Author Topic: President: did your investment go up 70%? 90%? Only 50%? What are doing wrong??  (Read 1821 times)

MoneyGoatee

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 112
That was what DT tweeted a few days ago.  And I assumed he meant the 3-year period during his presidency, i.e. 2017 to 2019.  My Vanguard portfolio went up 31% during that period with no contribution.  So am I deemed a loser by the prez?  How has everybody done during that period?  I imagine if you invested in the riskier funds, such as all stocks, maybe you could get as high as 70-90%.  My portfolio is 60% stock and 40% bonds.  My historical gain in the last decade or so, skewed somewhat by the last few years, has been 6-8%, which is in line with most long-term investments.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
According to that tweet, you are a loser for not having a 409k. If you had a fictional investment, you might be up 90%.

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
    • Military Saints
I don't know about my 3-year return but last year alone was about 25-30%. Looks like the S&P 500 average about 15.6% per year for the last three years. So about 50%. Considering most investors don't even match the market, let alone beat it, I'd say very few people gained over 50% in the last three years.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16249
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The president probably thought that whatever the amount, Mexico would pay for it.

celerystalks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Anyone remember when he started panicking and attacking the Fed during the deep correction of Nov.-Dec. 2018? Fun times.

MoneyGoatee

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 112
My Vanguard portfolio actually went up more during Obama's first 3 years (2009/10/11 = 27%/15%/0% = 42%) than Trump's first 3 years (2017/18/19 = 14%/-5%/21% = 30%).

EDIT: All told, I got 81% returns during the Obama years, slightly over 10% annual return, in a portfolio that,  at one point, was only 50% stocks due to the uncertainty after the 2008 recession.  So I have to say I had no complaints, and it would actually be a hard act for Trump to follow. 
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 11:49:53 AM by MoneyGoatee »

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
My Vanguard portfolio actually went up more during Obama's first 3 years (2009/10/11 = 27%/15%/0% = 42%) than Trump's first 3 years (2017/18/19 = 14%/-5%/21% = 30%).

That doesn't count because Obama was black.

ColoAndy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Location: Colorado
It's because Obama assumed office right after a huge drop in equities.  Market began its climb a couple months after.

mies

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
My Vanguard portfolio actually went up more during Obama's first 3 years (2009/10/11 = 27%/15%/0% = 42%) than Trump's first 3 years (2017/18/19 = 14%/-5%/21% = 30%).

That doesn't count because Obama was black.

Ding ding ding!!! The correct answer! Most hard right conservatives will conveniently ignore the gains during Obama administration since it doesn't match what the AM radio cranks, chain emails, and Fox News told them was going to happen.

I think Trump is a pair of clown shoes with a comb over but I'm glad I didn't let that influence my investment decisions. I stayed the course. I'm sure we'll finally see a bear market at some point, and it might be something that can be traced back to a Trump decision, but we'll all live to tell the tale and probably end up being wealthier because of it.

RWTL

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 220
I would be happy to hear him explain his > 50% return and back up his claims with facts.  Maybe he could release his tax returns like every other president. 

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
If you want to match President Trump's measurements of stock performance, you should keep in mind his methods:
Multiply stock market gains to get the stock market performance.
Ignore the stock market drops: those are Obama's fault.

Omy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
Don't forget about tweeting for and against specific companies to help out his buddies!

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
The market(as measured by the S&P) is up ~55% since the 2016 election.

Based on that piece of data, it's fair to say that:

1) 50% return over that time period was a realistic result for someone ~90% or more in US equity.

2) Larger returns (70% or 90%) are only realistic over that time period if:
A) someone had a portfolio that was non-diversified or overweighted certain sectors that did well during this time period (i.e. Big Tech - the Nasdaq outperformed the S&P by quite a bit), or
B) they employed leverage

Either of the above means that individual took on more than market risk to get those higher returns.  70%+ returns over that time period aren't impossible, but those that got them are the exception rather than the rule, and they didn't get there without substantial risk exposure.


If I look at my personal ROI over that same time period, it was in the neighborhood of ~40%.  I'm mostly equity, but I have more international exposure than the average investor, and that part of my portfolio has fared relatively poorly relative to the U.S. markets over the past couple years.  My *net worth* increased by closer to 70% over that period, but that's because of contributions, not market gains.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3755
I try to follow a rule in which I do not spend more time analyzing a Trump statement than he spent thinking about what it would mean and if it was correct.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16249
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I try to follow a rule in which I do not spend more time analyzing a Trump statement than he spent thinking about what it would mean and if it was correct.

Build that (mental) wall!

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3755
Part of that is trying to be really clear with myself about what I would believe if Trump hadn't inserted himself into an issue.