Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
The numbers DO NOT represent TOTAL RETURN which includes distributions. The only thing that matters is total return. I also proved the last 10 years and we have all the data for it. So, which is accurate, the Dow numbers or DIA(+SP500 which is close)? Can you please answer this simple question? I bet you won't answer it. I let other posters decide which one is accurate.
@FD1000 What in your view do the last ten years of data have to do with the 1929 - 1954 period return? I already stated twice that dividends matter, although those numbers for large blend from the Depression are almost certainly wrong and subject to survivor bias. Also, while dividends do matter, the reinvestment of dividends was not automatic in 1929 and I suspect most did not or could not or would not reinvest those dividends while the Dow was falling over 80%. Try calling a bankrupt broker in the 1930s to reinvest them. Total returns as normally calculated do not exist without dividend reinvestment. And even a 14% dividend reinvestment would not bring the Dow’s Depression decline anywhere close to what Morningstar is reporting for large blend funds’ total return for that period if they were 100% pure stock portfolios.
Comments
I also proved the last 10 years and we have all the data for it.
So, which is accurate, the Dow numbers or DIA(+SP500 which is close)?
Can you please answer this simple question?
I bet you won't answer it. I let other posters decide which one is accurate.