![]() |
|
|
|
#21 | |
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 1,204
|
Re: indexing lagged against 15 largest no load funds
Quote:
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 1,072
|
Re: indexing lagged against 15 largest no load funds
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
Recycles dryer sheets
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 387
|
Re: indexing lagged against 15 largest no load funds
Quote:
I never would have expected the Fidelity Contrafund to have performed so well. The time to leave a fund if you go the managed fund route is when the management changes. If Will Danoff has been able over that time period to manage billions and beat the S&P 500 investing in whatever the hell he wants under what scenario would that change? Sounds to me like the arguements against investing with Warren Buffet back in the early '80's. Something about reversion to the mean. Here is how the S&P 500 & Fidelity Contrafund compare over the years 1990 to 2007 with an initial $100,000 investment using the average annual results for each time period: 100,000.00 100,000.00 116,000.00 112,000.00 134,560.00 125,440.00 156,089.60 140,492.80 181,063.94 157,351.94 210,034.17 176,234.17 243,639.63 197,382.27 282,621.97 221,068.14 327,841.49 247,596.32 380,296.13 277,307.88 441,143.51 310,584.82 511,726.47 347,855.00 593,602.70 389,597.60 688,579.14 436,349.31 798,751.80 488,711.23 926,552.09 547,356.58 1,074,800.42 613,039.37 1,246,768.49 686,604.09 Here is how they look if you invested 10 years ago: Contrafund VANGUARD 500 10.89% 7.55% 100,000.00 100,000.00 1997 110,890.00 107,550.00 1998 122,965.92 115,670.03 1999 136,356.91 124,403.11 2000 151,206.18 133,795.55 2001 167,672.53 143,897.11 2002 185,932.07 154,761.34 2003 206,180.07 166,445.82 2004 228,633.08 179,012.48 2005 253,531.22 192,527.93 2006 281,140.77 207,063.78 2007 And if just the last 5 years Contrafund VANGUARD 500 11.62% 6.69% 100,000.00 100,000.00 2002 111,620.00 106,690.00 2003 124,590.24 113,827.56 2004 139,067.63 121,442.62 2005 155,227.29 129,567.14 2006 173,264.70 138,235.18 2007 This is not cherry picking it is the single biggest actively managed fund. It has been very big for a long time. This is not Warren Buffet, this is not Peter Lynch. Were the results the exact opposite with the S&P and Contrafund results reversed they would be in the new updated chapter in the Four Pillars of Investing. It is a disingenous arguement to use the past to argue for index funds and then argue about the FUTURE as a means to avoid a manager that has kicked that index for a considerable time in the past. I was heavily encouraged to invest in the Contrafund by a retired friend of mine back in 1990 but I never did as I prefer individual stocks.
__________________
And you may ask yourself What is that beautiful house?And you may ask yourself Where does that highway go |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,258
|
Re: indexing lagged against 15 largest no load funds
The issue isn't that SOME funds can beat the indices. The issue is that we can't KNOW which ones will do so.
So, again, can someone tell me which funds will beat the S&P500 for the 10 year period ending January 2017. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Recycles dryer sheets
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
|
Re: indexing lagged against 15 largest no load funds
One way to look at it - I don't know what an active management fund will do in the future but I know for certainty that a market index will match the market. And I have a lot of data as to that return.
In Vegas I see some guys walk away with a fistfull of money but all things considered, I'd rather bet with the house. They KNOW what they will win in the long haul because it has been already calculated and designed in. Your milage may vary - place your bets and come back to me in 20 years.
__________________
I'm trying to find myself.* Have you seen me anywhere today? |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| My 401k's expense ratios, Bogle, lowest-cost quartile data for stock funds? | Dude | FIRE and Money | 19 | 02-07-2007 02:17 PM |
| Index funds beat most active funds | JustCurious | FIRE and Money | 57 | 10-23-2006 12:14 PM |
| Vanguard Adding More Target Retirement Funds | Lusitan | FIRE and Money | 23 | 03-21-2006 07:17 PM |
| Low cost funds into ETFs? | Olav23 | FIRE and Money | 26 | 07-06-2005 10:42 PM |
| Inverse bond funds - why the dismal performance? | soupcxan | FIRE and Money | 1 | 02-08-2005 06:03 AM |
|
Other
Social Knowledge
forum communities: Cooking Forum - Sailing Forum - Early Retirement - Airstream Trailer - Aquarium Forum - Royal Forum - Book Forum - Volkswagen Touareg Forum - Jeep Wrangler Forum - Whitewater Kayaking & Rafting Forum - Fiberglass RV Forum - RV Forum - Truck Conversion - U2 Music Forum |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 |