4% annualised 1.5% above inflation in real terms What'

He knows it can't stay afloat forever
But it's better to barely break even than to lose

>>957959
He's just shilling

Obviously this old fat bastard has never made £400 on penny stocks during a 3 day coke bender. Fuck off who is he anyway

>>957959
i'm glad he can see the future from his wheelchair

>>957959
you have to understand that he has millions upon hundreds of millions of not billions of dollars. 4% for him is still a fuckton of money. he just simply can't make 25% like some of us with only 10k to our names. there just simply isn't a way for him to accumulate positions enough to get bigger returns.

>>958145

he's saying the aggregate return of the entire stock market will be 4% over the next 10 years

that sucks for young people

>>958151
meh, I wouldn't pay attention to that. you're not going to be holding 100% of the us market most likely, plus there's going to be a lot of red tape getting cut when 2016 turns out to be a republican president. with this you'll see years, if not decades, of steady, stable growth in the us markets. (combined with a plethora of other factors)

What a shit article. Barely gave any context and the title should mention he's only talking about the US market.

Give your portfolio some international exposure and you'll be fine.

pick stocks at random and you can beat the index the majority of the time

>>957959
4% is still enough to give me over twice as much as my principle in 40 years.

>>958161
>republican president

Oh god please be Rubio or something. He's not even good at anything, he's just sane.

>>958202
No Republican is going to be good for the economy, and neither would a Democract. They'll both expand the deficit for political gains and we'll be in worse shape than we are now.

I just want a president who comes in and says "I have no new projects on the line. I just want us to either cut spending or raise taxes", not that such a candidate would ever get elected of course.

>>958161
Republicans do a lot of talking about curbing regulation, but other than Reagan's first term there aren't really many times where this has happened. Besides, I'm not sure cutting regulation on the financial market is a good thing at this point. Repealing Glass-Steagall wasn't exactly a good thing, in my opinion.

ACTUAL INTERVIEW

http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=718639

>>958212
> Cut spending

You do realize that a government spending cut results in shrinking the economy, right?

>>957959
Jack Bogle is a great man but he doesn't have a crystal ball.

>>958235

>>958239
LMAO iHaz you still here? I remember those old threads where people would call you an idiot and you would get soooo butthurt. Those were funny times.

>>958241
Cool story bro.

>>958246
Pretty hilarious story actually. You remember how you used to samefag it up? Still doing that?

>>958239
>Jack has been pretty accurate about his 10-year bond return predictions, but much less accurate about his 10-year equity return predictions.
That would be because the interest rate on a 10-year bond is the only component of the return so no prediction is required. On the other hand, earnings growth (which causes stock price appreciation/dividend growth) is completely unpredictable. Saying treasuries will do X is not speculation but saying stocks will do X is pure speculation.

>>958258
Your statements about the predictability of both bond and equity returns are equally hyperbolic (albeit in opposite directions), though I'm not sure what point you're trying make with the exagerations.

>>958218
Oh okay, thanks Krugman!

Spoiler: So does raising taxes. And yet we HAVE to do one of those two things,

>>958281
>10 year Treasury has a fixed return of 2% per annum
>if held until maturity the the return is 2% per annum plus return of principal
>since the terms are fixed, the returns are known and require no speculation to state future returns
>stocks have no fixed return
>there is no guarantee of return of principal
>since the terms are not fixed, the returns are unknown and require speculation to state future returns
>>958285
>yet we HAVE to do one of those two things,
No. Running a permanent deficit is perfectly fine. The only problem is the current deficit is nowhere near big enough.

>>958289
>10 year Treasury has a fixed return of 2% per annum
You don't see to understand what it means to predict future bond returns. Protip: it's not about buying a 10-year bond at T-0 and holding to maturity.

>>958299
If you watch Bogle's video (where Bogle said the things in the OP), he's talking about the return of the 10-year treasury to maturity.

>>958289
a deficit of 2% gdp is sustainable ad infinitum. We haven't had that in years.

>>958212
I think Rubio does have a very strong chance.

>>958212
I think the dodd frank should be repealed.

>>958239
fuckoff iNope

>>958306
>I think Rubio does have a very strong chance.
So? That doesn't make him a good candidate.

>I think the dodd frank should be repealed.
care to cite actual economic reasons or just ideological "big gubbermint" drivel?

>>958218
only in the sense that it is calculated as a factor of the economy
Any multiplier it has on other constituents of aggregate expenditure are financially crowded out significantly (most economists) or completely (monetarists)

>>958299
You're either extremely stubborn, retarded or trolling

Pick two.

>>958310
Whether or not you're a "good" candidate doesn't matter.

>thinking the "govt" wasn't directly responsible for the 2008 crash even being able to happen
>not realizing that massive amounts of red tape means that smaller businesses aren't able to navigate a legal world as effective as bigger businesses
>actually thinking bloated govt departments are a good thing for economic growth

>>958304
>If you watch Bogle's video (where Bogle said the things in the OP), he's talking about the return of the 10-year treasury to maturity.
He's actually talking about a bond portfolio of potentially mixed-duration holdings. In the interview itself, he talks about both 10 and 12-year maturities. Its also reasonable to assume that a prudent bond investor might also have shorter term instruments in the mix too. All of this means predicting the performance of a bond portfolio is not as easy as reading the yield numbers off the debenture. You have to consider a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, future monetary policy.

