Induction Reasoning......

... which is exactly one of the other possible actions mentioned. But not the only other alternative.

 

It is astounding to see how low a price some will accept to abandon their loyalty to the Constitution, or their oath to protect and defend it. A mere 28% gain in their 401(k)? That is so cheap.

Completely separate from such weak 'principals', it is also sad that they started their 401(k) so late. If they'd started at P45's angry inaugural address and stayed through his pouty last flight on AF1, they'd have seen a 67% gain (inclusive of dividend reinvestments). While that is the best first term GOP performance in the past four decades, a couple others did even better:



Some administrations went two full terms and achieved more:



For those who think 28% over time is good, note those who started at the end of the Great Recession in early 2009, now have about 580% gain, even after the very recent losses. That is spread over 3 administrations.

My 401(k) / IRAs are old enough that their original contributions have grown well over 5000%, over 7 administrations, even with counting the recent losses under P46 and the entire two terms of P43.

I noticed shelves starting to become unstocked in March 2020, when we returned from an aborted ski tour. Which POTUS was that? It was a very good thing that we had restocked the toilet paper and paper towel shelf just before the trip. Our main shortage turned out to be cat food.

Inflation effectively stopped last June, and has been well under 1% inflation over the past 6 months. While 12-month inflation briefly topped 9% last June, it hasn't been 10% since April 1981.

... and refused to return them when NARA asked, claiming they belonged to him, not the gum'nt. For 15 months, until the FBI came to Mar-A-Lago and took the last of them. And in the process, made one of his lawyers perjure himself be declaring that no classified documents remained, when over 100 still did.

 

Induction, Convection and Radiant, which do you prefer when cooking?

 

The magic of compounding is eye-popping to be sure, but to my mind it's just an extra thing to back out before comparing periods of different lengths. Otherwise every two-term president's likely to show way bigger numbers (or, in P43's case, bigger in absolute value) than as a one-termer, and a gain over 14 years just looks staggeringly huge.

That's why I like to convert everything to the equivalent per-year growth:

Code:

>>> def annl(percent, years):
...   return round(100 * (pow(1 + percent/100., 1./years) - 1), 1)
... 
>>> annl(210, 8) # Clinton 
15.2
>>> annl(580, 14) # Since early '09  
14.7
>>> annl(182, 8) # Obama  
13.8
>>> annl(67, 4) # Trump
13.7
>>> annl(51, 4) # H W Bush
10.9
>>> annl(118, 8) # Reagan  
10.2
>>> annl(-40, 8) # W Bush  
-6.2

I see the above has a curious artifact where the 580% "since early '09" figure comes to a larger annualized growth rate than any of the presidential administrations that period covers. I'd maybe look for the explanation in the exact start/end dates fuzzy1 used for the 580% figure compared to those chosen for the administrations, and in my rough choice of exactly 14 years as the length of that period.

Goes to show the specific dates chosen can make a noticeable effect, just as the "no warming since 1998!" talking point illustrated not so long ago.

 

The 580% aroused my curiosity also.

I agree on the magic of compounding.

 

At the same time, you notice, even with the 580%, that it annualizes to a not-very-surprising annual rate.

There's a kind of second-order curiosity about just where it ends up, within a percent or so, within the list of other figures, but it's not out of the ballpark in the slightest.

 

Maybe misunderstanding 580%.

How I understand it money would have doubled almost 6 times ex :
$200,000 doubled once = $400,000 - doubled twice = $800,000 - doubled 3rd time = $1,600,000 - doubled 4th time = $3,200,000- doubled 5th time = $6,400,000 - doubled 6th time = $12,800,000.

I would like to experience an investment like that during that time period.

 

You did misunderstand. 580% gain means the end value is (1 + 580%/100%) = (1+5.8) = 6.8X the initial value. Starting with $200,000 means ending with $1,360,000.

My reply was aimed at a different level, at someone seemingly impressed by 28% return over an unspecified length time, no longer than a presidential term, ending at the most recent Inauguration. It wasn't aimed at others who better understand compound interest and stock markets.

That 580% is a rounded rendition of this:

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/


For those wanting to dig into more precise detail, another source shows the Great Recession nadir of the S&P500 Index as March 9, 2009, at 676.51, about 7 weeks into P44's term, not at his Inauguration. But the above display figures only to the nearest month, not to a specific day.

 

That might explain how it wound up where it did in my ordered list. I wouldn't be surprised if the other graph showing the S&P performance per administration just used market values (as my own earlier post did) without reinvested dividends.

Likewise, my post showing the same things annualized was not aimed at you, but to contribute to that better understanding by building on your post.