tar42:

Chin>"Even forgetting the benefits of asset allocation, 100% S&P 500 wouldn't have done near the damage the Wall Street media did to investors in 2000 - 2003."

Huh?

2000 - 2003, mutual fund investors lost 80%. The S&P 500 only lost 40% -- for the whole 3 years.

Edited to add this;

Clements had DALBAR look at this with a different methodology, which offered better results, but still not too flattering for market timing. Per this method, which considered the size of all funds as moneys flowed into them, the investors managed a 5.1% return for this period and the funds themselves didn’t return but 9.9%, even though the S&P 500 returned 12.2%.

Per the second method, 1984 - 1999, investors earned 17.1% to the 18.1% for the S&P 500, so they did pretty well during the bull market; not so well during the bear market. Even at their lower returns for the 16 year period, they still would have lost 80% 2000 - 2002, as opposed to the S&P 500 38% loss for the full 3 years.

Chin