |
| 45 | 1920-12 | 1965-12 | 11.4 | 01.1 | 010.3 |
| 46 | 1921-08 | 1967-08 | 11.4 | 01.4 | 010.0 |
| 47 | 1920-12 | 1967-12 | 11.2 | 01.2 | 010.0 |
| 48 | 1920-12 | 1968-12 | 11.3 | 01.3 | 010.0 |
| 49 | 1949-06 | 1998-06 | 13.6 | 04.0 | 009.6 |
| 50 | 1949-06 | 1999-06 | 13.8 | 04.0 | 009.8 |
The End of the Worst Marks the Beginning of the Best
Unlike our previous findings that found that the worst periods for having made an investment in the S&P 500 were defined by when the given holding period ended, when looking at the best ever real returns for the index, we find here that they're largely determined by when they began. More remarkably, they largely began at the end of the worst-ever recorded rates of return for the holding periods in question!
Here's what we mean. The worst ever month to have ended an investment in the S&P 500 is June 1932, which marks the end of 23 of the 50 worst holding periods for investments in the index that we previously recorded. June 1932 also marks the beginning of 15 of the 50 best holding periods for having launched an investment in the S&P 500.
We also see this pattern for the worst investing holding periods ending in 1920 and 1921, which accounts for 14 of the 50 worst 1-to-50 year holding periods, but also marks the beginning of 13 of the 50 best 1-to-50 year holding periods! And we see this same pattern for investments ending and beginning in 1980-1982 and 1942.
The Bubble Years
When we turn our attention to the years ending the best inflation-adjusted performance of investments ranging from 1 to 50 years in length, we find two timeframes that stand out above all others: 1929 and 1999-2000. Both are significant in that each of these years marks the pinnacles of the stock market bubbles of their day!
Together, these periods account for 13 of the 50 best recorded performances for investments made in the S&P 500. 1929 alone accounts for 8 of these top inflation-adjusted rates of return, with 1999-2000 accounting for the remaining 5.
Labels: best case, investing, performance, SP 500, stock market
Last week, we introduced our findings of the worst case performance of the S&P 500 adjusted for inflation for investments made in the index ranging from 1 to 50 years in length. This week, we're looking at the brighter side of the U.S. stock market in looking at the best case performance for the index for investments of the same lengths of time! Here's the chart (click to enlarge):
Best Case Real Rates of Return
The chart above shows our basic findings of the best-case inflation-adjusted performance of the S&P 500 for all holding periods of 1 to 50 years, defining each unique period as beginning in each month starting from January 1871 and going all the way through to December 2006. The annualized rates of return shown in the chart have been adjusted for inflation and assume that dividends are fully reinvested. No taxes or trading commissions and fees are taken into account for these results.
A key point of interest is the investing holding period of 45 years, which spans the typical length of an individual's career (assuming starting at age 20 and working until age 65). Here, the best case annualized rate of return for an investment of this length is 10.3% after adjusting for inflation. By contrast, the worst case historical performance of the S&P 500 for a holding period of 45 years is 3.6% after inflation.
Although we don't show it in the chart above, as more time passes, the best-case performance for an investment in the index continues to gradually decrease, eventually reaching a range between 7.4% and 7.8% for holding periods running between 100 and 130 years in length.
The Best Years Ever for Beginning an Investment in the S&P 500
Unlike our previous look at the worst case real returns for the S&P 500, the best case performance for investments made in the index are largely defined by the year in which they begin, instead of when they end.
For this analysis, we found that five periods account for 84% of the best periods in which to have made an investment. The best, by far, is for investments made in 1932, and more specifically, in or around June 1932, which accounts for 32% of the best case holding periods for investments made in the index of 1 to 50 years in length. The other periods that are defined by the years in which they began include 1920-1921 (26%), 1942 (10%), 1980-1982 (10%) and 1949 (6%).
More interestingly, the periods in which the best real returns were obtained seem to be largely correlated with the end of the periods in which the worst real returns were achieved for investments made in the index!
If nothing else, this observation does suggest a unique stock investing strategy. Should the market ever break its records for worst case real return performance, that may be a really good signal that it's a really good time to go "all-in"!
Labels: best case, investing, performance, SP 500
Yesterday, when we unveiled our chart showing the worst ever recorded inflation-adjusted annualized rates of return for an investment made in any month beginning in January 1871 through December 2002 and held for anywhere from 1 to 50 years, we indicated that we were really putting the cart before the horse in posting our chart first.
The chart is really the result of our asking the question: "When were the worst years for any investor to put money into the S&P 500 stock market index?" Today, we'll put the horse back in front of the cart and actually answer the question we originally asked!
We searched through our spreadsheet version of our S&P 500 database, which contains all the data for the index for each month since January 1871, looking at the results for any hypothetical investment launched in each month starting in January 1871 onward and held for everywhere from 1 through 130 years. Then, we identified the month and year for each one of these holding periods in which the investment began and ended.
