I'd be curious to see results for other countries, the graph of "Chance of Losing in the Stock Market" in particular. In the case of Japan, it appears that if you'd still have significant losses if you invested 25-30 years ago: https://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5En225+Interactive#{"ra...
If you're in Japan you can still invest in the US stock market... and should to diversify. I invest in international markets even though I am in the U.S.
Just to point out to people who may not be aware, this leaves you open to currency risk. The FTSE 100 dropped 3% in GBP terms last week, but maybe 10% in USD terms.
This cuts both ways of course: you can make money on favourable currency moves. But it's an important risk to be aware of before buying assets in a foreign currency.
Eventually most people have to redeem their investments, though, and they're going to do so in their home currency.
A US investor who bought foreign assets in 2014 and sold them today would have been hurt by the 25% USD/EUR rally in 2014-2015. The dollar rose against almost all other currencies too (besides, for example the yen).
I moved my all of my UK pension to non-UK bonds (mainly US) one day before the referendum result. It was a mission and a half using my pension fund's online system, truly awful UX, I almost gave up.
I don't normally change the holdings or attempt active investing, but it just seemed like a very asymmetric bet - nearly 50/50 polls, very large potential downside if not diversifying outside the UK/sterling.
this is the biggest fallacy in the investing thesis. buy and hold didn't work in russia, or argetina, or many others. because we live in a country that's prospered (for a plethora of reasons), we assume the prosperity must continue unabated forever.
Clearly. But they were considering investment strategies (buy&hold vs alternatives). My point was that few if any investment policies would hedge you against market extinction events.