Hedge Funds Q1 2019 YTD best aggregate returns since start of 2012

ElCubano said:
The millionaire next door much easier during the golden age of America which is behind us. When one parent worked and fed an entire family. Now we have debt and credit expansion where once we had real industry growth. One of our biggest calculations in GDP is moving money around and less manufacturing real growth.
More...

no excuses... NDX return has not been slowing down in recent years... who cares about manufacturing... we have computers doubling speed every x months... exponential growth is IN FRONT OF us, not behind us!

it's easy to look back and say ah the golden ages... because you didn't experience the hardship of the people back then! hot wars, cold wars, real threat of nuclear heads raining down on you... and you think that was easy?

the global economic engine has never been this robust.

the reason you feel negative is because the media machine controlled by my pro boys want you think this way... they will never advertise that this is the best time to invest and the stocks valuation is so cheap... they will only let you know when they have finished their accumulation and mark up phases and ready to distribute!

independent thinking...positive thinking, not looking for excuses.

the luck is only there for the better prepared
 
dozu888 said:
NDX return has not been slowing down in recent years...
More...
Considering that NDX only recently (2016 or so) recovered back to the peak of 2000, it' not surprising that it's been showing good growth. A dollar invested in QQQ in March of 2000 would only breakeven in 2013 or so on total return basis (I don't have the total return in front of me but that should be roughly right).
 
sle said:
Considering that NDX only recently (2016 or so) recovered back to the peak of 2000, it' not surprising that it's been showing good growth. A dollar invested in QQQ in March of 2000 would only breakeven in 2013 or so on total return basis (I don't have the total return in front of me but that should be roughly right).
More...

http://financeandinvestments.blogsp...nasdaq-100-1986.html?_sm_au_=iVV1HJ1fPrMP0Rsj

13% nominal, since the day it was born... of course nothing is 100% certain, that's why bank CD only returns 2%

plus the fact that if you deposit $1000 per month you should perform better long term due to the volatility (you buy more shares at cheaper)... the simple savings calculator assumes a smooth ascend of 12%

so 13% with volatility, your internal rate of return IRR should be close to 14-15%, make you millionaire even faster.

again... no excuses.
 
dozu888 said:
no excuses... NDX return has not been slowing down in recent years... who cares about manufacturing... we have computers doubling speed every x months... exponential growth is IN FRONT OF us, not behind us!

it's easy to look back and say ah the golden ages... because you didn't experience the hardship of the people back then! hot wars, cold wars, real threat of nuclear heads raining down on you... and you think that was easy?

the global economic engine has never been this robust.

the reason you feel negative is because the media machine controlled by my pro boys want you think this way... they will never advertise that this is the best time to invest and the stocks valuation is so cheap... they will only let you know when they have finished their accumulation and mark up phases and ready to distribute!

independent thinking...positive thinking, not looking for excuses.

the luck is only there for the better prepared
More...


I didn't name it the Golden Age and that name was given because of the incredible opportunity for growth, etc. Hell, I was just a kid towards the end of that age and wasn't even here.

There is no denying there is opportunity always, to most at any given time. There was just an abundance of more of it back in the golden age. War, nuclear threat etc has nothing to do with making money. We certainly have worries now, like are they going to cancel the Kardashians reality TV show.:D

Take a look at Russian Oligarchs and see if they could have repeated making those billions during any other period in their lives. Yes they were smart, they were smart to be at the right place and the right time.

And I have made a lost tons of money all through my life. All from Hustle, Brute force, luck and 80's flow of white thunder. lol.
 
dozu888 said:
so 13% with volatility, your internal rate of return IRR should be close to 14-15%, make you millionaire even faster.
More...
Average annual returns are severely misleading since you can't eat percentages. Let's take an average Joe that's averaging into his retirement. A simple historical calculation shows that to have roughly a million dollars in QQQ shares today, he'd have to buy about 50 dollars worth of QQQ every trading day since 1999 when it was first listed. That means he'd have invested 250k to make a million dollars, give or take. What's the IRR on that?

PS. With dividend reinvestment he would be a little better off, but not by much (tech divs are low).

PPS. This is a typical example of volatility rebalancing tax, FWIW
 
sle said:
Average annual returns are severely misleading since you can't eat percentages. Let's take an average Joe that's averaging into his retirement. A simple historical calculation shows that to have roughly a million dollars in QQQ shares today, he'd have to buy about 50 dollars worth of QQQ every trading day since 1999 when it was first listed. That means he'd have invested 250k to make a million dollars, give or take. What's the IRR on that?

PS. With dividend reinvestment he would be a little better off, but not by much (tech divs are low).

PPS. This is a typical example of volatility rebalancing tax, FWIW
More...

250k sounds about right... that savings calculator example is about 241k... so you see even if you factor in 2 major bears one still comes out ok.... and right if you consider dividends should n't need the entire 250k.

volatility is friend with this type of investing... so the IRR should be close to the nominal 13% give or take.

then if you pick 20 year periods without 2 major bears, you'd likely have better results.
 
dozu888 said:
250k sounds about right... that savings calculator example is about 241k... so you see even if you factor in 2 major bears one still comes out ok.... and right if you consider dividends should n't need the entire 250k.
More...
yeah, I'd recon 241 is with div reinvestment. So the rate of return is ln(1mm/241)/20 which makes it roughly 6.5 percent? Nice, but not thrilling, considering that he would have done equally well buying TLTs (maybe even better).
 
the thing is - this type of thing is so simple and straight forward yet almost nobody talks about it on ET... everyone wants to make 1m yesterday...

markets go up and down and there is so few discussion about playing the game at the rhythm the pros play -

introducing a narrative
spreading the narrative
harvest from public reaction
rinse repeat
milking the earning cycle

this is how the market breathes.. yet everyone trying to figure out how to make 25 cents jumping in and out all day.

and even if you don't want to bother with all that to enhance that 13% to 16-18% or more, it's still enough to get you to a decent spot.
 
sle said:
yeah, I'd recon 241 is with div reinvestment. So the rate of return is ln(1mm/241)/20 which makes it roughly 6.5 percent? Nice, but not thrilling, considering that he would have done equally well buying TLTs (maybe even better).
More...

no your math is wrong.... you don't have 241 all in at the beginning... this is a monthly deposit.

if you plug in 6.5 in the savings calculator you end up MUCH less after 20 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top