The main problem is that indexes like the FTSE only show growth in share price. The FTSE 100 is, by definition large companies, and most of those would be regarded as dividend rather than growth stocks.
You need to look at a total return index to get a more accurate picture because if you reinvested dividends you would see an additional ~4% compound growth ...
It depends which 3 years (and which 15). If you had bought the S&P500 index fund in the 2004-2005 time range, your 3 year returns would be small, nothing, or even negative, depending on how exactly you timed it, whereas waiting 15 year (until about now) would have more than doubled (nearly tripled, again depending on exact timing) your investment. See ...
This is a basic arithmetic. If investment A and investment B both provide a 20% return and investment A provides 4 times the dollar return than B then one must invest 4 times as much in A.
Given that they provided the same return, neither investment was better than the other.
"the average return for 3, 5, 10, 15 years is 9%, 8%, 13% and 7.6% respectively"
I suspect this really means that the returns using the S&P average over the previous 3, 5, 10, 15 years is … . The answer you are quoting from seems to be simply giving examples of how the market has performed recently in order to give an idea of what is a reasonable ...
Self-answer—how awfully embarrassing, I had a bug in how I was handling dividends, in both
the Google Sheets spreadsheet and
(I was basically not reinvesting dividends…)
With this correction, the result is better: the excess return, investing the CPI every month, over the last forty years has been 5.8%.
I noticed that the ...
You can use either method, as long as you are consistent for comparisons of, say, fund A vs fund B. Average monthly return * 12 is simple and basic. Geometric mean compounded to an annual figure is more accurate and rigorous.
For example 4 monthly returns: 0.032, -0.053, 0.052, 0.014
Mean annual return
(0.032 - 0.053 + 0.052 + 0.014)/4*12 = 13.5 %
Here is a DRIP calculator that allows you to compare the performance of ETFs and stocks with and without dividend reinvestment. You have to do them one at a time:
There are lots of screeners available. For example, you can look up various ETF performance stats at:
I know that my logic is missing something crucial as I always assumed that the longer you leave your money for the closer it approaches to the long term average return. If you can get 9% a year for 3 years, but 7.6% a year for 15 years couldn't you just do the 3 year hold 5 times?
The error in this logic? How will you know when to buy and hold for only 3 ...
Look at it this way.
Let's say you invest $100,000 in bonds issued by 100 different companies. (Large, round numbers because those make it easier to do calculations.) The average bond returns 7% per year.
Without any credit events, after the first year, you will have collected $7,000 (7%) in interest payments, thereby having a grand total of $107,000.
Return refers to (New Price - Old Price) ÷ Old Price and is expressed in %.
Once you have gathered the daily returns of a stock (e.g. 250 days) and the daily returns of the broad market index of the appropriate industry or country, you will notice that when market goes up, the stock also goes up by a certain ratio (also known as Beta).
Suppose on average ...
4 years seems a little high for a break-even point. One rule of thumb I've seen is that you should refinance if you can reduce your rate by 1% or more. I assume you're rolling your closing costs into the new mortgage, which increases your principle and raises your payment, lessening the improvement.
If you can afford to pay $2,100 per month, then look at ...
According to Morningstar, the monthly returns for SPX were:
January February March April May June
2019 7.87 2.97 1.79 3.93 -6.58 6.89
The problem is that you either have bad data from AlphaVantage or your data query from AlphaVantage was incorrect.
Monthly return is not calculated from the opening ...
The Center for Research in Security Prices from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business has thorough tables and graphs with the properties of stock returns from 1926 to today.
You may want to particularly look at the graph "Investing for Long Term" that address your question of how ...
The most precise calculation with the given information would be the internal rate of return (IRR). A time-weighted return would be better, but that would require the investment values at 30 & 50 days.
I.e. Solve for x
∴ x = 13.9461 % over 68 days
Annualised = (1 + 0.139461)^(365/...
Actually, you would take the Dec '13 adjusted close, not the Jan '14 adjusted close, otherwise you'd leave out one month of returns.
