21st Century Economics

Many people that have read anything about the stock market know that dollar cost averaging is the best way to invest and that the buy and hold strategy for extended periods has proven to be most consistently sound investment method of all. Despite the views of hundreds of investment gurus that spout about the virtues of timing, demographics, contrarian and other sector investment methods - none have proven to be as reliable as simply buying good solid stocks and waiting.

In recent years, the tech boom market has skewed this view by so much that many are beginning to doubt it. The short term success of Internet stocks or other sectors have made people lose sight of the norms and history of the market. If we accept the concepts of “regression to the mean” as described in other articles on this service, we must view the history of the market to get some insights to where the future lies.

Despite the 25% to 50% returns of many funds and stocks in this bull market, the average return over the life of the stock market is between 4.7% and 6.3% depending on how far back you go and what numbers you use.

Let’s be conservative and say it is 6%. That means that by the rule of regression to the mean, the current bull market cannot continue for much longer without swinging the other way to maintain the historical mean. Even if we allow for a massive change in the mean, it almost certainly will not swing from 6% for the average from 1897 to 1997 to some much higher number over the next decade.

The problem is that many people are thinking and planning for their retirements based on these high returns. I have seen many “retirement guides” that use 12% and 15% as the return on your retirements investment and then they always show you the “magic of compound interest” to convince you to reinvest your earnings. Figures in the millions are often quoted if you being saving when you are young. But is this realistic? Can you expect 12 to 15% returns over your investment careers while you save for retirement? The answer will surprise you.

No one in our entire history has ever been able to do it!

Let’s look at why. Suppose we look back at the average growth of the S&P 500 over the past 15 years (this is called the15 year annualized growth). As of the end of 1997, looking back to 1982, we have had about a 15% growth. But this number is very misleading because it happened for only a very short period of time. That number was only 10% if we look back from 1995 and it was only 8% in 1991. If we go back to 1985 and look back to 1970, the average is below 5% average growth.

Remember, we are averaging the total growth for a full 15 year period. That almost totally obscures such minor adjustments as the 500 point drop in 1987 and other “corrections” and it reflects only the major trends of the economy that have some degree of duration such as recessions, wars, demographics, etc.

In fact, the longest period of time that we have ever been able to sustain a 15% return for a 15 year annualized growth was for a two month period in 1997. The average 15 year annualized growth for the stock market since 1887 is just over 4%.

This means that those lucky few that invested during a short 2 months in 1982 and that left their money in the market until 1997, saw a 15% return on their investment. If they had invested any earlier or later than that, the return would have been much lower and it was never higher at any time in history for a 15 year annualized growth figure.

Even if we drop it back and look at an average of 10%, we find that there have only been a total of 17 years since 1887 that we have experienced a 10% growth annualized over 15 years. Contrast that with 16 years in which we had 5% or less for a 15 year annualized growth.

If we believe the concept of regression to the mean or if we believe that history gives us some insights into the future, then we have to conclude that no one should be planning on getting 15% return on their money for periods longer than a few months - a few years at best - but certainly not for the life of an investor from early working age until retirement.
You would do better to figure your retirement investments based on a 5% to 6% return over the life of your investment (3 to 4 decades).

Unfortunately, this will have a significant sticker shock to most investors. Those “retirement guides” that use 12% and 15% as the return on your retirements investment and then show you the “magic of compound interest” use figures like this:

You invest $10,000 at age 20 and get 15% average returns for the next 40 years, you will have $3,887,006 for an early retirement at age 60. Sounds great but it has never happened in all of history and is not likely to happen in the future.

More likely is this: You invest $10,000 at age 20 and get 8% average returns (if you are lucky) for the next 40 years, you will have $242,733 at age 60 not counting the effects of inflation for 60 years. Even if you add $100 a month for 40 years at 8%, you’ll only have $349,100 at age 60. That’s less than one tenth what the retirement guide led you to believe you would have and a whole lot less than you will really need to retire early.

A more realistic strategy is this. Start early - of course we all would like to have had the maturity and wealth to begin saving at age 20 but the fact is that many did not. Don’t think in terms of how little you can save for how long at current rates of return. Think in terms of how much can you save for the longest term possible (that means not retiring early) and at much more conservative rates - like 6-8%.