<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Inflation Adjusted Dow is at 1966 Levels</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:28:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: EJH</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151789</link>
		<dc:creator>EJH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151789</guid>
		<description>Janice Doe,

The UNadjusted for inflation Dow was flat over 1/66 - 10/82, see the numbers here:
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/TABLEnum.html
BUT during this interval, CPI-U rose by a factor 3.09.
New 1,001 sources needed!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Janice Doe,</p>
<p>The UNadjusted for inflation Dow was flat over 1/66 &#8211; 10/82, see the numbers here:<br />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/TABLEnum.html" rel="nofollow">http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/TABLEnum.html</a><br />
BUT during this interval, CPI-U rose by a factor 3.09.<br />
New 1,001 sources needed!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EJH</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151699</link>
		<dc:creator>EJH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:36:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151699</guid>
		<description>Hello cdrueallen,
Re. your
I’d sure like to see the same chart for real estate prices ...
please see first and last charts here:
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html
and, for credibility, here’s the NYT chart that got me started
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello cdrueallen,<br />
Re. your<br />
I’d sure like to see the same chart for real estate prices &#8230;<br />
please see first and last charts here:<br />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html" rel="nofollow">http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html</a><br />
and, for credibility, here’s the NYT chart that got me started<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EJH</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151697</link>
		<dc:creator>EJH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:28:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151697</guid>
		<description>Hi Janice Doe,
I’m EJH of the Comment 4th preceding yours.
Here’s the 3/30/99 WSJ chart that got me started:
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/begun.pdf
My main page (incl. full description of my data sourcing and calculations) is
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf
The first link therefrom is to
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/WSJ_3-30-99+RealDow.html
which shows agreeing overlay.

I’ve had this real history on my mind since timely seeing the WSJ chart -- and I still am astonished that such compelling fact is kept little-apparent to the people, in our free markets/free press/free country!  High deception by omission!

You mentioned TIPS -- this is all I’ve written up on this, but it’s done:
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/toEJ.html
Basically, the average of all DJIA stocks-holders owned it the whole time; dividends and frictional costs are cash flows to him, summing to 2.7-3.2%/yr.  The +1.64%/yr average long-term real price growth I figured (see my main page) is of course composed of a wide range of outcomes -- on a certainty equivalent basis it is essentially 0%/yr.  I used CRRA, with coefficient of 5 (‘serious money’ choice).

Here’s more “High deception by omission!”
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Janice Doe,<br />
I’m EJH of the Comment 4th preceding yours.<br />
Here’s the 3/30/99 WSJ chart that got me started:<br />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/begun.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/begun.pdf</a><br />
My main page (incl. full description of my data sourcing and calculations) is<br />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf" rel="nofollow">http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf</a><br />
The first link therefrom is to<br />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/WSJ_3-30-99+RealDow.html" rel="nofollow">http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/WSJ_3-30-99+RealDow.html</a><br />
which shows agreeing overlay.</p>
<p>I’ve had this real history on my mind since timely seeing the WSJ chart &#8212; and I still am astonished that such compelling fact is kept little-apparent to the people, in our free markets/free press/free country!  High deception by omission!</p>
<p>You mentioned TIPS &#8212; this is all I’ve written up on this, but it’s done:<br />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/toEJ.html" rel="nofollow">http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/toEJ.html</a><br />
Basically, the average of all DJIA stocks-holders owned it the whole time; dividends and frictional costs are cash flows to him, summing to 2.7-3.2%/yr.  The +1.64%/yr average long-term real price growth I figured (see my main page) is of course composed of a wide range of outcomes &#8212; on a certainty equivalent basis it is essentially 0%/yr.  I used CRRA, with coefficient of 5 (‘serious money’ choice).</p>
<p>Here’s more “High deception by omission!”<br />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html" rel="nofollow">http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: H.T.</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151665</link>
		<dc:creator>H.T.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151665</guid>
		<description>Another thing about the effects of dividends on the chart above-- my eyeball guesstimate of the period in question was an average yield of 3.5-4%. [Better chart: Barrons http://www.gold-speculator.com/attachments/mark-lundeen/835d1233550879-inflations-effects-dow-its-dividend-yield-lundeen022405b.gif] 