Lot's of people have fixed income securities in their portfolio. Very few of them put all of their money into 10-year notes and roll them over, all at once, every decade. Taking the current 10-year treasury yield as the predictor of future bond returns is about as accurate as predicting the Patriots will win the next 10 Superbowls.

>>958318
>thinking the government did 2008
It was a contributing factor, yes. But that doesn't mean it's an inherent bad. It means it fucked up in that particular situation. There are plenty of recessions where the government has handled them well and things have gone smoothly.

>red tape barriers to entry
I have no idea why you think I don't know about that. Why you think all regulation is alike and all is just naturally evil is beyond me, though. Especially considering there aren't exactly "smaller businesses" trying to navigate wall street since they don't have nearly enough capital to do so to begin with. The financial market SHOULD be regulated, and even more conservative economists would agree with me there. And none of that implies I want all types of regulation in all sectors. if you can't understand that regulation requires finesse but isn't all monolithic EVIL, you're a simpleton.

>actually thinking bloated govt departments are a good thing for economic growth
"Bloated government" is essentially a meme at this point, m8. It's a meaningless phrase. If you have any basic economic understanding, you know that things like information asymmetry and externalities mean the market CAN'T be 100% efficient. No, I agree the way to fill in those failures isn't to just hit it with a giant sledgehammer of regulation. But the problem is that people like you tend to think every single screwdriver taken to the issue is said sledgehammer.

This whole "regulation is bad sometimes so we're better off NOT HAVING ANY REGULATION AT ALL!" mindset is childish and not fit for the real world.

Fuck that, QE4 when?

>>958460
>conservative
>wanting a bigger govt

Okay, guy.

>markets can't be 100% efficient

There are completely efficient markets, and there are inefficient markets, as well. There are also a lot of stupid real estate investment regulations that have come to law within the decade and it just makes it harder for the smaller guy to get into REI.

>but we need to protect people from the bad banks

Nor am I advocating for no regulation at all. Institutions should be verified and certified so people can't make companies for the sole reason of straight up scamming regular folk. However, you shouldn't sit there and tell people what they can or can't do with their own money. Only a fucking liberal would think that's okay.

File: grinning tuxedo mask.png (264KB, 748x379px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 748x379px

>>957959
>marketwatch.com

>>958486
>Conservatives
>Actually reducing the size of government

Ok, guy. Remember when George Bush cut taxes and then increased the size of government in every other conceivable way? Literally the only president we've ever had who has reduced regulation has been Reagan. And his increase in military spending makes teh whole "making government smaller" thing a matter of perspective.

>you shouldn't sit there and tell people waht they can or can't do with their own money
Who's doing that? The whole point of Dodd-Frank is to tell banks they can't do whatever they want with OTHER PEOPLE'S money, and even then it's not nearly as restrictive as Glass-Steagall which basically forbade investing into securities whatsoever.

>>958533
Actually, I'll amend that. Clinton is the one who repealed Glass-Steagall, after all.

The point being, conservatives talk a big game about curbing government, but it's too politically unpopular to actually do that so they just end up cutting taxes and adding to the deficit.

>>958170
>Stocks will on average be higher than the average
???

>>957959
I find it ironic that John Bogle is trying to time the market

>>958145

I just googled him. The company he founded manages $3 trillion in assets.

>>958533
dodd frank is telling what banks can or cant do with their own money, as well as the retail consumer

>>958161
>bipartisan meme
>current year

>>958592
>with their own money
But that's not true. It's not THEIR money. It's the money they hold that legally belongs to their customers.

And I'm sorry, but if someone's actions are causing economic disasters, libertarian idealism be damned. "Freedom to do with your money as you see fit" doesn't mean shit if the cost is recession.

>>958544
think about it - in particular what sort of 'average' is it?

>>959540
basically divide your money equally among 50 stocks from the S&P 500... and you'll likely beat the index

>>959543
But that's wrong. The return will by definition be average. And people, even experts, are not good at picking stocks.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2673262

>>959528

Recession is a natural part of the system you idiot. Nothing grows without interruption, people over invest and make bad decisions.

If we were to bail out every business that goes under for fear of recession, what's even the point of having a free market in the first place?

Thanks iHaz for shitting up another thread, go back to fucking your ugly kike wife.

Next thing you know Wipe will be back and the terrible advice from "self made millionaires" can really get started.

Trips friends. Not even once.

>>958498
>grinning tuxedo mask.png
Is this supposed to be humorously wrong?

>>959579
>There will always be bad times, so we shouldn't take any precautionary measures against REALLY bad times.

Ideology and economics shouldn't mix, frankly.

>>959562
no it isn't wrong
did you miss >>959540
if you need a basic explanation the S&P isn't a straightforward 'average' it instead gives more weight to larger companies

you'd be right if it were 500 evenly weighted stocks, but it isn't ergo your post here:
>>958544
makes no sense as you've forgotten or are unaware that it isn't a simple average

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/25/random-stock-picking-will-beat-sp-fund-manager.html