prpfx beating 4x4

[mathjak107]

i had to go back to 2017 on portfolio visualizer to find a time frame the 4x4 beat prpfx despite the .81% expense charge

[dockinGA]

i had to go back to 2017 on portfolio visualizer to find a time frame the 4x4 beat prpfx despite the .81% expense charge

Plain vanilla PP has beaten PRPFX YTD, so you obviously didn't look very hard. Regardless, what's the point? PP has beaten PRPFX since Dec 2004. And since Aug 2008. And since Aug 2011. This is all useless information.

I leave the forum for a while, and I return to find you're still making posts just as ill-informed and irrelevant as they've always been.

[mathjak107]

and you are stil a dick IN GA

it isn’t irrelevant jerk , why do you think the fund has a subject line here .

the fund has had a reputation of being a laggard for decades … yet despite a .81% expense the different holdings vs the simple. ,less costly 4x4 has fallen behind it going on years .

as far as ytd , that is 3 months , i am talking almost every time frame the last 5 years

the 4x4 has not beaten it from 2018 ,2019 ,2020 ,2021, 2022

i thought that was pretty interesting ..

if you don’t , well just move on ya dick.

you know every time you comment on my post we will have a confrontation, because you are a dick and have to negatively comment on everything , even when you have nothing of value to say

[dockinGA]

and you are stil a dick IN GA

it isn’t irrelevant jerk , why do you think the fund has a subject line here .

the fund has had a reputation of being a laggard for decades … yet despite a .81% expense the different holdings vs the simple. ,less costly 4x4 has fallen behind it going on years .

as far as ytd , that is 3 months , i am talking almost every time frame the last 5 years

the 4x4 has not beaten it from 2018 ,2019 ,2020 ,2021, 2022

i thought that was pretty interesting ..

if you don’t , well just move on ya dick.

you know every time you comment on my post we will have a confrontation, because you are a dick and have to negatively comment on everything , even when you have nothing of value to say

It's not my fault you posted something yet again that is demonstrably false. Go read your comment. I simply pointed out that one can look at YTD returns and find a time period that contradicts what you say. You don't research anything you post, it's just stream of consciousness ramblings masquerading as fact.

Besides, the differences are not substantial across most of the time frames I looked at. The PRPFX fund also has more variability in returns, and across many times frames I looked at did not adequately reward investors for the increased risk.

Glad to see you're still aboard the 3rd grade name calling train, a la Trump. Add to that the fact that when I have replied to your posts it has been almost always to point out where you are providing 'alternative facts'. The only thing I've ever said that could possibly warrant your name calling was when I correctly labeled you as a person of middling intelligence who is a prime exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[mathjak107]

see if others are interested in the comparison the last 5 years

i know i was surprised by it .

you dont care , then leave the thread .

there is nothing wrong with the facts i posted about 5 years of returns .

you just want to be a dick and go you are wrong because the last 90 days it isnt .

that is just being a jerk like always

[Xan]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

[dockinGA]

you just want to be a dick and go you are wrong because the last 90 days it isnt .

I will respond whenever you finally learn to type in something resembling English sentences.

[mathjak107]

good , dont respond

[dockinGA]

there is nothing wrong with the facts i posted about 5 years of returns .

This comment gets to the heart of your issue. You won't realize it, but this is the problem. First off, I don't know what you meant by 2017, but it could be 6 years of returns. Again, you're not at all clear what you mean, so none of the information you provide can be truly useful for anyone. Secondly, and the main point, I never said there was anything wrong with you saying that PRPFX has outperformed vanilla PP since 2017. The issue is, if you'll go back to your first post, that you claimed that you had to go back to 2017 to find a time period where the PP outperformed, which simply isn't true. PP appears to have outperformed for most of the last 6 months. So, your initial statement was incorrect, not because you gave bad information regarding performance since 2017, but because the whole premise of your post was incorrect.

You are a simpleton, and completely incapable of understanding where you go wrong.

[mathjak107]

here is simple instructions.

go to portfolio visualizer


make portfolio 1 prpfx

make portfolio 2 the components of the 4x4

set it to go month to month

put in a starting date of 2018

see which did better .

now put in 2019

which did better ?

now put in 2020

which did better?

now put in 2021

which did better ?

now put in 2022

which did better ?

get the idea ?

[Xan]

Docking, your criticism could be more constructive and less personal. Mathjak, please don't take the bait, it just makes things worse. Reluctantly locking the thread.