Pension growth question

NottinghamKnight

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Prism

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

NottinghamKnight

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

I'm disagreeing with your figures, I think your total returns numbers may not be far out but your real return numbers will be, as inflation will historically have been far higher than in recent years, at least for those time periods when higher total returns were recorded.

Prism

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

I'm disagreeing with your figures, I think your total returns numbers may not be far out but your real return numbers will be, as inflation will historically have been far higher than in recent years, at least for those time periods when higher total returns were recorded.

Make me do all the work
S&P real total annualized returns grouped by decade for the last 100 years are..
16.3%, 2.1%, 3.4%, 16.7%, 5.1%, -1.4%, 11.6%, 14.6%, -3.2% and 11.3% for the last one
So as I said, 4 decades have been better and 5 worse. 11.3% is better than the total average. There are times when you get get two great decades back to back and times when you get two poor ones. What does the next decade have awaiting us? Who knows.

Thrugelmir

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

I'm disagreeing with your figures, I think your total returns numbers may not be far out but your real return numbers will be, as inflation will historically have been far higher than in recent years, at least for those time periods when higher total returns were recorded.

Make me do all the work
S&P real total annualized returns grouped by decade for the last 100 years are..
16.3%, 2.1%, 3.4%, 16.7%, 5.1%, -1.4%, 11.6%, 14.6%, -3.2% and 11.3% for the last one
So as I said, 4 decades have been better and 5 worse. 11.3% is better than the total average. There are times when you get get two great decades back to back and times when you get two poor ones. What does the next decade have awaiting us? Who knows.

And in sterling terms?  Those figures are only relevant to a domestic US investor. 

NottinghamKnight

Thrugelmir said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

I'm disagreeing with your figures, I think your total returns numbers may not be far out but your real return numbers will be, as inflation will historically have been far higher than in recent years, at least for those time periods when higher total returns were recorded.

Make me do all the work
S&P real total annualized returns grouped by decade for the last 100 years are..
16.3%, 2.1%, 3.4%, 16.7%, 5.1%, -1.4%, 11.6%, 14.6%, -3.2% and 11.3% for the last one
So as I said, 4 decades have been better and 5 worse. 11.3% is better than the total average. There are times when you get get two great decades back to back and times when you get two poor ones. What does the next decade have awaiting us? Who knows.

And in sterling terms?  Those figures are only relevant to a domestic US investor. 

I think quoting those numbers in dollars but in real return would be more relevant. those with higher returns would have far higher inflation than the last decade. 

Prism

Thrugelmir said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

I'm disagreeing with your figures, I think your total returns numbers may not be far out but your real return numbers will be, as inflation will historically have been far higher than in recent years, at least for those time periods when higher total returns were recorded.

Make me do all the work
S&P real total annualized returns grouped by decade for the last 100 years are..
16.3%, 2.1%, 3.4%, 16.7%, 5.1%, -1.4%, 11.6%, 14.6%, -3.2% and 11.3% for the last one
So as I said, 4 decades have been better and 5 worse. 11.3% is better than the total average. There are times when you get get two great decades back to back and times when you get two poor ones. What does the next decade have awaiting us? Who knows.

And in sterling terms?  Those figures are only relevant to a domestic US investor. 

I doubt anyone has bother to calculate 100 years of US data but using sterling rather than dollars and UK CPI rather than US CPI. That not really the point. No real investor got those returns. The point is that the last decade for US markets has been a higher return that average but is not out of the ordinary. We might have a flat decade to come while the UK markets do well, or we might have another 10 years of double digit returns - nobody knows.

Prism

NottinghamKnight said:

Thrugelmir said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

I'm disagreeing with your figures, I think your total returns numbers may not be far out but your real return numbers will be, as inflation will historically have been far higher than in recent years, at least for those time periods when higher total returns were recorded.

Make me do all the work
S&P real total annualized returns grouped by decade for the last 100 years are..
16.3%, 2.1%, 3.4%, 16.7%, 5.1%, -1.4%, 11.6%, 14.6%, -3.2% and 11.3% for the last one
So as I said, 4 decades have been better and 5 worse. 11.3% is better than the total average. There are times when you get get two great decades back to back and times when you get two poor ones. What does the next decade have awaiting us? Who knows.

And in sterling terms?  Those figures are only relevant to a domestic US investor. 

I think quoting those numbers in dollars but in real return would be more relevant. those with higher returns would have far higher inflation than the last decade. 

Those are real returns.

Thrugelmir

Prism said:

Thrugelmir said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

I'm disagreeing with your figures, I think your total returns numbers may not be far out but your real return numbers will be, as inflation will historically have been far higher than in recent years, at least for those time periods when higher total returns were recorded.

Make me do all the work
S&P real total annualized returns grouped by decade for the last 100 years are..
16.3%, 2.1%, 3.4%, 16.7%, 5.1%, -1.4%, 11.6%, 14.6%, -3.2% and 11.3% for the last one
So as I said, 4 decades have been better and 5 worse. 11.3% is better than the total average. There are times when you get get two great decades back to back and times when you get two poor ones. What does the next decade have awaiting us? Who knows.

And in sterling terms?  Those figures are only relevant to a domestic US investor. 

I doubt anyone has bother to calculate 100 years of US data but using sterling rather than dollars and UK CPI rather than US CPI. That not really the point. No real investor got those returns. The point is that the last decade for US markets has been a higher return that average but is not out of the ordinary. We might have a flat decade to come while the UK markets do well, or we might have another 10 years of double digit returns - nobody knows.

UK only forms around 4% of the MSCI world index. Not large enough or interesting enough to be on international investors radars. With the takeover of RSA the market value and number of listed companies declines yet further. 

garmeg

Thrugelmir said:

Prism said:

Thrugelmir said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Prism said:

NottinghamKnight said:

pensionpawn said:

We are all individuals with different strategies / risk profiles / fund choice etc that will lead to differing returns. We choose strategies (based on what we read and from our own evidence) and work from there going forward. My original point being that time (40 years in this example) works the magic with whatever growth rate you can achieve. My least adventurous fund has averaged 5.75% over the last 10 years, my SIPP 7.5% over the last 18 months. UK inflation has averaged around 3% over the last 10 years. Across my whole portfolio my personal performance just about supports inflation + 5%, however everyone is different. Some will achieve more, others less.

The last decade has been more abnormal than most, returns have been significantly higher than most previous decades.

I don't have full world data to hand but if we take the US S&P 500 which has been one of the driving forces behind this last decades growth it is pretty much middle of the pack. 4 decades have been better and 5 worse over the last 100 years. Inflation has been higher at times but also lower at others.

I would say that things are pretty much in line with historical returns.

I'd disagree, after all until early 2020 we had the longest bull market in american history. Also inflation by most recorded means has been far lower than in most previous decades so I'd say valuations are full to say the least. That obviously doesn't take into account QE to any great extent of course.

Disagree with what? You in the previous post that returns have been significantly higher in the last decade. They haven't, they have been better than some decades and worse than others, even if you count for inflation. I didn't mention valuations. I have little opinion on those.

I'm disagreeing with your figures, I think your total returns numbers may not be far out but your real return numbers will be, as inflation will historically have been far higher than in recent years, at least for those time periods when higher total returns were recorded.

Make me do all the work
S&P real total annualized returns grouped by decade for the last 100 years are..
16.3%, 2.1%, 3.4%, 16.7%, 5.1%, -1.4%, 11.6%, 14.6%, -3.2% and 11.3% for the last one
So as I said, 4 decades have been better and 5 worse. 11.3% is better than the total average. There are times when you get get two great decades back to back and times when you get two poor ones. What does the next decade have awaiting us? Who knows.

And in sterling terms?  Those figures are only relevant to a domestic US investor. 

I doubt anyone has bother to calculate 100 years of US data but using sterling rather than dollars and UK CPI rather than US CPI. That not really the point. No real investor got those returns. The point is that the last decade for US markets has been a higher return that average but is not out of the ordinary. We might have a flat decade to come while the UK markets do well, or we might have another 10 years of double digit returns - nobody knows.

UK only forms around 4% of the MSCI world index. Not large enough or interesting enough to be on international investors radars. With the takeover of RSA the market value and number of listed companies declines yet further. 

The loss of RSA is insignificant but it does show the direction of travel.