Shares always increase in the long term

[Rev. Green]

If you'd bought each of the FTSE 100 shares fifty years ago and kept them, BAT would have done well, most of the rest wouldn' t now be in the top 100.

If you'd sold each as it left the top 100 and bought new entrants, you'd have been selling low and buying high.

If, fifty years ago, you'd bought the companies that make up the top 100 now you'd be doing well.

As the final scenario is clearly impossible does anyone believe the widely reported view that "shares always increase in the long term"?

[kempie]

Some shares will increase, others will decrease and yet others will become worthless. An unqualified statement such as "shares always increase in the long term" is obviously farcical.

(btw FTSE 100 didn't exist until 25 years ago)

[factor-fiction]

I'm not sure of the relevance of the bit about being in the top 100. Isn't teh top 100 based on criteria other than just how well the share price has done.
Dividends also have to be taken into account
The trouble with comparing share prices is that it depends on which dates you use for the comparison exercise. I am sure one could find a 20 year period over which most shares would have made you a great return, and then by tweaking the dates by a few months you could show a poor return.

[Rollo]

"If, fifty years ago, you'd bought the companies that make up the top 100 now you'd be doing well."

That's impossible, because lots of the current FTSE 100 companies were not in existence 50 years ago.

The criterion for getting included in the FTSE 100 is the company's market capitalization.

All that can be said is that if you hold a sufficiently diversified portfolio of shares then in the long term your holdings tend to appreciate in value based on historical trends. There is no guarantee that what has happened in the past will happen in the future.