Comments on: A Look at the Nine Bear Markets Since 1950 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/02/11/a-look-at-the-nine-bear-markets-since-1950/ A personal finance blog dedicated to discussing such topics as budgeting, asset allocation, 401K, IRA, cash flow, insurance, financial planning, portfolio management, and other areas in personal finance. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:56:44 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Kitty http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/02/11/a-look-at-the-nine-bear-markets-since-1950/comment-page-1/#comment-232266 Kitty Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:53:43 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/02/11/a-look-at-the-nine-bear-markets-since-1950/#comment-232266 Interestingly that they start at 1957 and not at 1929. Another interesting thing would be to see how long it takes for the market to get back to where it was before the drop. For those who loose money on the drop, the period it takes to get their money back is more important than how soon the market starts going up again. One thing that surprised me was that the drop in 2000-2002 was greater than in 1987. The 1987 felt like a bigger drop to me, but maybe it was because most of it happened in one day. In terms of absolute numbers I lost a whole lot less in 1987 then in 2002, but since I had didn't have that much money then, I felt it more. Also in 1987 I lost principal whereas in 2000-2002 I lost mostly gains (and for the most part because of my own greed: I play with some individual stocks outside of 401K and while I've been lucky at picking good stocks, I get greedy and hold on way too long). Interestingly that they start at 1957 and not at 1929. Another interesting thing would be to see how long it takes for the market to get back to where it was before the drop. For those who loose money on the drop, the period it takes to get their money back is more important than how soon the market starts going up again.

One thing that surprised me was that the drop in 2000-2002 was greater than in 1987. The 1987 felt like a bigger drop to me, but maybe it was because most of it happened in one day. In terms of absolute numbers I lost a whole lot less in 1987 then in 2002, but since I had didn’t have that much money then, I felt it more. Also in 1987 I lost principal whereas in 2000-2002 I lost mostly gains (and for the most part because of my own greed: I play with some individual stocks outside of 401K and while I’ve been lucky at picking good stocks, I get greedy and hold on way too long).

]]>