£300 a month in stocks/shares

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Come on, Stevieboy . . you'd miss me if I wasnt here

You add variety, will give you that

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

It depends where the market is or whether you are buying funds or individual shares.

Stevie . . see if you can rearrange these words to make a statement.

stating

thanks

obvious

for

the

bleeding.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Stevie . . see if you can rearrange these words to make a statement.

stating

thanks

obvious

for

the

bleeding.

Well if it is so obvious why are we discussing it

kennyboy66_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Up until the early 2000s you used to be able to say that the FTSE had never had a loss in any 5 year period.

.

I find that pretty improbable.

Here is the old FT 30 share index from 1935 onwards

http://www.ft.com/cms/0e14747c-875d-11de-9280-00144feabdc0.html

Must be about dozen times when it fell over a 5 year period.

Here is the all share index (think this was base indexed at 100 in 1962)

http://www.finfacts.com/Private/curency/ftseperformance.htm

Again plenty of 3, 5 and a few 10 year periods when it falls.

dunstonh

bendix wrote: »

What about you question on research dunstonh? Has it been done, do you know?

I suppose in the last 50 years, there has been around 48-50 rolling three year periods. What would you guestimate be on winning periods over losing? Six to 4 in favour, perhaps? More? Less?

It sounds like a good thing to research and if I get a chance I will see if I can do something with Financial Express to find out. However, that will only go back to 80s. It will still be useful to see though.

I find that pretty improbable.
Here is the old FT 30 share index from 1935 onwards

The FTSE 100, not any other variation. So, you are looking 80s onwards.

kennyboy66_2

dunstonh wrote: »

The FTSE 100, not any other variation. So, you are looking 80s onwards.

It is somewhat misleading to say that the FTSE has never had a 5 year fall, for this then to be qualified with FTSE 100 since 1984.

Its not a great claim anyway, considering the levels of inflation from 1984 - 1990 and that its only valid for periods up to the period 1997 - 2002 which saw a significant fall.

sabretoothtigger

Yes its too short a period to draw conclusions. Before the 80's dividends were much more important then share growth where as now many people invest and expect never to receive a dividend from their company.
Its possible the long term may upset a few recent trends like this


Im not sure how valid that data is for shares back to 1800. I think they need to show their workings more and advertisings less
It does show the all share did achieve a new high in 07 where as the ftse100 did not.

I charted all the ftse indexes I know about against each other. Aim is the worst performer and mid cap 250 the best




http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/600/allshare.png



http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/charts?s=^FTAS#chart2:symbol=^ftas;range=my;compare=^ftmc+^ftse+^ftai;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined