Annual returns from 1995 to 2025 for the S&P 500 index with dividends reinvested and the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond, based on the historical dataset published by Aswath Damodaran (NYU Stern). These are nominal figures in U.S. dollars: a euro-based investor would have seen a different result depending on currency movements, and this series tracks U.S. stocks, not global markets. It's useful for understanding the shape of what happens — the bad years, their order, and how long they take to recover — not for predicting your specific portfolio.
The trajectory, year by year
—
What if you had started in a different year
The exact same plan — same amount, same contribution, same allocation, and the same duration — moved to every possible starting point within the series. This is sequence of returns risk: the strategy doesn't change, only the year it happened to start.
—
The detail, year by year
| Year | Stocks | Bonds | Your portfolio | Contributed | Balance |
|---|
Rows with a reddish background are years when the portfolio lost value. Assumptions behind the calculation: the monthly contribution is added at the start of each month and compounds at the monthly equivalent of that year's return — the actual distribution of returns within the year wasn't uniform, so the intermediate balances are approximate, not the exact historical path; the portfolio is rebalanced to the chosen allocation every January 1; and no fees, taxes, or inflation are deducted. For the effect of fees, use the fee impact calculator; capital gains tax when you sell isn't covered here.
What each figure means
A quick look at each field and each result.
The exact period being simulated. If the total goes past 2025, the duration is trimmed automatically and flagged: the series ends where the real data ends.
The split between stocks and bonds. If you're not sure what to use, work it out first with the asset allocation calculator.
The sum of the initial amount plus every monthly contribution. It's the baseline everything else is measured against.
The geometric mean of the portfolio's yearly returns, not the arithmetic one: it's the measure that actually reflects the effect of stringing good and bad years together. A +50% year followed by a −50% year doesn't average to 0 — it comes out to −13.4%.
The calendar year in which the portfolio lost the most. Think of it as the number you'd have had to stomach on your statement without selling.
The largest decline from a peak to the low that follows, which almost never fits inside a single year: 2000-2002 was three years in a row. It's the honest measure of what you have to endure.
The same plan moved to every possible starting year with that same duration. The gap between the two is what the luck of the calendar contributed, not the strategy.
The result that landed right in the middle of all the possible starting points. It's usually a more reasonable reference than the best or worst case.
What you put in all at once at the start. The simulator compounds this money for the entire duration alongside the monthly contributions that follow.
What you contribute each month, at the start of the month. Use the shortcut buttons to test how the result changes if you stop contributing or increase the amount.
How to use this calculator
Steps to use the simulator (expand)
- Start with a moment that teaches you something. The four shortcut buttons jump to the interesting starting points: the 2000 peak, the 2008 bottom, the following year, and the run-up to 2022. Comparing 2008 with 2009 is the fastest lesson on this page.
- Enter your real numbers. Initial amount and monthly contribution, so the result is yours and not an abstract example.
- Set your allocation. If you haven't decided yet, work it out first with the asset allocation calculator and bring it here to see how it would actually have performed.
- Look at the worst year and the largest cumulative drawdown, not just the final value. Those two figures are what you would have had to endure to get to the end.
- Scroll down to the starting-point panel. That's where it matters: how much of the result depended on the year you started rather than on what you actually did.
- Read the source and the assumptions. This is U.S. stock market data in dollars, with no fees or taxes. Knowing what the number doesn't include is part of knowing how to read it.
Frequently asked questions about this simulator
Why U.S. stock market data in dollars, and not the MSCI World in euros?
Because it's the long, free, and verifiable series that exists: the Damodaran dataset goes back to 1928, and anyone can check it. Year-by-year MSCI World series in euros, going back decades, are only available behind a paywall, and publishing numbers without being able to cite where they came from would be worse than this limitation. For what this page is meant to do — show the order and depth of the bad years — the shape is quite similar; for your specific portfolio, the figures don't translate directly.
Why does the same plan produce such different results depending on the starting year?
Because with periodic contributions, the order in which the bad years arrive matters. If they come early, when the portfolio is still small, they barely hurt and they buy in cheap for years afterward. If they come late, once a lot has already accumulated, the decline hits the whole balance. This is sequence of returns risk, and it's why it's worth looking at the worst possible start and not just the average.
Was starting in 2008, in the middle of the crisis, a disaster?
Try it with the two buttons and compare: someone who started in 2008 took the −37% hit right away with very little money in the account, then kept contributing for years at low prices. It's a real example of why a decline at the start, with contributions still coming in, isn't the same as a decline at the end.
Why do bonds also lose money in 2022?
Because it really happened: that year, bonds fell almost as much as stocks, something unusual that broke the assumption that bonds always cushion the blow. It's in the series unedited, and it's why the asset allocation calculator doesn't treat bonds as risk-free.
Does it include fees, taxes, and inflation?
No, none of the three — and all three matter. Fees eat into that return every year (see the fee impact calculator), taxes apply when you sell, and inflation reduces what that money can buy (the compound interest calculator works in today's dollars). The result here is gross and nominal on purpose, so you can see only the effect of the market.
Are the intermediate balances the exact historical path?
No, they're approximate. Each year's return is real, but it's spread within the year at a constant monthly rate, and the market didn't move that smoothly. The year-end closing values are correct; the path within each year is smoothed.