In our analysis, we assumed full reinvestment of dividends, adjusted for inflation, and did not consider the effects of taxes or commissions and fees, which vary considerably over time.
The results for holding periods between 1 and 50 years are summarized in the dynamic table below. We opted to only post this portion of the data since it covers the typical investing lifespan of real-life human beings! You may sort the data by clicking the column headings - clicking the column heading once will sort by the selected category from low to high values, and clicking a second time will re-sort the table's data from high to low values.
| Worst Case Inflation Adjusted S&P 500 Rates of Return for Investment Holding Periods of 1 to 50 Years |
|---|
| Holding Period (Years) | Starting Date (Year-Month) | Ending Date (Year-Month) | Nominal Return (%) | Inflation Rate (%) | Real Return (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1931-06 | 1932-06 | -62.2 | -09.9 | -52.3 |
| 2 | 1930-06 | 1932-06 | -49.3 | -10.0 | -39.3 |
| 3 | 1929-07 | 1932-07 | -40.2 | -07.7 | -32.5 |
| 4 | 1928-06 | 1932-06 | -25.2 | -05.6 | -19.6 |
| 5 | 1915-12 | 1920-12 | 00.2 | 13.5 | -13.3 |
| 6 | 1968-12 | 1974-12 | -04.3 | 06.5 | -10.8 |
| 7 | 1967-12 | 1974-12 | -01.6 | 06.3 | -07.9 |
| 8 | 1912-12 | 1920-12 | 02.4 | 09.1 | -06.7 |
| 9 | 1911-06 | 1920-06 | 04.0 | 10.2 | -06.2 |
| 10 | 1911-06 | 1921-06 | 02.2 | 07.2 | -05.0 |
| 11 | 1909-12 | 1920-12 | 02.2 | 06.2 | -04.0 |
| 12 | 1930-04 | 1942-04 | -03.0 | 00.5 | -03.5 |
| 13 | 1929-09 | 1942-09 | -03.2 | 00.4 | -03.6 |
| 14 | 1968-06 | 1982-06 | 04.9 | 07.7 | -02.8 |
| 15 | 1905-12 | 1920-12 | 03.4 | 05.7 | -02.3 |
| 16 | 1966-02 | 1982-02 | 05.4 | 07.0 | -01.6 |
| 17 | 1965-08 | 1982-08 | 05.6 | 06.9 | -01.3 |
| 18 | 1964-07 | 1982-07 | 05.6 | 06.6 | -01.0 |
| 19 | 1901-06 | 1920-06 | 05.0 | 05.5 | -00.5 |
| 20 | 1901-06 | 1921-06 | 04.1 | 04.3 | -00.2 |
| 21 | 1911-06 | 1932-06 | 02.5 | 02.1 | 00.4 |
| 22 | 1899-03 | 1921-03 | 05.6 | 04.5 | 01.1 |
| 23 | 1909-06 | 1932-06 | 02.6 | 01.6 | 01.0 |
| 24 | 1908-06 | 1932-06 | 03.8 | 01.9 | 01.9 |
| 25 | 1907-06 | 1932-06 | 03.8 | 01.6 | 02.2 |
| 26 | 1906-06 | 1932-06 | 03.1 | 01.8 | 01.3 |
| 27 | 1905-06 | 1932-06 | 03.5 | 01.9 | 01.6 |
| 28 | 1892-06 | 1920-06 | 06.5 | 04.0 | 02.5 |
| 29 | 1903-06 | 1932-06 | 04.2 | 01.8 | 02.4 |
| 30 | 1902-06 | 1932-06 | 03.6 | 01.7 | 01.9 |
| 31 | 1901-06 | 1932-06 | 03.6 | 01.9 | 01.7 |
| 32 | 1889-08 | 1921-08 | 05.7 | 02.7 | 03.0 |
| 33 | 1899-06 | 1932-06 | 04.7 | 02.0 | 02.7 |
| 34 | 1886-12 | 1920-12 | 05.6 | 02.7 | 02.9 |
| 35 | 1886-08 | 1921-08 | 05.6 | 02.4 | 03.2 |
| 36 | 1906-04 | 1942-04 | 05.2 | 01.8 | 03.4 |
| 37 | 1905-04 | 1942-04 | 05.3 | 01.8 | 03.5 |
| 38 | 1894-06 | 1932-06 | 05.5 | 01.9 | 03.6 |
| 39 | 1881-06 | 1920-06 | 05.5 | 02.0 | 03.5 |
| 40 | 1892-06 | 1932-06 | 04.9 | 01.7 | 03.2 |
| 41 | 1904-04 | 1945-04 | 05.5 | 01.9 | 03.6 |
| 42 | 1890-06 | 1932-06 | 04.9 | 01.4 | 03.5 |
| 43 | 1889-06 | 1932-06 | 05.0 | 01.4 | 03.6 |
| 44 | 1888-06 | 1932-06 | 05.1 | 01.2 | 03.9 |
| 45 | 1887-06 | 1932-06 | 04.8 | 01.2 | 03.6 |
| 46 | 1886-06 | 1932-06 | 05.0 | 01.3 | 03.7 |
| 47 | 1885-06 | 1932-06 | 05.4 | 01.2 | 04.2 |
| 48 | 1901-06 | 1949-06 | 06.6 | 02.4 | 04.2 |
| 49 | 1883-06 | 1932-06 | 04.8 | 00.7 | 04.1 |
| 50 | 1882-06 | 1932-06 | 04.8 | 00.5 | 04.3 |
The Worst Ever Recorded Real Returns
Remarkably, 24 of the 50 holding periods encompassing the worst inflation-adjusted S&P 500 investment performance all end in 1932 and more specifically, in June of 1932, where 23 of the worst-case hypothetical investments end. Even more remarkably, the deflation of the time (negative inflation) actually improves the results for our hypothetical investor compared to the index' nominal performance!
