
If you invested $1 a day, starting when you were born - qpleple
http://stockchoker.com/dollar-a-day/
======
toado85
Hey guys... I made the page. Just saw lots of traffic coming from here so
figured I'd come check it out.

A couple things I figured I should address after reading the comments:

1) Yahoo!'s historic S&P 500 data does not factor in dividends. So the returns
would likely be 1-2% higher each year (which over time makes a very big
difference). I should probably add a note on the page mentioning this.

Here was my conundrum when making the tool: I picked the S&P 500 because it's
the only index that allowed me to pull very, very old data (nearly 70 years)
using Yahoo! Finance; plus, it's often the "go-to" index for discussing
overall market performance. But it's not "real" in the sense that you can't
actually buy shares, and it doesn't pay dividends. So I could make up my own
method for factoring in dividends, but I wanted to go strictly by the numbers.
When you factor in financial advisor fees / bad decisions that new investors
make, it's probably enough to "counter" the lack of dividends, if you want to
look at it that way.

Plus, sites / companies are notorious for over-stating how much you can get
annually by investing. I'd prefer to under-state it, if anything. Don't want
to sell false hopes.

2) Regarding incremental, small deposits (and potential transation fees)...
it's actually very easy to set up auto-investments in index funds that match
the S&P 500 without ever incurring any fees. You could do $31 on the first of
every month and basically simulate this.

3) Inflation would be useful to factor in, but it would also add confusion.
This could be a cool add-on, but I'd have to think about the clearest way to
demonstrate it. So would the 1950 daily amount be equivalent of $1 today? (so
I'm guessing 20 cents or so?)

Hope you guys enjoy the site. Feedback is great (positive or negative - I'm
not sensitive).

~~~
Flammy
Hey Toado,

Your webpage gave me a screen takeover popup that was unavoidable on my phone
:/ Even hitting back button would re-launch the popup.

Chrome on iOS if it helps.

~~~
toado85
Ewww... never heard of that happening. I tested on iPad with Chrome / Safari /
Firefox. Is this on iPhone? If so, which one?

~~~
cbr
Here's what it looks like on iphone:
[http://www.webpagetest.org/result/160309_JW_14VA/](http://www.webpagetest.org/result/160309_JW_14VA/)

------
takno
I invested my spare money in a computer, and it's definitely paid back more
than the S&P 500 in salary. Using up limited funds in childhood on financial
investments is just madness

~~~
jonknee
I don't think anyone is suggesting to not educate yourself and instead invest,
but the point is what even a small amount of money can do over a long time.

~~~
brokentone
I think the point is that there are some non-stock investments that also pay
off. Looking at something like this can feel very either/or: "If only I didn't
do X, I could have invested the money."

------
ryandrake
Interesting, but I doubt people tend to invest this consistently and
regularly. They probably have an easy time investing when times are good (and
they actually have a few extra bucks to gamble with), and tend to not invest
when times are bad (they're trying to eat).

Take someone who was doing pretty good during the tech and real estate
bubbles, and decided to invest their spare change in 1998, 1999, 2005 and
2006, but did not invest in the "leaner" years. I bet that person overall
would have lost money on the stock market. Oh, wait, I can tell you that that
person would have lost money, because it was me!

I'm so tired of the constant drum-beat of "The only way to retire is to invest
in the stock market!!" that only seems to serve the interests of Wall Street.
I wish there were viable alternatives.

~~~
froogle
You're wrong. If you only invested lump sums in the S&P 500 in 1998, 1999,
2005, and 2006, you'd have made money by today. Not as much as you would have
historically, but still a fair chunk - and while yes, inflation would have
eaten a large, large portion of it, it's way better than leaving your cash
under your mattress.

There's no way you lost money if you were in the S&P 500, unless you were
pulling it out of investments after crashes - in which case, duh, you're
buying high and selling low, what did you expect?

And that's if you were only in the S&P 500... a more reasonable retirement
portfolio is much more diversified, which would have increased your returns
and lowered your volatility.

[http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?SPY](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?SPY)

~~~
xinyhn
[http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/worlds-worst-
market-...](http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/worlds-worst-market-
timer/)

------
gricardo99
This also ignores the fact that your average person, until more recently,
couldn't so easily invest in the S&P 500, without some big transaction costs.
A couple of factors that make this possible today:

1\. Online brokers, starting in late 90s, lowered retail trading fees, made
access easier. 2\. low-fee, highly liquid, highly competitive ETFs give anyone
cheap exposure to the broader market indicators, like S&P 500.

So an ROI calculation from the 1970s is mostly academic, but I guess
illustrative of what you _might_ be able to get using that same approach over
the next 30-40 years.

~~~
vijayr
As always, the devil is in the details. It is still a cool experiment though

------
bobbyhotpockets
Is inflation included? Surprising to see such an important detail absent from
the explanation of how returns are calculated.

~~~
marvel_boy
It is not. Neither transaction costs.

