SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Harkrider 93 said:

---

Some people stare at risks and costs and make decisions, even if it isn't likely to happen.

I take calculated risks if there is much greater upside than downside and if I can increase the odds of success.

A 20 year time frame puts it to an almost guarantee to be in my favor - even at a market high. The upside to this can be near $500k profit, using long term averages. The negative is I could spend 100k in mortgage fees and make nothing in the market.

I don't remember the exact number, but the market averages 4% or more 90-95% of the time over a 20 year time frame. Some will just focus on the thing that isn't likely to happen instead of looking at the thing that is most likely to happen.

This scenario can and will work if you can stay committed, and unfortunately, most people can't stomach it. Nothing wrong with that, but do not attempt it if you can't.

Since 1929, the have been ZERO negative returns over any 20 year time frame. There hasn't even been any break evens.

---

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. You really think there is much greater upside than downside in year 8 of the 2nd longest bull market in history? Looking at things that may or may not happen is called risk management and is something that is often forgotten in bull markets. Many younger people I know basically treat the stock market as having the same risk as a money market fund. That will change.

---

I'm with harkrider on this one based on my own analysis of the SP500 and different investment periods. If you are talking about doing monthly investments into the stock index vs putting extra to the mortgage, even in a downturn or down market year that will be every few years out of 20+... the good years make up for the bad. Dollar cost averaging into the SP500 will almost always beat 4%.

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Harkrider 93 said:

---

Some people stare at risks and costs and make decisions, even if it isn't likely to happen.

I take calculated risks if there is much greater upside than downside and if I can increase the odds of success.

A 20 year time frame puts it to an almost guarantee to be in my favor - even at a market high. The upside to this can be near $500k profit, using long term averages. The negative is I could spend 100k in mortgage fees and make nothing in the market.

I don't remember the exact number, but the market averages 4% or more 90-95% of the time over a 20 year time frame. Some will just focus on the thing that isn't likely to happen instead of looking at the thing that is most likely to happen.

This scenario can and will work if you can stay committed, and unfortunately, most people can't stomach it. Nothing wrong with that, but do not attempt it if you can't.

Since 1929, the have been ZERO negative returns over any 20 year time frame. There hasn't even been any break evens.

---

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. You really think there is much greater upside than downside in year 8 of the 2nd longest bull market in history? Looking at things that may or may not happen is called risk management and is something that is often forgotten in bull markets. Many younger people I know basically treat the stock market as having the same risk as a money market fund. That will change.

---

I'm with harkrider on this one based on my own analysis of the SP500 and different investment periods. If you are talking about doing monthly investments into the stock index vs putting extra to the mortgage, even in a downturn or down market year that will be every few years out of 20+... the good years make up for the bad. Dollar cost averaging into the SP500 will almost always beat 4%.

---

One of my favorite market related quotes. "A bull market is like sex, it feels best right before it ends."

---

But as you mentioned, past results don't guarantee future performance. Performance can be bull or bear.

Maybe this bull popped a blue pill only an hour ago and still has three hours left in the tank, err hose.

You are starting to sound like one of the average investors that makes one third of the market.

This may be the peak, but I don't care if I am investing for 20 yrs in this scenario.

If you go back 20 years, which includes one of the worst 10 year stock performances ever, you average 4.9%.

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Harkrider 93 said:

---

You are starting to sound like one of the average investors that makes one third of the market.

This may be the peak, but I don't care if I am investing for 20 yrs in this scenario.

If you go back 20 years, which includes one of the worst 10 year stock performances ever, you average 4.9%.

---

Whatever man. If I am going to take out a home equity line on my house specifically to buy stocks then I'm not going to do it after the S&P is up 275% since 2009 and hasn't had a 5% pullback in over a year, but go ahead and knock yourself out.

---

Maybe we are talking past each other, but historically over long periods, CAGR has been above 4% are nearly 100% of the time.... I even posted my analysis in this forum. As long as companies are out there making money and year over year increases I think the historical trend will hold.

I can understand waiting for a pull back to invest a large lump sum. But if you want to dollar coast average with monthly SP500 purchases, your will nearly always do better than 4% over long periods.