30-Year Backtest: Buy and Hold KO (The Coca-Cola Company)

This analysis evaluates a buy-and-hold strategy over the past 30 years, providing a historical perspective on KO's performance from 1995-07-05 to 2025-07-03.

Note: This simulation uses adjusted close prices, meaning all historical prices have been retroactively adjusted for splits and dividends. To achieve similar results in practice, you would need to reinvest all dividends automatically as they are paid.

Performance Overview

Starting with an initial capital of $10,000.00, we purchased shares of KO on 1995-07-05, at a price of $7.49 per share (adjusted for splits and dividends). No trading, no adjustments — just a simple buy-and-hold approach.

We held the position continuously through every market twist and turn, never selling. As of 2025-07-03, the price of KO had risen to $71.35. While we didn't sell, we can still assess the performance by calculating the current value of the investment: $95,313.00 — a total gain of 853.13%.

This translates into an annualized return of 7.81% over the entire period. This return is modest — positive, but below the long-term averages of broad-market investments. It may reflect a conservative strategy or a challenging market period.

Drawdown and Risk

The maximum drawdown recorded during this period was 54.96%. This drawdown began after a peak price of $21.23 on 1998-07-14, and reached its lowest point on 2003-03-10 when the price fell to $9.56. The drawdown lasted for 1700 days.

The drawdown was substantial, though not uncommon for long-term equity strategies that span full market cycles. This level suggests exposure to significant corrections or crashes. The maximum drawdown lasted over three years — a very long decline that would have tested even the most patient investors. Such extended recoveries are rare but not impossible during major structural bear markets.

The Calmar Ratio — annualized return divided by maximum drawdown — was 0.14, reflecting the tradeoff between return and volatility.

The return-to-risk efficiency is weak — drawdowns were relatively large compared to the returns achieved.