Skip to footer

Bull markets: how this one stacks up in history

The bull market that started in 2009 is proving to be one for the history books. From 2009 through the end of 2013, the market is up 173 percent, as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500 index. So how does that stack up against the biggest bull markets of the past eight decades? Take a look:

1. 1987-2000 – 582 percent gain

Ruby Washington/The New York Times/AP/File
Traders celebrate on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange following the Dow's surpassing of 10,000 points for the first time in the exchange's history during intraday trading March 16, 1999. A year later, the S&P 500 would peak at 1527.46, capping a 12-year run in which stocks would rise nearly 600 percent.

The biggest bull market of the past eight decades – and the longest – began soon after a huge market scare. On Oct. 19, 1987, which would become known as "Black Monday," the S&P fell a whopping 20 percent. There were concerns about federal tax policy and interest rate hikes at the time, but nothing prepared investors for a one-day fall of that magnitude. The market rose and fell inconclusively over the next month and a half and then began a relentless rise that would last more than 12 years without a 20 percent correction. Stocks rose as interest rates fell and the economy grew. Near the end of the 1990s, the market roared ahead on enthusiasm about new Internet companies. By the time the market peaked in early 2000, the value of stocks had increased nearly seven-fold.

Since then, stocks have spent more than a decade floundering, first from the dot-com crash of the early 2000s and then the financial crisis of the late 2000s. From its record-setting peak in 2007, the S&P would take another 5-1/2 years before setting a new record high on the last trading day in March 2013. The index closed above the 1600 level for the first time in early May. Still, the S&P would have to rise above 4600 to match the performance of the 1987-2000 bull market.

5 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.