And Japan performed ridiculously well for over decades and then stagnated for decades after that, but it averaged out between the two periods:
> Ben Carlson: It's just a really long mean reversion. You got like 22% per year from 1970 to 1989 in Japan. Small caps in Japan did 30% per year for two decades.
> It's insane. The returns almost had to be poor after that. If you put them together, the boom with the bust, it's like almost 9% per year.
> It's kind of crazy. Over 50 years, the long-term worked. It's just that over that 20 or 30-year period, it didn't work so well.
* https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/412 (~4m20s)
Annualized 9% per year is pretty good: the S&P 500 has average 10% since 1957 (70 years). Is there anything preventing US equities from doing the same thing: great performance from 2010 until now, and then 10+ years of stagnation starting (theoretically) tomorrow. If you look at 2000s S&P 500 you got zero returns, and the only thing that would have saved a US domestic (only) investor was having a bond allocation:
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2010/09/13/its-not-real...
This is why diversification is important. People talk about "US stocks" doing well, but have US industrials done better than non-US industrials? US finances or energy done better than non-US? Or are "US stocks" doing better simply because tech stocks specifically have done better? Perhaps a US allocation is really a tech sector play:
* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/should-your-portfolio-be-100-us...