How to find trailing 5-year stock returns for 1980s?
I dont know if this data is available for the 1980s, but this response to an old question of mine discusses how you can pull stock related information from google or yahoo finance over a certain period of time. You could do this in excel or google spreadsheet and see if you could get the data you're looking for.  Quote from old post: Google Docs spreadsheets have a   function for filling in stock and fund   prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1   / fund2) over some time period.
"Pay off the credit cards.  From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly.  Under no circumstances should you borrow money.  You have net worth but no external income.  Borrowing is useless to you.   $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee.  Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings.  The remainder put into CDs.  Don't expect interest income beyond inflation.  Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative.   People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds.  The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up.  The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either.  It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover.  You don't want to be withdrawing from losses.   Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks.  But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds.  Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks.  Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture.  That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips.  And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40.   $700,000 in stock mutual funds.  $300,000 in bond mutual funds.  Look for broad indexes rather than high returns.  You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even.  That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year.  Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25.  You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts.  That's the money you have to spend each year.  Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation.   Don't try to time the market.  Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing.  Play the odds instead.  Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you.  If you chase it, you are likely to lose money.   If you don't spend money this year, you can save it for next year.  Anything beyond $200,000 in the bank accounts is available for spending.  In an emergency you may have to draw down the $200,000.  Be careful.  It's not as big a cushion as it seems, because you don't have an external income to replace it.   I live in southern California but would like to move overseas after establishing stable investments.   I am not the type of person that would invest in McDonald's, but would consider other less evil franchises (maybe?).   These are contradictory goals, as stated.  A franchise (meaning a local business of a national brand) is not a ""stable investment"".  A franchise is something that you actively manage.  At minimum, you have to hire someone to run the franchise.  And as a general rule, they aren't as turnkey as they promise.   How do you pick a good manager?  How will you tell if they know how the business works?  Particularly if you don't know.  How will you tell that they are honest and won't just embezzle your money?  Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable?  Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue?   Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise.  If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs.  I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies.  McDonald's pays its workers too little.  Google invades privacy.  Exxon is bad for the environment.  Chase collects fees from people desperate for money.  Tesla relies on government subsidies.  Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered ""evil"".  And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch.   Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks.  If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing.  It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained.   In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first.  Rent a small place for a few months.  Find out how much it costs to live there.  Remember to leave money for bigger expenses.  You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now.  Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month).  Make sure that you have health insurance arranged.   Eventually you may buy a place.  If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000.  Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US.  Think rural, like the South or Midwest.  And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia.  Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible.  You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property.  In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast.  They may use different terms elsewhere.   Given your health, do you need a maid/cook?  That would lean towards something like a bed and breakfast, where the same person can clean for both you and the guests.  Same with cooking, although that might be a second person (or more).  Hire a bookkeeper/accountant first, as you'll want help evaluating potential purchases.  Keep the business small enough that you can actively monitor it.   Part of the problem here is that a million dollars sounds like a lot of money but isn't.  You aren't rich.  This is about bare minimum for surviving with a middle class lifestyle in the United States and other first world countries.  You can't live like a tourist.   It's true that many places overseas are cheaper.  But many aren't (including much of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.).  And the ones that aren't may surprise you.  And you also may find that some of the things that you personally want or need to buy are expensive elsewhere.  Dabble first and commit slowly; be sure first.  Include rarer things like travel in your expenses.   Long term, there will be currency rate worries overseas.  If you move permanently, you should certainly move your bank accounts there relatively soon (perhaps keep part of one in the US for emergencies that may bring you back).  And move your investments as well.  Your return may actually improve, although some of that is likely to be eaten up by inflation.  A 10% return in a country with 12% inflation is a negative real return.   Try to balance your investments by where your money gets spent.  If you are eating imported food, put some of the investment in the place from which you are importing.  That way, if exchange rates push your food costs up, they will likely increase your investments at the same time.  If you are buying stuff online from US vendors and having it shipped to you, keep some of your investments in the US for the same reason.  Make currency fluctuations work with you rather than against you.   I don't know what your circumstances are in terms of health.  If you can work, you probably should.  Given twenty years, your million could grow to enough to live off securely.  As is, you would be in trouble with another stock market crash.  