The worst years for the negative effects of positive inflation involve investments ending in 1920 and 1921. This period marks the worst inflation officially recorded in U.S. history, which resulted from the early Federal Reserve's monetary policy in the years following World War I. We also see the negative effects of inflation corresponding to World War II, in the years between 1942 and 1945.
More recently, the high inflation of the early-to-mid 1970s amplified losses in the S&P 500 for investments made in the late 1960s, while the inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s were enough to rob S&P 500 investors of positive gains from investments originally made in the mid-to-late 1960s.
All in all, the worst time to have ever invested in the S&P 500 for periods ranging from 1 to 50 years all involve investments that end in just six years!
Very Long Term Buy-and-Hold Nets Positive Worst Case Returns
Somewhere between an investment holding period of 20 and 21 years, the worst case inflation-adjusted S&P 500 rates of return turn positive. For an investment in the S&P 500 held for at least 35 years, the worst ever recorded rate of return is a positive 3.2%. And by 47 years, the annualized real rates of return recorded are no less than 4.2%!
Although we don't show holding periods between 51 and 130 years in our table or the corresponding graph, the worst-recorded inflation-adjusted annualized rates of return continues to gradually increase. By 130 years, the limit of the holding periods we considered, we found that the worst case real rate of return for an investment in the S&P 500 reaches 6.8%.
So, if you can reasonably expect to achieve a lifespan of 200 years, some prudent investing in your twenties will pretty much take care of your finances for even that long a life. For the rest of us, a worst case return of 3-4% annually after inflation might not be so bad!
Labels: investing, performance, SP 500, worst case
We don't often put the cart before the horse here at Political Calculations, but while we were experimenting with how to visually depict the actual worst case real returns ever achieved by the S&P 500 stock market index, we kind of stumbled into the following chart, which we felt deserved its own standalone post (click to enlarge):
Worst Case Real Rates of Return
The chart above depicts our basic findings of the worst-case inflation-adjusted performance of the S&P 500 for all holding periods of 1 to 50 years, on a rolling basis beginning each month from January 1871 through December 2006. The chart assumes full dividend reinvestment, but does not take taxes or commissions and fees into account.
Since this range captures the typical investing "lifespan" of individual investors, we thought it was remarkable that the worst-ever recorded returns to just break even on an investment in the S&P 500 is somewhere between 20 and 21 years, while a positive 3% annualized rate of return will occur sometime between 34 and 35 years.
Meanwhile, for a full career-spanning investing holding period of 45 years, the worst case historical performance of the S&P 500 indicates that the money first invested in the S&P 500 index will return at least 3.6% after inflation.
Although we don't show it in the chart above, as more time passes, the worst-case performance for an investment in the index continues to gradually increase, eventually reaching a range between 5.6% and 6.9% for holding periods running between 100 and 130 years.
The Worst Years Ever for Ending an Investment in the S&P 500
We found that just six years mark the end of the holding periods for the worst ever inflation-adjusted investment performance recorded by the S&P 500. Investments that terminated in 1932, and more specifically in and around June 1932, were by far the worst of the lot, with 24 of the 50 points we charted belonging to this year.
The second worst period to end an investment holding period occurs between 1920 and 1921, which contributed to 14 of the worst 50 year periods. The war years of 1942-1945 is third with 5 of the worst 50 year periods, with 1982 (4), 1974 (2) and 1949 (1) accounting for the remainder.
Labels: investing, performance, SP 500, worst case
Welcome to the blogosphere's toolchest! Here, unlike other blogs dedicated to analyzing current events, we create easy-to-use, simple tools to do the math related to them so you can get in on the action too! If you would like to learn more about these tools, or if you would like to contribute ideas to develop for this blog, please e-mail us at:
ironman at politicalcalculations
Thanks in advance!
Closing values for previous trading day.
This site is primarily powered by:
CSS Validation
RSS Site Feed
JavaScript
The tools on this site are built using JavaScript. If you would like to learn more, one of the best free resources on the web is available at W3Schools.com.
Other Cool Resources
Blog Roll
