Not to decry your skill level but, if you started almost 40 years ago, would the massive growth of your fund be mainly attributable to that 8th wonder of the world - compounding? Or is it due to large annual returns?I've been a trader for 20 years. Some years I've struggled to do much more than break even. Other years, big winners. Luck has something to do with it, so it's paramount to not let the market wreck you even at the expense of missing opportunity.
I started in the financial markets in '79 with $25/mo bank draft into Templeton Growth Fund. Today, my personal trading capital account is >$10 Million. Trading for a living can be done. Hang in there, and good trading/luck.
Do the math, putting $25 a month, every month for 40 years, compounding every year assuming market return (7%) will get you $64,000.Not to decry your skill level but, if you started almost 40 years ago, would the massive growth of your fund be mainly attributable to that 8th wonder of the world - compounding? Or is it due to large annual returns?
What would you estimate your CAGR to be if you don't mind me asking?
I'm sure that most of us here could learn a few things from you.
Many thanks.
Yes, compounding is amazing but @gnome said that their account stands at $10 million which is a very long way from just $153,000. So the CAGR must be pretty high. Either that or they invested more than the initial start of $25 a month.Do the math, putting $25 a month, every month for 40 years, compounding every year assuming market return (7%) will get you $64,000.
If I am more generous and assume a 9% compounding, you will reach $110,000 in 40 years.
OK, I put in an equivalent of inflation adjusted $25 a month, after 40 years, at 9% compounding I am looking at $153,000.
So IMHO, gnome is the real deal.
A CAGR of ~25%, (which is not unreasonable for someone with a real edge) would get there for him.Yes, compounding is amazing but @gnome said that their account stands at $10 million which is a very long way from just $153,000. So the CAGR must be pretty high. Either that or they invested more than the initial start of $25 a month.
Also, this sort of investment style suits a youngster just starting out and they have the benefit of time and compounding to build their accounts. They can afford a much more passive approach and a much lower annual return if they are looking to retire at 60.
However a 40 year old looking to retire at 60 will need to adopt a much more aggressive investment style to get similar returns to a 20 year old. This is because they will have missed out on the power of compounding that the younger person gets.