Worst 3 year PP performance ever?

[iwealth]

Awesome, thanks PH. Can't believe you did so much of that manually. That chart should be a permanent fixture somewhere on this forum. Would hate to see it get buried someday.

[Tyler]

As an aside, I chose the colors originally to copy Tyler's charts.  He had mentioned somewhere that Excel allows "conditional formatting," which was news to me, and it wasn't too difficult to use it to color most of the cells in my old chart.  Unfortunately, my version of Excel allows only three conditional formats (I used them here for the three green cells), so adding these new colors in was quite tedious.  I hope I haven't made any mistakes.  There were a lot of cells to check!

Wow.  Now that's dedication!

[MediumTex]

Awesome, thanks PH. Can't believe you did so much of that manually. That chart should be a permanent fixture somewhere on this forum. Would hate to see it get buried someday.

I started a new post for PP charts and put a sticky on it.

Please repost your best work there.

Thanks!

[bedraggled]

Pet Hog and Tyler,

For the Variable Portfolio folks, and for instructive comparison fueling the debate over cash, is it possible to construct these charts for the 3x33 portfolio?

Thanks.

[MachineGhost]

Here you go, iwealth!  Good suggestion.  I added black and blue colors to the chart for the highest real CAGRs, and used the three shades of green for what used to be the 3-6% band.  A lot more detail has emerged.

SupercaliFRACTilisticexpialidocious!

[Tyler]

For the Variable Portfolio folks, and for instructive comparison fueling the debate over cash, is it possible to construct these charts for the 3x33 portfolio?

About what you'd expect -- similar performance overall but with higher highs & lower lows.

[img width=300]http://s23.postimg.org/8yq50mhyj/PPnocash.jpg[/img]

[bedraggled]

Tyler and Pet Hog,

You are magnificent!  I suspect I asked a question about the 3x33 that you 2 already answered. I truly appreciate all the work you two, and all the others have done.

All the best,
Bedraggled

[boruseek]

Hi Tyler,

Appreciate your work. Can you clarify what this chart is showing? It looks like if you had invested in 1999, the real CAGR would have been negative for 7 years. This is inconsistent with your other charts and my own work.

Thanks.

Here's another way to visualize the same data above.

[img width=600]http://i61.tinypic.com/156wzgo.jpg[/img]

Multi-year negative returns are rare but do happen.  Note how consistent the compound results get after the first 5 years.  Current short-term returns are nothing out of the ordinary. 

[lordmetroid]

No you would not have been in the negative for 7 years. Light red is 0-3% increase.

[boruseek]

Oh yeah, you're right. Thanks!

Tyler, way to throw me off by using red to represent a gain?

[Tyler]

Yeah, this was an earlier version that used the same color scheme as the outside chart it was based on. I agree that the light red is confusing, and have since switched the color scale for most things.

[vnatale]

Thanks, guys!  I think I find way too much joy in Excel.   

Great (to me) to read that much of your work was (still is?) Excel based?

It IS one of my all-time favorite software.

I have many times said that it there are at least two columns and two rows involved then I'm making an Excel worksheet.

Both personal and business life would be FAR more difficult if I was NOT able to use Excel!

But I still hold a grudge against Bill Gates for taking away AutoSave and replacing it with the nowhere as good Auto Recover. I'm guessing that AutoSave possibly caused too many problems for the less knowledgeable Excel users? But for the more knowledgeable Excel users AutoSave was far superior to Auto Recover in ALL ways!

Vinny

[vnatale]

There's no doubt stocks have intoxicating runs if you're lucky enough to live in the right decade.  Just remember that a 100% gain after a 45% loss only gets you back to just above where you started.  Assuming you stuck around. 

No exaggeration. I must have read at least a 100 times a variation of the bolded sentence above. However, this IS the first time I'm am pointing out the following to anyone.

Isn't that sentence (and all the equivalent ones I've read) somewhat misleading? For any basic analysis don't we need to look at the actual amount AND the percent change?

Example. I'm invested in a stock that is currently worth $100. One day it drops to $55. A 45% drop. As you point out it now needs to increase by almost 100% of the $45 to get back to the $100 starting point. But what should be so astounding about that? It is dropped by $45. Why are the probabilties any less that one day (even soon) it will increase by that same $45?

It somewhat alike (but, of course, not totally similar) to analyzing the pricing of a product.

It cost you $60 to make the product and you sell it for $100, for a $40 profit.

For that same $40 we have two vastly different percentages.

We can say that you've "marked up" your costs by 67% or we can say your gross profit margin is 40% (dividing the profit by the selling price). Same $40 but we have two dissimilar percentages associated with it, both being correct depending upon which denominator you chose to use.

Vinny

[vnatale]

My dirty little secret is that since the start of this thread I figured out how to fully automate the process. As long as the returns data is available, this is easy. 

If anyone has a special request, send me a PM.  No promises on a fast response but I'll see what I can do.  If I get enough requests, I may start a new thread to share results.[font=][font=]  Eventually I'm looking into building a website to consolidate this kinda info and satisfy my data fetish,[/font][/font] so feel free to also PM me what data you find most interesting or would like to see visualized.

As have oftentimes been cited (with the benefit of hindsight).....

"And, the REST is history!!!!"

I LOVE reading history and it's been great reading in these old Topics all the incipients of your web site.

Vinny

[vnatale]

Awesome, thanks PH. Can't believe you did so much of that manually. That chart should be a permanent fixture somewhere on this forum. Would hate to see it get buried someday.

I started a new post for PP charts and put a sticky on it.

Please repost your best work there.

Thanks!

What would be the best way to find this "new post"? I assume there is some way to do a search for Topics started on a certain day?

Vinny

[Xan]

Awesome, thanks PH. Can't believe you did so much of that manually. That chart should be a permanent fixture somewhere on this forum. Would hate to see it get buried someday.

I started a new post for PP charts and put a sticky on it.

Please repost your best work there.

Thanks!

What would be the best way to find this "new post"? I assume there is some way to do a search for Topics started on a certain day?

Vinny

He said he put a sticky on it, and it would be in the Permanent Portfolio Discussion section. Yep, there's "Cool Collection of PP Charts", the third on the list, started the same day.

[vnatale]

Awesome, thanks PH. Can't believe you did so much of that manually. That chart should be a permanent fixture somewhere on this forum. Would hate to see it get buried someday.

I started a new post for PP charts and put a sticky on it.

Please repost your best work there.

Thanks!

What would be the best way to find this "new post"? I assume there is some way to do a search for Topics started on a certain day?

Vinny

He said he put a sticky on it, and it would be in the Permanent Portfolio Discussion section. Yep, there's "Cool Collection of PP Charts", the third on the list, started the same day.

Tex did not directly say he'd put it in the "Permanent Portfolio Discussion section".

I went here: index.php amd saw that there were eight sections and wondered which it would have been put in.

I now see that iwealth had said (above) "somewhere on this forum".

Rereading it that could be interpreted as either in the " "Permanent Portfolio Discussion section" or somewhere in the forum in one of eight sections. I had not thought to just look in the one forum where the post was made. One could say that should be obvious. It was not to me.

But once I read what you wrote it took me less than five seconds to see it. So thanks for that.

Vinny