You'd have to live off the bank account money while you waited for your stocks and bonds to recover." The long term view you are referring to would be over 30 to 40 years (i.e. your working life). Yes in general you should be going for higher growth options when you are young. As you approach retirement you may change to a more balanced or capital guaranteed option. As the higher growth options will have a larger proportion of funds invested into higher growth assets like shares and property, they will be affected by market movements in these asset classes. So when there is a market crash like with the GFC in 2007/2008 and share prices drop by 40% to 50%, then this will have an effect on your superannuation returns for that year. I would say that if your fund was invested mainly in the Australian stock market over the last 7 years your returns would still be lower than what they were in mid-2007, due to the stock market falls in late 2007 and early 2008. This would mean that for the 7 year time frame your returns would be lower than a balanced or capital guaranteed fund where a majority of funds are invested in bonds and other fixed interest products. However, I would say that for the 5 and possibly the 10 year time frames the returns of the high growth options should have outperformed the balanced and capital guaranteed options. See examples below: First State Super  AMP Super  Both of these examples show that over a 5 year period or less the more aggressive or high growth options performed better than the more conservative options, and over the 7 year period for First State Super the high growth option performed similar to the more conservative option. Maybe you have been looking at funds with higher fees so in good times when the fund performs well the returns are reduced by excessive fees and when the fund performs badly in not so good time the performance is even worse as the fees are still excessive. Maybe look at industry type funds or retail funds that charge much smaller fees. Also, if a fund has relatively low returns during a period when the market is booming, maybe this is not a good fund to choose. Conversely, it the fund doesn't perform too badly when the market has just crashed, may be it is worth further investigating. You should always try to compare the performance to the market in general and other similar funds. Remember, super should be looked at over a 30 to 40 year time frame, and it is a good idea to get interested in how your fund is performing from an early age, instead of worrying about it only a few years before retirement. "Question 1: How do I start? or ""the broker"" problem Get an online broker.  You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart.  The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it.  There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients.  As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up.  As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down.  Same for bonds.  For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%.  But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield.  The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%.  (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify).  ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down.  Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs.  CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts.  I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time.  b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields.  As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait.  Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out." "Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company.   This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its   assets to produce earnings. I suspect the ""Average Total Equity"" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a ""traditional"" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses ""Earnings from Continuing Operations"", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give." Well, you probably already know this, but no-one can guarantee you results...in any economic climate.  Even traditionally low risk investments now seem higher risk to people when the economic forecasts are grim.  That being said, 0.5% is pretty low.  So, where does that leave you? Why not start with a risk tolerance analysis for yourself.  There's a bunch on them on the internet if you google it.  Here's one:  Rutgers Financial Risk Tolerance Quiz Based on the result you get back, and whether you agree with it or not, this may give you a starting point for determining if entering the stock market is right for you.  I'm guessing you can get better than 0.5% return over 10 years pretty easily though. In my mind, when looking at a five year period you have a number of options. You didn't specify where you are based, which admittedly makes it harder, to give you good advice. If you are looking for an investment that can achieve large gains, equities are impossible to ignore. By investing in an index fund or other diverse asset forms (such as mutual funds), your risk is relatively minimal. However there has historically been five year periods where you would lose/flatline your money. If this was to be the case you would likely be better off waiting more than five years to buy a house, which would be frustrating. When markets rebound, they often do it hard. If you are in a major economy, taking something like the top 100 of your stock market is a safe bet, although admittedly you would have made terrible returns if you invested in the Polish markets. While they often achieve lower returns than equity investments, they are generally considered safer - especially government issued bonds. If you were willing to sacrifice returns for safety, you must always consider them.  This is an interesting new addition, and I can't comment on the state of it in the United States, however in Europe we have a number of platforms which do this. In the UK, for example you can achieve ~7.3% returns YoY using sites like Funding Circle. If you invest in a diverse range of businesses, you have minimal risk from and individual company not paying. Elsewhere in Europe (although not appropriate for me as everything I do is denominated in Sterling), you can secure 12% in places like Georgia, Poland, and Estonia. This is a very good rate and the platforms seem reputable, and 'guarantee' their loans. However unlike funding circle, they are for consumer loans. The risk profile in my mind is similar to that of equities, but it is hard to say. Whatever you do, you need to do your homework, and ensure that you can handle the level of risk offered by the investments you make. I haven't included things like Savings accounts in here, as the rates aren't worth bothering with. I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories.   It has more info available for free than some may realize.  Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats.  (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number.  That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC.  (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here.  You can do a search to find the Zacks website.  I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice.  It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer.  I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist.  It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it.  littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free.  Maybe this is a project that needs to happen.  With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API.  But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter.  So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF!  A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings?  Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent.  I know that SE prides itself on focused answers.  A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate. "If they return to their earlier prices Assuming I don't make too many poor choices That's your problem right there: you have no guarantee that stocks, will in fact return to their earlier prices rather than go down some more after the time you buy them. Your strategy only looks good and easy  in hindsight when you know the exact point in time when stocks stopped going down and started going up. But to implement it, you need to predict that time, and that's impossible. I would adopt a guideline of ""sell when you've made X%, even if it looks like it might go higher."" Congratulations, you've come up with the concept of technical analysis. Now go and read the hundreds of books that have been written about it, then think about why the people who wrote them waste time doing so rather than getting rich by using that knowledge."