Poll: What proportion of your portfolio is due to market growth ?

[sengsational]

And then as I showed above, the "IRS math" says that once you start to draw from your Roth IRA, it will eventually become exactly 100% gain, no rounding necessary, when your withdrawal exceeds the original principal.

Maybe we need to complicate it more so that values greater than 100% are possible!

Say you have an account that you've added $100, then it grew to $200. If you removed $100, then it would be 100% gains. But if you removed $150, it would still be 100% gains. I think you should be able to add-back the $50 so that it would be $250/$200 = 125% gains

 

[Big_Hitter]

In 1982 I created a spreadsheet (in Lotus 1-2-3) for a buddy of mine to check his investment returns, and I decided to start using it too. Once per quarter I enter my net contribution or withdrawal, matching contribution (for 401k), and gain/loss. The sum of the three plus the previous balance matches the quarterly statement. Those 4 columns are repeated for each fiduciary (401k company, brokerage account company, bank, etc), and totaled. This allowed me to do an overall IRR calculation. I didn't originally set-out to keep this going as long as I have, but I have. As of September 30, I've got 60% growth, 35% contributions, and 5% company match. I imagine most folks included the company match in their growth?

match should not be in growth

 

[NW-Bound]

Maybe we need to complicate it more so that values greater than 100% are possible!

Say you have an account that you've added $100, then it grew to $200. If you removed $100, then it would be 100% gains. But if you removed $150, it would still be 100% gains. I think you should be able to add-back the $50 so that it would be $250/$200 = 125% gains

If we talk about the gain over the principal, yes, the sky is the limit.

But the OP asked how much of the portfolio is the gain, and something cannot be more than 100% of itself.

 

[sengsational]

If we talk about the gain over the principal, yes, the sky is the limit.

Yep. 100% is "it" based on the OP.

match should not be in growth

"Shouldn't", yes, agreed. For me it isn't/wasn't included, but the default for some might be to add up everything they, themselves contributed and lump the rest.

 

[Viking]

We shred our records after the period we need to hold for tax purposes, so the closest I can estimate is "not nearly enough". This would probably hold true if I did still have those records.

 

[jon-nyc]

I actually have sufficient records to calculate this. Not penny perfect but close enough.

But I wont, because it would involve opening up old paper files for a period of twenty years or so.

My guess is around two thirds was due to growth.

 

[Johanson]

I have no real idea but I would guess my gains are 3 times as much as what I have put in and my company has contributed.

 

[GoodWishes]

Difficult to calculate. First, it goes back so many years. Second, other than our savings, we had company stock options, stock purchase and stock grants. Not sure how all that should be calculated. Third, in addition to investing in stocks, bonds, we have quite a bit of real estate also.

 

[Gumby]

The one and only number I care about is the bottom line total. How it got there is irrelevant.

 

[RobLJ]

I have the investment info in Quicken (data was transferred to it from Money and from an earlier financial program from the 90s), so I just looked at the total gain column in comparison to total investment assets. I likely will go into the 50-59% category this year since I'm right on the margin and am no longer contributing. There is a hole in the data from '90-'92 but it wouldn't affect the result much since those funds went into an annuity, before I shifted from that provider to Fidelity in '93.

 

[mickeyd]

Can't vote as <100% of my stash is attributed to long-term equity growth.

 

[Spanky]

An oversimplified approach would be:
(sum of changes in yearly balance - amount invested)/total value of the portfolio.

 

[eastnortheast]

I do have the records for this and figured it out a few months ago. With RE 3 months away, and after 36 years of w*rk and saving, out of my total investment portfolio, 38% of it is from the contributions, and 62% is from growth.

As for myself, similar to this. A few less years working, but around 60% from growth.