You said 90s.Not sure what growth oriented fund you are looking at. MGK has returned 16.24% over the last 10 years. Driving forces determine returns, buying Blockbuster and Sears stock and ignoring the driving returns of Apple and Microsoft is not a way to get returns.A SCV fund has outperformed a growth oriented fund since inception of this period you mentionedPast performance does not guarantee future results. Since the mid-90s technology has been the driving force in the US economy, and I'm willing to bet we have another few decades of that trend. The concept of risk premium implies you care about volatility, which a 16 year old really can ignore for a couple decades at least. Total return is really what matters. If I tell you you an have 15% return with a 0% risk premium or a 10% return with a 1% risk premium but you have 60+ years to invest you want the 15% because the difference in compounding is so large.There is no tech premium in the historical data
Someone older cannot wait out another tech bubble burst, while someone who is 16 can. Yes its a bit of a sector bet, but given the dominance of technology and trends in the 21st century thus far I'd be more than willing to put 50% on it if I was 16 and had nothing but time.
There is a value premium
They should be taking the opposite side of this bet
Yes, technology has been a driving force in the economy, and there’s lots of gravestones of dead tech companies along the way
“Driving forces” should not be confused with expected investor returns
I am not talking about 10 years. If you expect 16% returns to persist for growth oriented funds into perpetuity you haven’t looked at the decade before this
Statistics: Posted by Nathan Drake — Tue Jul 23, 2024 11:55 am — Replies 53 — Views 4199