Conversely, plenty of funds do 15-20% in the short term. 15% only takes 57 years, and 20% brings it down to 44.
So, doable, but you'd be considered a pretty amazing investor. And this all assumes the money was invested from the day he was born.
I don't know, perhaps you couldn't very easily leverage properties back then for cash (i.e. once they had been paid off), or interest rates were very high (a quick google teaches us that in 1970, the interest rate was 8.5%)?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d...
It's not uncommon for aggressive growth funds to take a 20% tumble in a year. Downside is much, much more destructive than many understand especially when one must also account for fund management fees (typically .7%) which are collected whether the fund gains or loses!
But the simple fact is that a 50% loss requires a 100% gain just to get back to even, which is still a loss once inflation and operating costs are factored in.
Here's a simple question that most people fail: Q: A mutual fund loses 50% in a year. In order to break even the next year, your fund must earn ? 1) inflation 2) 50% + inflation 3) 50% + your income tax rate 4) 100% + inflation 5) 100% + inflation + operating costs + 'it depends'
The correct answer is 5. The correct answer is nearly 106%- One must make up for actual loss (100%) PLUS operating expenses for both years (usually 0.7% per year: 1.5%), plus inflation for both years (2%/annum: 4%). Of course there are tax implication for gains/losses taken outside of a qualified retirement plan (401k,403b,etc.) and sheltering losses can complicate substantially, but hopefully this illustrates a point about the impact of losses.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katestalter/2016/09/01/would-do...