/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>1115271
>>1115276
>>1115278
>>1115279
>>1115282
>>1115283
>>1115288
You selectively pick a handful of markets out of the hundreds that an indexer would be invested in, you present cherry-picked time frames that don't correlate to your other examples, you present inflation-adjusted results to avoid an apples-to-apples comparison, and then you lie about historic S&P 500 returns. You might as well throw up charts of the bottom performing S&P 500 individual stocks too, since we know, by definition, that some stocks in the index lag the index.

Let's also take notice of the fact that you haven't presented any better performing alternative strategy. So whatever the shortcoming of indexing, you apparently don't have anything better to offer.

>>1115321
>Never heard you index guys suggesting 5 year time periods.
Huh? It's pretty standard in the academic research to look at active investor 5-year performance as the minimum statistically significant time period. Longer is better, of course, but practical limitations have to be respected.

Of course, since you choose to ignore the research, you wouldn't know any of this.

But by all means, keep on shit-posting like usual, kid. Your posts are one of the most effective education tools I could imagine. You're a real life example of common investor logical fallacies and delusion.