~~~
bduerst
Wouldn't transactions costs make this negative?

------
washadjeffmad
If you invested $1 each day of your life into a savings account, you'd have $0
for perpetually owing the bank maintenance fees.

My mother took us to the local bank one Christmas when we were children and
put $100 each (interest rates were at a peak) into our accounts "so that we
could learn about money". Five years later, we went back and found the bank
had emptied the accounts steadily each month until nothing remained. The kind
man who'd once helped us open the accounts was very apologetic about it, but
explained there was nothing he could do to get it back.

That experience did teach me something about money, that you can't always
count on it to be there and to be careful to whom you entrust it, but it also
taught me about the banking system and saved me from simple mistakes I saw my
peers making as I got older. I wouldn't have started investing so young if
banks had never put a sour taste in my mouth.

------
mesozoic
Too bad I had a lot of trouble making money as an infant.

~~~
kdamken
You must have had a bad work ethic! Lazy baby, work harder.

~~~
lintiness
he needed more homework ...

------
jack-r-abbit
I was kind of expecting it to be more. Not that I'd complain about an extra
$114k right now. But after 40+ years I was thinking it would be more.

~~~
pmorici
$1 per day isn't much money as far as initial investments go. They are also
using the S&P 500 which by it's nature is mostly mature companies that aren't
typically going to see explosive price doubling growth.

~~~
digikata
The S&P 500 is also a much safer hands-off investment which is likely to beat
most active investors - especially for the amounts of investment we're talking
about for $1/day (or even $10-100/day...)

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/04/469247400/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/04/469247400/episode-688-brilliant-
vs-boring)

------
pjc50
This was presumably the rationale behind the UK's "Child Trust Fund" scheme:
[http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/child-trust-fund-
vo...](http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/child-trust-fund-vouchers)
which included a £250+ freebie to kick it off. However, none of the
beneficiaries have matured yet.

------
micwawa
$1 is 1981 was four popsicles from the icecream truck. Well worth it to be the
king.

$1 in 1996 was a bottomless plastic cup of PBR. Also well worth it.

$1 is 2011 is the cost of an overnight diaper that my three year old son
throws away in the middle of night because he says he doesn't like it.

~~~
jo6gwb
I take it the diaper wasn't worth it.

------
susiecambria
A complete non-techie here. My takeaway is this: Wow, look at the value of
saving and I've got to invest--not just save--for the first grandchild
starting tomorrow.

My dad was banker and a saver so I grew up valuing saving just because. Like
others here, the site makes it easy to understand how saving (as I read it,
and yes, I know there is a difference) can yield lots of money! Now to share
this with those in the social services world in DC so they can use it in their
financial ed classes.

------
peter303
A variant is start with one penny a day and increase by one penny each day.
People are adults by 10,000 days, middle age by 20,000 and die around 30,000.
The accumulated amount is triangle numbers of days, or the day count squared,
then halved. That would be a half million (10K^2/200), 2 million and 4.5
million dollars respectively for these 10K-round numbers. These are actually
feasible investment amounts.

~~~
huxley
Investing a surplus $100-200 a day everyday of your adult life may stretch the
definition of feasible for most people.

But on the positive side, the amount didn't double every day or you'd
seriously distort the stock market in a matter of weeks.

------
mcone
One of my favorite infographics is this one on the New York Time's website. It
shows how much you would have made on investments over time.

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-
graphic.html)

------
peter303
Investment fees were high more than 25 years ago. I remember paying 3% to buy
or sell a stock in the 1980s when you had to use brokers. That limited the
kind of day trading strategies you could use. Its as little as a hundredth of
a percent now for a large computer executed transaction.

------
geofffox
I am 65. No one 66 or older can use your site because you don't plan for
anyone born before 1950!

~~~
astrodust
It is pretty ridiculous having such an arbitrary cut-off without an
explanation. Is no data available for <1950?

------
toast_coder
This is only true if there were no fees associated with investing, which is
ridiculous. If you went to a stock broker with a dollar per day, you would be
very lucky to end up with $0.01 in equity that day.

~~~
Someone1234
You could just do it in lump sums twice a year or similar. Plus unmanaged
funds like indexes have lower recurring fees than managed funds.

~~~
ovi256
That would reduce the ROI, because doing it often (every day) approximates
continuous exponential growth (e ^ x) while doing it in batches reduces to
power growth (1 + r) ^ x. See the effect this has in the example given here:

[http://math2.org/math/general/interest.htm](http://math2.org/math/general/interest.htm)

~~~
Someone1234
Until you include fees...

------
toado85
Since so many people suggested it should include dividends and dividend
reinvestment, I added that in, based on this chart:
[http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-
yield/table](http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/table) \- as
expected, it makes a huge difference if you go back a ways. (I had no idea
dividends were so much larger in the 50s-80s). There's a toggle button to see
with and without. Thanks again for the feedback!

