Fed Hike

cells

just thinking , given a long enough time frame might the average investment have a negative real rate of return?

I'm just trying to think what if any investments made 1000 yeas ago (or earlier) achieved 1% pa or more real rate of return ?

pyramids?
other buildings (churches castles)?
gold silver?
art?
land?

Im not sure any of them have had a 1% real rate of return. Maybe land? But even that its hard to quantify it. If it took you and your army 10,000 lives to kill some other lord and claim a million acres. Well the value of 10,000 men compounded 1% over a thousand years is 200 million men and not even the most expensive bits of land (like London) are worth 200 million people. plus the other guys land investment went to zero (in that he had a million acres and you took it off him) so maybe thats a zero sum game?

worldtraveller

Just announced - Fed funds rate remains the same at 0 - 0.25% target range.

"To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen some further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term."

chucknorris

worldtraveller wrote: »

Just announced - Fed funds rate remains the same at 0 - 0.25% target range.

"To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen some further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term."

Funny thing was though, the S&P and Dow fell straight afterwards, not what I expected. I guess the market is struggling to find its level at the moment.

Edit: They are up now, just 30 mins or so later.

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

just thinking , given a long enough time frame might the average investment have a negative real rate of return?

I'm just trying to think what if any investments made 1000 yeas ago (or earlier) achieved 1% pa or more real rate of return ?

pyramids?
other buildings (churches castles)?
gold silver?
art?
land?

Im not sure any of them have had a 1% real rate of return. Maybe land? But even that its hard to quantify it. If it took you and your army 10,000 lives to kill some other lord and claim a million acres. Well the value of 10,000 men compounded 1% over a thousand years is 200 million men and not even the most expensive bits of land (like London) are worth 200 million people. plus the other guys land investment went to zero (in that he had a million acres and you took it off him) so maybe thats a zero sum game?

My best investments have been a labrador and a lab/spaniel cross. I've only bought one of each, but each one cost less than £300, but they both soared in value to well over £1m in just a few weeks.

cells

chucknorris wrote: »

My best investments have been a labrador and a lab/spaniel cross. I've only bought one of each, but each one cost less than £300, but they both soared in value to well over £1m in just a few weeks.

how much did the genetic engineering cost to enable them to lay golden eggs?

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

2777 years is a long time but its not that long a timeframe, some trees are nearly twice as old.

It may as well be forever when trying to consider the future value of investments made today.

wotsthat

worldtraveller wrote: »

Just announced - Fed funds rate remains the same at 0 - 0.25% target range.

Impending rates rises have been trailed for so long I reckon I'll be more surprised when they do go up than if nothing had been said on the subject for the last 6 years.

I'm already a year into a 5 year fix based on Carney's strong hints rates would rise in November (November 2014 that is).

ging84

chucknorris wrote: »

My best investments have been a labrador and a lab/spaniel cross. I've only bought one of each, but each one cost less than £300, but they both soared in value to well over £1m in just a few weeks.

An insurance assessor may disagree

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

how much did the genetic engineering cost to enable them to lay golden eggs?

Their value is based upon my love for them and the joy they bring/brought into my life, not anything else, that is way beyond the value of gold.

chucknorris

ging84 wrote: »

An insurance assessor may disagree

He most certainly would, but I don't care, they both make/made me happy.