The Worst decade for Stocks in Two Centuries, 1999 – 2009.

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Well, it is official, the past decade (1 Jan 2000 to 31 December 2009) has been the worst decade for stocks on record.

Stocks 1999-2009: Worst. Decade. Ever. | The Big Picture

For Stocks, the Worst Decade Ever - WSJ.com

I was really surprised to read this. They had the Great Depression in the 30s, there was the famous stock market crash in the 30s, people jumped from buildings and committed suicide. Then there was the stagflation of the 70s, markets did tank then big time. We also had 1986 stock market crash. I would have though that one of those periods would be the worst decade for stocks.

But apparently not, the decade just ending was the worst decade ever on record for stocks. We did have two huge meltdowns, two huge bear markets in this decade, the 2001 – 2002 bursting of the dot com bubble and the current meltdown.

Indeed, in this respect, the contrast between Clinton stock market and Bush stock market couldn’t be more vivid, more marked. The best calendar decade was the 90s, the Clinton years, when stock market climbed at an average rate of 17.6% per years. That was the best performance ever.

We followed the best performance ever by the worst performance ever, the Bush years. Stocks went down average of 0.5 % per year.

Now, it has been well known that stock markets perform better under Democratic presidents that they do under Republican presidents, all the statistics show that. But this is an extreme, where we followed the best decade ever (Clinton decade) with the worst decade ever (Bush decade).

No wonder Bush left office with approval rating of 22%, half that of Carter (he left office with an approval rating of 44%).
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
That might be why the 30s weren't so bad from a market point of view, since the crash happened in 29.

OK, I suppose the markets were recovering in the 30s. But what about the 20s, if the crash occurred in 29. I would expect 20s to be the worst decade, but apparently the current decade was even worse than the 20s.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
11
Aether Island


There was a 60% rebound after the market crash in '29. But the market tanked in the first half of the 1930s.

By the way, when you buy a non-dividend-paying stock, well above in price the percentage it represents of the underlying value of the company, you are just buying paper.
 
Last edited:

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
We are in a rebound. Stick to value; stick to dividends.

Quite so, Spade. There are plenty of good value stocks in TSE. All the major Canadian banks, BCE, Bell Alliant etc. Last year I bought BMO when it was paying 10% dividend, I bought CIBC when it was paying 9% dividend. Now of course these stocks have shot through the roof, but within they are still paying around 4% dividend, much more than you would get from GIC or a bond. Bell Aliant is still paying around 10% dividend.

Indeed, by judicious buying, one would have made handsome profit in the markets, the worst decade in the history of stocks notwithstanding.