toofast2live wrote:https://www.ft.com/content/9a323490-f202-11e1-bba3-00144feabdc0
But you can find more on any financial website.
So your argument is that because a Mr Ralphe said it it must be correct? And additionally we should ignore the views of the other analysts consulted in the writing of the article who said "
many factors are affecting equities prices beyond QE and quantifying its effects can be difficult."?
I don't obtain my opinions from financial websites: I develop them from my own judgement of the evidence, an example of which I gave in my last post. I consider the approach of taking on board a selection of things spoken about in the media as truth to be profoundly unsound.
I bet MunroMan's views are similarly founded!
Anyhow, and anyway you cut it, the last 18 years even including dividends, when adjusted for inflation is appalling. Luckily only the mad few were invested in the FTSE100. Hopefully most had a smattering of the All Share, FTSE250 and Small Caps - all of which did somewhat better. Oh, and HYP 1 of course!!!!!
This contradicts your thesis, because as your article states, the last 18 years have included "unprecedented" QE in most of the developed economy which you and MunroMan maintain would have hugely distorted the market and made it grow disproportionately.
Personally I look to the other factors alluded to by the analysts above; foremost the high valuations given to stocks in 1999/2000 by the market itself contrary to the warnings of the central banks (recall "irrational exuberance"...) and the correspondingly low valuations of 2008/9 for my barometer of share price movements.
GS