That is not what I said at all, sure the 45 year guy could recoup his loses, but the 57 year old guy sure as hell could not if he had planned to retire at 62. Here are my exact words.
"But lets say I was retiring in 2008, my retirement account was cut in half. Now one is saying that long term, you are not better off in the market, but that is over a 20 to 40 year span.
A 57 year old guy in 2007, looking to retire at 62 would not have come close to doubling his money back.
You morphed an earlier post and tried to combine the two. Here is the earlier post.
No one is saying they are not, but for a 45 year old guy with a half million in his 401K to think that the money or more will be there when he can draw it out at 59.5 is silly. It might be, but it might not. A lot of people I know lost hundreds of thousands in the last market crash, and this bull market cannot go on forever.
You stated that it’s silly to expect the money to be the same or higher after 14.5 years. It’s boldes above, your words. Why is it silly to expect the money to at least maintain its principal over 14.5 years? What data in the stock market are you using to state that it’s “silly” to expect even money over 14.5 years?
Once again I’m anxiously awaiting the facts to back your assertion.