Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes that is great but that does not mean that I got all of those return based on what the company did in the last two years. Remember that I have been buying shares in that fund for nearly 30 years. I have lots of shares. Think about the mechanics of that before you say that it is risky.
The number of shares is completely irrelevant when it comes to returns. All that matters is the amount of $ invested and the percentage return on that money. A 90% (or whatever) return is no more or less impressive, no more or less difficult to achieve, whether you have 100 shares or 10,000 shares.
And considering your fund returned more than twice what the general market during that stretch, it's clear that your fund does take on more than average risk. There's nothing WRONG with that, necessarily, but it's a fact.
The number of shares is completely irrelevant when it comes to returns. All that matters is the amount of $ invested and the percentage return on that money. A 90% (or whatever) return is no more or less impressive, no more or less difficult to achieve, whether you have 100 shares or 10,000 shares.
I disagree. If you have 100/10,000 shares that goes up over a two year period from 14.00 per to 28.00 that would make 1400 into 2,800 and the 10,000 shares 140,000 into 280,000. Please use a calculator. It is pretty simple math in my book.
The number of shares is completely irrelevant when it comes to returns. All that matters is the amount of $ invested and the percentage return on that money. A 90% (or whatever) return is no more or less impressive, no more or less difficult to achieve, whether you have 100 shares or 10,000 shares.
And considering your fund returned more than twice what the general market during that stretch, it's clear that your fund does take on more than average risk. There's nothing WRONG with that, necessarily, but it's a fact.
Exactly what I was trying to say, except you said it better
I disagree. If you have 100/10,000 shares that goes up over a two year period from 14.00 per to 28.00 that would make 1400 into 2,800 and the 10,000 shares 140,000 into 280,000. Please use a calculator. It is pretty simple math in my book.
And how are those shares going to go up like that when the market did not?
Shares are real ownership of companies and will prove valuable with time. Accumulating shares is about putting the best odds on your side - the wise alternative to acting on what you cannot predict.
Anyone can ask a what-if scenario to any strategy.
I disagree. If you have 100/10,000 shares that goes up over a two year period from 14.00 per to 28.00 that would make 1400 into 2,800 and the 10,000 shares 140,000 into 280,000.
No kidding. But the percentage return is still the same. That's the point. We're talking about how your fund PERFORMED over that stretch. Performance is measured by percentage return. How many DOLLARS you personally made is irrelevant. Get it?
Quote:
Please use a calculator. It is pretty simple math in my book.
LOL...I'm always amused when the uneducated attempt to talk down to those who are about 5 levels above them on a particular subject.
it is all about total return. i could not care less about how many shares i own at the end of the day . it is whether or not the share price elevated those shares and what the total return is on what i have invested.
owning 100 shares at 10 bucks is the same as 10 shares at 100 bucks no matter how you look at it.
your total return will always be the number of shares x the share price plus any distributions if you did not reinvest them..
the good news is given enough time markets have always gone up. in fact under the more normal times we had prior to 2000 they were up 2/3's of the time and down only 1/3.
the bad news is ,for that reason lump sum investing usually beats dollar cost averaging in almost every time frame . buying shares along the way was the worst way to get performance since 2/3 of the time you were paying higher and higher prices and only benefiting from lower prices on dips 1/3 of the time..
under normal market cycles
lump sum investing = higher returns more risk
dollar cost averaging = lower returns lower risk.
can you imagine if you had the choice 30 years ago to lump sum in or dollar cost average over 30 years? you would have amazing gains.
there are very few time periods where whether you picked the high in a year or the low that over 30 years would have made a difference.
the dot coms would have been a poor year to lump sum but there are not many like that.
in fact we still have decades to go even if you did ,so time will tell for that group too.
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-12-2013 at 04:19 AM..
Get rid of the emergency fund, you already have 100K in mutual funds this can serve as money for an emergency. The concept of an emergenc
Y fund doesn't make sense it is simply money outside of a 401K
Secondly consider investing some money in a Roth 401K, you could use your savings in the taxable accounts
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