But the formula would be
End. Adj. Close - Beg. Adj. Close
Beg. Adj. Close
End. Adj. Close
--------------- - 1
Beg. Adj. Close
Isn't the decision at this point weighed on the dollar amount of gains?
Not necessarily. Each has the same percentage return but other variables could some into play. How much capital do you have total? What are you going to do with the capital that you don't spend?
For example, suppose you have $200 total to invest. You also find Investment C with a 30% ...
The final value would be $629,811.05. Try using this calculator: https://dqydj.com/etf-return-calculator/.
The problem with your calculation is (1) it won't include dividends, and (2) The initial $30,000 will have earned 13.42% interest annually, the final 30K would have earned 15.34% annually (according to your chart). i.e. the growth rate is not ...
It's literally the growth of earnings (or net profit) per share. Note that both of these returns are rates, not amounts.
For dividend yield, you take the dividend amount divided the the stock price at the time of the dividend to get a rate (like 5%). you can then average the rates over the time period you're interested in.
For earnings growth, you'd ...
Comparing their IRR is not the right approach to the actual question - "Is this a worthwhile investment?" You are given the required return (8%) and would take the net cash flow for each period. If the NPV of the combined projects is positive then it's a worthwhile project.
The cash flows for Property 2 that are "lost" when it is sold could be considered ...
The simplest method is to calculate the return from Jan 1 to Mar 1 (before the investment), then the gain from Mar 1 to Apr 1 (including the investment) and compounding them. This is called time-weighted return.
Say the initial balance on Jan 1 was $10,000. On Mar 1 the balance (before the investment) was $11,000. your gain for that period is thus 10% (11/...
It's just a simplification. If you make r before tax, then pay t% tax on r, then your net return after tax is
r - t*r = (1-t)r
Note that t in the formula is in decimal form, meaning if the tax rate is 30%, then t will be 0.30.
Part of the reason you're seeing this trend is that you're looking at a particularly interesting time in the history of the stock market. It includes the September 11th market drop which in turn led to the Great Recession. The period from somewhere around 2000 - 2012 is considered "The Lost Decade." Essentially that means that stock prices went from where ...
Excluding trading fees, expense ratios, and tracking error (which you didn't mention) then, in theory, there should be no difference. I would also say that you wouldn't rebalance annually in this case, since the weighting of EM within the broad index should not be constant - it should change with the relative performance of EM stocks.
Obviously, with global ...
My first three thoughts are:
expense ratios (which might benefit you if the individual funds are cheaper than VXUS),
realized capital gains tax when re-balancing taxable accounts to maintain the correct ratios, and
lower barrier of entry: if you buy mutual funds, the smallest percentage fund would still require a (typically) minimum $3,000, so you'll need ...
Q1: A seven day yield isn't what it sounds like. Put simply: A seven day yield is a projection of expected behavior based upon the historical data from the previous seven days. It is a guesstimate for the coming year; it is not the amount that you can expect to receive back into your account over the course of 7 days.
As for your equation, you have a few ...
The simplest method would be to take note of the value of all your holdings each time you trade. Then you have simple returns from one trade to the next over your whole portfolio.
Example calculation here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/98132/11768
Here is how I would approach this. Taking the rates, 1.8% and 2%, as effective annual rates.
deposit = 60000
fees = 15000
house = 145000
loan = house + fees - deposit = 100000
loanrate = 1.8/100 = 0.018
monthlyloanrate = (1 + loanrate)^(1/12) - 1 = 0.00148777
numberofmonths = 20*12 = 240
s = loan
r = monthlyloanrate
n = numberofmonths
d = ...
You have one minor flaw:
So after X years, I would have paid back 116*X/20 of the loan,
Loan principal does not decrease linearly - you pay back very little principal at the beginning (since most of your payment in interest) and it accelerates as you pay it down.
Plus you don't "owe" 116k out of the gate. You only owe 100, so using 116*X/20 would be ...