Most stats and studies are primarily done on the US markets, but this article takes a wider view of market returns across multiple world markets… interesting…
I think above data helps us be aware of the risk - but the data isn’t wider in the right perspective.
Below data (since 1990) is more apt
|Country||Benchmark||Current Value (in S&P 500 terms)||Gain since Nov 26, 1990|
|United States||S&P 500||3,168||+901%|
|Hong Kong||Hang Seng Comp.||2,926||+824%|
|United Kingdom||FTSE 100||1,072||+238%|
Isn’t this cherry-picking data to fit a desired narrative?
If not, then why is this more apt?
What factors lead you to believe that the more recent data is more relevant/significant?
33 years is long enough imo - maybe cherry picking in the sense we are looking at a period devoid of World Wars and serious plagues, and in the internet/digital era with open markets and easier participation in securities…