------
planetjones
Does this take into account commission fees ? If I am charged $7 per trade and
I invest 1$ per day I am losing 6$ per day to commission. Or are you assuming
this is commission free ?

~~~
sundaeofshock
Assuming this is going into an index fund. I'm guessing that fund management
fees are not included.

~~~
VLM
Speaking of commission, it "has to" be a fund because the SP500 is not
constant, companies are continually being added and removed. Otherwise you'd
directly owe substantial commissions and you'd have to be careful to avoid
various capital gains income taxes while endlessly rebalancing.

There are a lot of index funds, for no apparent reason the first one I checked
was VFINX and it's annual expense ratio is 0.17% which is pretty low compared
to the average return over the past 90 years around 10%.

So the actual result would be a little lower, although not staggeringly so.

------
guruparan18
1983 seems to be a magic year (there is couple of years in 1970s and 1950s).
Coincidentally it is my birth year too. It intrigues what is happening with
other peoples investments born on that year. Looking at my investments, how
much are they worth? Not as much as what the tool says, but I do have 75%.
These years (1983,1970 1950), are they special in a way? How are others doing?

------
stolk
Sorry, but those calculations are totally wrong. They use the S&P index to
calculate capital gains.

They ignore the dividends that are paid on your capital, which is a
significant portion of your growth, often even more than the capital gains.

------
JoeAltmaier
What would the present value of that money be, if in a bank? Something to
compare to would be instructive.

For me, the stocks would be ~$260K. Simple interest (7%) would be $207K

~~~
sophacles
Where can you find bank interest over the 1.1% ally is offering? Even if you
did CD ladders,the last 15 years or so have had interest offerings of < 5%,
mostly < 4% on 5 year CDs.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'm older than 15

~~~
sophacles
I'm not saying you aren't - I'm saying that assuming a 7% apr for the last 15
years from banks is not a good one - a savings accounts and CDs just don't pay
out that high. Even if you got some big gains early (80s and early 90s) - the
very low compounding rate since 2000 will squash those bank returns.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Not quite true. Early money dwarfs later money in any calculation. But the
last 15 years would certainly put a damper on things. Would be nice if the app
calculated real interest return for us!

~~~
sophacles
Because I was curious, I looked up historical cd rates and got this:
[http://www.forecast-chart.com/rate-cd-interest.html](http://www.forecast-
chart.com/rate-cd-interest.html)

So i did this:
[https://gist.github.com/sophacles/a4469f5c656e09e4bc1d](https://gist.github.com/sophacles/a4469f5c656e09e4bc1d)

(Note from the end of the chart linked til this month, I assumed the same
interest rate).

And found that investing the once a month in a 6 month cd, with a dollar
amount equal to the number of days in that month, plus reinvesting the amount
coming due (principle + interest) that month from previous CDs, would yeild
way less than the market according to this calculator:

In the CD case - just under $90K In the stock case - just under $560K

If my math turns out to be incorrectly done - please let me know I like to
learn, but I think I did this right.

------
drcode
The problem is that the stock market is a sort of "inefficiency": Companies
would prefer to keep their own profits instead of giving them away to
investors.

Yes, people have done well in the past, but I believe it's entirely possible
for median market gains to disappear in the near future as this inefficiency
is removed: We're seeing the start of this right now, in the way many of the
more desirable "unicorns" are relying mainly on private equity and loans.

------
dghughes
I figured the high interest early 1980s would have made me more money. From
April 1969 to today only $146,000 pfft.

------
chdir
The most interesting thing is the size of various bubbles - the age
distribution of those "who wish" ...

------
GFischer
Well, someone should market this for parents. Definitely an opportunity for
some company.

~~~
Someone1234
They already do, it is called a college fund, or 529 plan. Most parents with
any sense are investing early because that's the only way to save up the
$200,000 that college will cost per kid.

[0] [https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay-for-
college/college-c...](https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay-for-
college/college-costs/college-costs-calculator)

Select public in-state college, and 18 years from now, 4 year, it will cost
$225K. Better get saving!

~~~
GFischer
Ah, ok, I hadn't heard of it in my country, but it makes sense someone in the
US had it :)

College in my country is free if you want to (but many people, including
myself, believe you're better off going to a private, paid university anyways,
for most careers).

------
partiallypro
If you invested $1 in the market for that many years you'd be broke because of
how many fees you'd have to pay for each $1 trade. It would make more sense to
calculate it as $365 per year since your birth, then at least your fees would
be minimal.

------
alanfranzoni
Hindsight forever.

------
justinlardinois
> no one does this

> I didn't have that much money when I was a child

> it was hard to invest in the S&P 500 until recently

A lot of you are missing the point. toado85 clearly made this to illustrate
the behavior of the stock market in the long term; it's not a suggestion that
you literally do what the hypothetical investment is doing.

------
vegabook
Wat? Only 145k since 1969?? I was hoping to be a paper millionaire, minimum.
Glad I spent it on (an average of) a couple of cans of beer a day instead.

------
chrismartinwv
Awesome! Will Retweet this! Thanks :)

