marko
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 8,464
So, if I'm considering a stock or fund, I look at the 3, 5, 10 and 15 year performance via M*.
When I look at the 10 year performance, I find myself saying "...it did 6.5% over ten years, but that includes the crash, so maybe it really does (has potential for) something like 8% because the crash was a (hopefully) once in a lifetime event..."
Yes, I know..."past performance doesn't guarantee future returns etc". And I realize that the stated performance IS the performance for that period.
I'm trying to assess a 'normal' (expected) performance by factoring in a unique negative event.
But is this a fair thing to do? Or has the past 5 years sort of cancelled it out by being a unique positive event?
When I look at the 10 year performance, I find myself saying "...it did 6.5% over ten years, but that includes the crash, so maybe it really does (has potential for) something like 8% because the crash was a (hopefully) once in a lifetime event..."
Yes, I know..."past performance doesn't guarantee future returns etc". And I realize that the stated performance IS the performance for that period.
I'm trying to assess a 'normal' (expected) performance by factoring in a unique negative event.
But is this a fair thing to do? Or has the past 5 years sort of cancelled it out by being a unique positive event?
Last edited: