No. of Recommendations: 0
Pixy: Thank you for bringing greater clarity to what I, quite frankly, view as a fairly clear issue to begin with.

In part you said....
Recognizing the definition of a bear market is in the eyes of the beholder and whose statistics you are using, I still am at a loss as to your rationale for the length of the 1973-74 drop. According to Ibbotson, a widely respected and often quoted authority for such data, in December 1972 the S&P 500 total return index (capital appreciation plus reinvested dividends) stood at 84.96. In January 1973 the downward plunge began not to bottom out until September 1974 when it hit 48.74, a cumulative loss of some 42.6% from its high. The high wasn't regained until June 1976, and it stayed there only until February 1977 when it again plunged below the 12/72 level. It remained below that level until April 1978 when a sustained market recovery set in. Given that, I have a hard time buying into your premise that the longest bear market from peak to recovery is less than 2.5 years.

If I understand you, if I had an investment portfolio worth $100,000 in 12/72, it would have been worth $57,400 in 9/74. I would not have been back to the original $100,000 until 6/76 - 3.5 years later. My portfolio value would have then gone down again and not recovered back to the ORIGINAL $100,000 value until 4/78. So, my portfolio, which was invested very Foolishly in the S&P index, would have had a zero return - in the aggregate - for approx. 5 years and 5 months - and during MOST of that time, I was DOWN in value.

I guess one can say that in the time frame highlighted, there were actually TWO BULL MARKETS - from 9/74 to 6/76 then again leading up to 4/78. But as a LTBH investor, I believe that perspective is off the mark and, actually, smells a bit like market timing ( a VERY un-Foolish concept).

Pixy goes on to say...
Bear in mind also that Fools don't talk about putting three to five years' income into long-term fixed income vehicles for the precise reasons you outlined. We stress far less volatile vehicles like MMFs, CDs, and short-term to intermediate-term bonds instead.

The volatility of the underlying principal value of a bond as you move further out on the yield curve (longer time horizon) increases substantially - maybe even exponentially! I do not believe anyone was advocating investing funds earmarked for covering living expenses over "x" years in long term instruments - now, THAT would be "irrational."

As a LTBH investor, we are building an investment portfolio that we plan to live off of for many years (hopefully!). Over time, we WILL experience down markets (let alone 'bear markets') - and, quite frankly, I have no desire to liquidiate equity assets (if I don't have to) into a down market. Putting $'s earmarked for near term living expenses into short term fixed income instruments protects me from doing that and still provides me with a nominal return.

In conclusion, Me thinks some posters to this board have gotten a bit tipsy in these "heady" times the equity markets have given us these last few years. I'll continue to take the long term perspective thank you very much.


Print the post  


The Retirement Investing Board
This is the board for all discussions related to Investing for and during retirement. To keep the board relevant and Foolish to everyone, please avoid making any posts pertaining to political partisanship. Fool on and Retire on!
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.