Hacker News Reader

Comment by apo | Hacker News Reader

That last line caused me to do a double-take:

> Intel shares were trading up 0.9 percent Friday at $53.61. The stock is near its highest point since the dot-com era.

Sure enough, it hasn't recovered its pre-crash price (~ $75). That's 20 years in the red if you happened to invest at the top.

Many (most?) of the high fliers from back then that are still around did recover (e.g., AMZN, MSFT, AAPL). Even ORCL (but barely).

View on HN

To be fair to Intel, you wouldn't be in the red if you took dividends into account. The adjusted pre-crash price is ~$44 relative to today's $54. Still, a pretty bad return for 20 years.

I'm not sure how much sense it makes to compare the present-day share price to the price right before a crash. Almost by definition the pre-crash price is a pretend number, that's why it "corrects" downwards.

Are the numbers inflation normalized?

No, and they also probably don't account for dividends.

Edit: after dividends it would be 10.7% higher, but annualized returns of <1%. So still really bad, but not less money than you went in with.

Actually after dividends but after inflation too you're still negative I guess, hah.

No, straight from Yahoo finance. Also doesn't include dividends.

More money in software.

Dollar cost average my guy. You would be golden by now.

Any study telling you that lump sum investing beats dollar cost averaging was only able to use a 30 year period of unprecedented and unreplicated global growth

DCA + Dividend Reinvesting + Covered Calls + a few years = Cost Basis of basically $0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com