FTSE Returns Since 30th December 1999

Thrugelmir

Interesting Table.

Value of £10,000 invested on 30 December 1999

FTSE 100 no dividends £9,137
FTSE 100 dividends reinvested £15,213
FTSE 250 no dividends £23,936
FTSE 250 dividends reinvested £36,306
FTSE Small Cap no dividends £13,635
FTSE Small Cap dividends reinvested £20,005
FTSE All-Share no dividends £10,500
FTSE All-Share dividends reinvested £17,206
Source: Hargreaves Lansdown, all performance data as at 30/12/99 to 16/12/14

george4064

I'd be interested to see this alongside the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ.

Aretnap

george4064 wrote: »

I'd be interested to see this alongside the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ.

From here http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

Over almost the same time period (1/1/2000 to 31/12/2014) the S&P 500 turned $10000 into $14000 without dividends or $18500 with dividends. In pound terms it would be almost exactly the same - the exchange rates on the two dates were within a couple of cents of each other.

Not sure about the NASDAQ.

jimjames

Aretnap wrote: »

From here http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

Over almost the same time period (1/1/2000 to 31/12/2014) the S&P 500 turned $10000 into $14000 without dividends or $18500 with dividends.

Not sure about the NASDAQ.

Interesting that it's virtually the same as the FTSE, I'd thought US market had performed better - or is that just the Dow?

grey_gym_sock

jimjames wrote: »

Interesting that it's virtually the same as the FTSE, I'd thought US market had performed better - or is that just the Dow?

perhaps it's just ppl who are ignoring dividends who think the US has done better.

the dow and the nasdaq are both flawed indexes in different ways, so i'm going to ignore them

Aretnap

jimjames wrote: »

Interesting that it's virtually the same as the FTSE, I'd thought US market had performed better - or is that just the Dow?

I was a little surprised too.

I agree with grey gym sock - iI suspect the difference is dividends. US companies traditionally pay lower dividends than British ones - they tend to prefer share buybacks (I think that's largely down to differences in the two tax systems). Share buybacks are reflected in the index's headline figure but dividends aren't - so the headline figures tend to show the U.S. market performing better relative to the UK one than is actually the case.

Radiantsoul

The biggest surprise for me is that dividends are so important to small cap as well. I assumed that more would be reinvested in the small cap space.

atush

The most import thing it shows is that when gold rampers and BTL rampers are saying the ftse hasn't grown, they always list the index price w/o divs.

dunstonh

I am just guessing but that period includes the US accountancy scandals of the early 2000s which created a drag on US performance in that period.

kidmugsy

Thrugelmir wrote: »

"Value of £10,000 invested on 30 December 1999" Interesting Table.

(i) When it says "value" does it mean after correcting for inflation? If not, has anyone got the figures for the "real" (i.e. post inflation) figures?


(ii) Dividend reinvestment matters a lot and therefore so do tax rates. Does the table assume that the investor is a basic rate taxpayer and that he pays no CGT as he trades? Or, presumably much the same thing, that the investments are held within ISAs?

(iii) Presumably costs must have been ignored?

bowlhead99

jimjames wrote: »

Aretnap wrote: »

From here http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

Over almost the same time period (1/1/2000 to 31/12/2014) the S&P 500 turned $10000 into $14000 without dividends or $18500 with dividends. In pound terms it would be almost exactly the same - the exchange rates on the two dates were within a couple of cents of each other.

Interesting that it's virtually the same as the FTSE, I'd thought US market had performed better

Well it isn't virtually the same as the equivalent FTSE is it really. The US 500 is the giants of the index making up four fifths of total market cap, just like our FTSE 100 is about that in our market.

Based on the stats quoted by the posters above which I haven't checked but don't have a reason to doubt, the S&P500's total return was 85% while our FTSE 100 was only 50% over the same time period

So you are right, the US market has performed better if you are comparing like with like.

The US market can be carved up into lots of different indexes. You can look at S&P500 (biggest 500, 80% of market cap), S&P midcap400 (next 400), S&P smallcap 600 (next 600). Together, they would be the S&P Composite 1500, covering 90% of market cap - or you could take out the smallcap ones and have the S&P 900, which is conceptually similar to our FTSE350.

Or you can look at the Russell 3000 which includes all those companies and a bunch of other small ones, getting to 98% of total market cap and therefore closest in concept to our FTSE All-Share which covers a similar percentage.

If you just want smallcap but a broader measure than the S&P smallcap (which as above, starts from position 900 in the size rankings), you could take eliminate the largest 1000 from the Russell 3000 and be left with the bottom 2000 within the all-share universe - this is the Russell 2000, and is probably the better known of the smallcap indexes, compared to S&P's.

Then there are other indexes like NASDAQ Composite covering just one specific stock exchange (which could be broken down into sub indexes by size or sector).

And of course the DJIA which contains big companies that are in the S&P500 but it's price-weighted (like the Nikkei 225) rather than market-cap weighted and so one would expect it to move a different percentage than the S&P500 moves on a given day (even stripping out the other 470 companies).

Clear as mud, eh!