![]() |
|
Home Base A starting point, and place for threads don't seem to belong anywhere else |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#39 |
changed his status to single
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
|
has anyone taken the time to figure out why it is better to choose a solid fund with what seem like mediocre returns, compared to grabbing the best performers and running with them?
it's simple - the arithmetic of loss is devastating. grab your calculator. this is an extreme example but say you are really aggressive (that is the only way to show HUGE gains on individual equities) - starting with $100K 1st year - 60% gain 2nd year - 40% loss 3rd - 60% gain 4th -40% loss you would have $92K left. a fund that only got 5% 3 out of 4 years and broke even on the 4th. 5% is half of what most decent funds are doing over a 10 year period. 1st - 5% gain 2nd - 5% gain 3rd -5% gain 4th - 0% gain (conservative funds are designed to NOT lose money on the bad years. everyone gains money on good years - it is what happens during the down times that matters.) you would end with $115K going at it extremely conservatively. in reality the fund i have been talking about has averaged an 11.35% return over the last 10 years AFTER sales charges. 4th - 0% gain
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|