Until Bush tax cut, dividends, and someone correct me if I&#039;m wrong, had previously be treated as ordinary income, thus taxed at one&#039;s marginal rate--let&#039;s say 1/3 for kicks, reducing the &quot;dividend effect&quot; somewhat to be sure. Interesting</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another thing about the effects of dividends on the chart above&#8211; my eyeball guesstimate of the period in question was an average yield of 3.5-4%. [Better chart: Barrons <a href="http://www.gold-speculator.com/attachments/mark-lundeen/835d1233550879-inflations-effects-dow-its-dividend-yield-lundeen022405b.gif" rel="nofollow">http://www.gold-speculator.com/attachments/mark-lundeen/835d1233550879-inflations-effects-dow-its-dividend-yield-lundeen022405b.gif</a> </p>
<p>Until Bush tax cut, dividends, and someone correct me if I&#8217;m wrong, had previously be treated as ordinary income, thus taxed at one&#8217;s marginal rate&#8211;let&#8217;s say 1/3 for kicks, reducing the &#8220;dividend effect&#8221; somewhat to be sure. Interesting</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: H.T.</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151654</link>
		<dc:creator>H.T.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151654</guid>
		<description>Agree with SB-- hold on buyin [or sell now] GLD, GDX until carnage of this quarters forced liquidation of Hedgies is over 3/31.  Could get as nice an entry on GLD @ ~875. But moving higher for sure IMO  [as the miners]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree with SB&#8211; hold on buyin [or sell now] GLD, GDX until carnage of this quarters forced liquidation of Hedgies is over 3/31.  Could get as nice an entry on GLD @ ~875. But moving higher for sure IMO  [as the miners]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: How the Common Man Sees It</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151578</link>
		<dc:creator>How the Common Man Sees It</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151578</guid>
		<description>In the end, I suppose, our brains and our bodies become &#039;inflation adjusted&#039; too :mrgreen:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the end, I suppose, our brains and our bodies become &#8216;inflation adjusted&#8217; too :mrgreen:</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: How the Common Man Sees It</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151577</link>
		<dc:creator>How the Common Man Sees It</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151577</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The inflation adjusted Dow is back to 1966.&lt;/i&gt;


....matches my wages</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The inflation adjusted Dow is back to 1966.</i></p>
<p>&#8230;.matches my wages</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Janice Doe</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151557</link>
		<dc:creator>Janice Doe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151557</guid>
		<description>Barry, I beg of thee, please try to find out if this chart is accurate and please post as to your findings.  An alleged fact such as this one, if true, would have significant ramifications on one&#039;s portfolio, as discussed very quickly below.

Simply put, I can&#039;t see how this number can be right.  I&#039;ve read 1,001 times from 1,001 sources that the stock market was flat, adjusted for inflation, from 1966-1981 (of course, maybe that&#039;s an urban myth, which is why I plead that you post any kind of confirmation or proof that the chart is inaccurrate).  If I recall right, the Dow was roughly at 1000 in 1981.  Adjusted for an inflation rate of 5% per year since 1981 (which is probably high), the Dow would be at about 3900 right now.  It just doesn&#039;t make sense how the Dow is not any higher than it was in 1966, even excluding dividends (assuming the Dow was the same in 1981 as 1966, adjusted for inflation).

Can anyone please confirm this claim, and Barry, can you please post any confirmation or proof that the chart is wrong.  If this chart is actually accurate -- if the Dow, over a 43+ year period from 1966, was flat when adjusted for inflation -- then it seems to me that it is a mightily powerful argument for lay investors to dominate their portfolios with TIPS, no matter what your age or time to retirement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barry, I beg of thee, please try to find out if this chart is accurate and please post as to your findings.  An alleged fact such as this one, if true, would have significant ramifications on one&#8217;s portfolio, as discussed very quickly below.</p>
<p>Simply put, I can&#8217;t see how this number can be right.  I&#8217;ve read 1,001 times from 1,001 sources that the stock market was flat, adjusted for inflation, from 1966-1981 (of course, maybe that&#8217;s an urban myth, which is why I plead that you post any kind of confirmation or proof that the chart is inaccurrate).  If I recall right, the Dow was roughly at 1000 in 1981.  Adjusted for an inflation rate of 5% per year since 1981 (which is probably high), the Dow would be at about 3900 right now.  It just doesn&#8217;t make sense how the Dow is not any higher than it was in 1966, even excluding dividends (assuming the Dow was the same in 1981 as 1966, adjusted for inflation).</p>
<p>Can anyone please confirm this claim, and Barry, can you please post any confirmation or proof that the chart is wrong.  If this chart is actually accurate &#8212; if the Dow, over a 43+ year period from 1966, was flat when adjusted for inflation &#8212; then it seems to me that it is a mightily powerful argument for lay investors to dominate their portfolios with TIPS, no matter what your age or time to retirement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AGG</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151517</link>
		<dc:creator>AGG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:23:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151517</guid>
		<description>And as I recall, 1966 was the year Buffett said stocks would be a bad investment for the forseeable future. LOL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And as I recall, 1966 was the year Buffett said stocks would be a bad investment for the forseeable future. LOL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: barrister999</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/inflation-adjusted-dow-is-at-1966-levels/comment-page-1/#comment-151509</link>
		<dc:creator>barrister999</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=21072#comment-151509</guid>
		<description>To quote Winston Churchill: &quot;There are lies, damn lies, &amp; statistics&quot;. Jeremy Siegal needs to acknowledge that his thesis &#039;stocks for the long run&#039; is fatally flawed. Plus to quote another far more prescient economist, John Maynard Keynes, &#039;in the long run we are all dead&#039;. Was anyone on this board around in 1932 to invest in the Market? Get real Jeremy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To quote Winston Churchill: &#8220;There are lies, damn lies, &amp; statistics&#8221;. Jeremy Siegal needs to acknowledge that his thesis &#8216;stocks for the long run&#8217; is fatally flawed. Plus to quote another far more prescient economist, John Maynard Keynes, &#8216;in the long run we are all dead&#8217;. Was anyone on this board around in 1932 to invest in the Market? Get real Jeremy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

