Dow 30,000 Projections–again?

Dow 30,000 Projections–again?

September 23, 2014 Uncategorized
Print Friendly
(Last Updated On: January 18, 2017)

We were all chatting in the office today making fun of our own predictions and the predictions of others. The conversation quickly turned to the ridiculous Dow Jones Index projections that were being discussed in the late ’90s.

Remarkably, Dow 30,000 projections are still in vogue (see below).

First an example of a 1999 Dow projection:

Back in July 1999, Fayez Sarofim saw a 30,000 Dow in 2007.

And why not? The charts all pointed up:

dow1
Dow Index 03/1994 – 07/19/1999

Now a more recent projection:

Last year there was another 30,000 prediction for 2023.
And why not? The charts all point up:
dow2
Dow Index 03/2009 – 09/2014

We’re gonna throw our projection out there:

Dow 1,000,000 by 2100.


Note: This site provides NO information on our value investing ETFs or our momentum investing ETFs. Please refer to this site.


Join thousands of other readers and subscribe to our blog.


Please remember that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Please read our full disclosures. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Alpha Architect, its affiliates or its employees. This material has been provided to you solely for information and educational purposes and does not constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer or any advice or recommendation to purchase any securities or other financial instruments and may not be construed as such. The factual information set forth herein has been obtained or derived from sources believed by the author and Alpha Architect to be reliable but it is not necessarily all-inclusive and is not guaranteed as to its accuracy and is not to be regarded as a representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the information’s accuracy or completeness, nor should the attached information serve as the basis of any investment decision. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission from Alpha Architect.


Definitions of common statistics used in our analysis are available here (towards the bottom)




About the Author

Wesley R. Gray, Ph.D.

After serving as a Captain in the United States Marine Corps, Dr. Gray earned a PhD, and worked as a finance professor at Drexel University. Dr. Gray’s interest in bridging the research gap between academia and industry led him to found Alpha Architect, an asset management that delivers affordable active exposures for tax-sensitive investors. Dr. Gray has published four books and a number of academic articles. Wes is a regular contributor to multiple industry outlets, to include the following: Wall Street Journal, Forbes, ETF.com, and the CFA Institute. Dr. Gray earned an MBA and a PhD in finance from the University of Chicago and graduated magna cum laude with a BS from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.


  • Michael Milburn

    Hi Wesley, you’re putting scary thoughts in my head w/ those graphs!

    Off topic question: Have you posted on volatility, and what you feel are the root sources of volatility – particularly why some stocks are much more volatile than others? A google search is not helping me much with various perspectives on what’s behind volatility (behavioral or otherwise). In particular I’m trying to get my head around the root causes for persistent day-to-day volatility moreso than event driven volatility.

    I appreciate any pointers.

  • Michael,
    You are asking the same question that the recent Nobel Prize Winner–Robert Shiller– asked 30+ years ago. Why are stocks so much more volatile than one would expect, given the volatility of the news affecting fundamentals.
    Here is a link to the paper: https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/top20/71.3.421-436.pdf

    The short answer is behavioral finance. Human behavior, primarily overconfidence in one’s own information set, probably drives excess trading in the marketplace that isn’t justified by fundamentals.