Murray Boyd wrote:Looks neat.
I think the EAFE, EM, EAFE/EM numbers don't make sense from 1997 on. EAFE is the same as EAFE/EM.
TheEternalVortex wrote:I don't know if this data is very useful. For example, in that time period LV outperformed US market with a lower standard deviation. It's unlikely that will continue as otherwise there is no sense in investing the US market.
TheEternalVortex wrote:I don't know if this data is very useful. For example, in that time period LV outperformed US market with a lower standard deviation. It's unlikely that will continue as otherwise there is no sense in investing the US market.
The MSCI EAFE Index values are calculated using net returns. Net returns approximate the minimum possible dividend reinvestment (the dividend is reinvested after deduction of withholding tax, applying the highest rate applicable to non-resident individuals (Luxembourg holding companies) who do not benefit from double taxation treaties).
Index returns are adjusted for withholding taxes applicable to Luxembourg holding companies.
TheEternalVortex wrote:I don't know if this data is very useful. For example, in that time period LV outperformed US market with a lower standard deviation. It's unlikely that will continue as otherwise there is no sense in investing the US market.
BrianTH wrote:TheEternalVortex wrote:I don't know if this data is very useful. For example, in that time period LV outperformed US market with a lower standard deviation. It's unlikely that will continue as otherwise there is no sense in investing the US market.
That argument assumes that standard deviation is the only relevant measure of risk, an assumption I would personally not make.
Trev H wrote:The commodities are listed in that fpanet article as natural resources... and if you look at the end of that fpanet document... they give their data sources... and for Commodities it was S&P Commodity Index.
Dow Jones AIG Yearly Returns
Year Annual Total Return: Annual Excess Return:
====================================================
Year Index Value Return (%) Index Value Return (%)
2007 332.246 5.80 173.215 4.03
2006 314.023 2.07 166.509 -2.71
2005 307.650 21.36 171.149 17.54
2004 253.495 9.15 145.604 7.64
2003 232.249 23.93 135.269 22.66
2002 187.401 25.91 110.276 23.86
2001 148.843 -19.51 89.033 -22.32
2000 184.917 31.84 114.613 24.21
1999 140.257 24.35 92.273 18.60
1998 112.796 -27.03 77.803 -30.52
1997 154.579 -3.39 111.984 -8.24
1996 160.001 23.17 122.044 16.99
1995 129.908 15.21 104.323 8.93
1994 112.755 16.61 95.772 11.73
1993 96.694 -1.07 85.716 -4.04
1992 97.736 3.70 89.324 0.13
1991 94.245 -5.75 89.210 -10.79
1990 100.00 100.00
investorperson wrote:Thanks so much Simba for putting this together!
This might be a stupid question (I'm learning here) -
Why does the CAGR change if I change my initial $10,000 investment (Cell X5 in the Returns sheet). Shouldn't it stay the same no matter how much your initial investment is?
I'm trying to tell myself, well, if in 1972 I started with $##,###, how much would I have today using this allocation, or that allocation, etc...
Eric White wrote:Simba & TrevH:
Let me know if you would like me to post it. I'm not sure what process you used, Simba, but I would appreciate it if you could let me know.
Thanks!
-Eric White
baldeagle wrote:Simba,
Your spreadsheets are great! Thank you!
Maybe you can help me with a problem I found. I've just done a run with Rev-5a, compared it to a run with Rev-2, and found different results. I used the "Returns_72_06" and "Returns" tabs to enter allocations and review results.
I traced one possible cause for the difference to a variation in results for LCV. Although the data tables in each Rev shows identical data from 72 through 06, identical asset allocations in Rev-2 and Rev-5a does not result in identical returns for the LCV class. Is that a bug?
Also, returns data for some of the other asset classes disagree. Do you recommend not using Rev-2 and instead using Rev-5a?
Thanks again.
investorperson wrote:Yes, this is great Simba. You're the best.
Suggestion
- For data that we can change, make the cells blue . For formulas/data we shouldn't change, leave it black. This is standard practice in the finance world I believe. (I'm not in finance.) That way, users know, "OK, I can change blue."
Question
- What do the bold numbers mean in the Data sheets?
investorperson wrote:Simba,
I may have caught an error.
Returns_85_06 Columns Z and AA (Energy, Health) feed off of Data_85_06 Columns Z and AA. However these data are for S-Tips and Wellington, not Energy, Health.
If I'm right in thinking that this is an error,
I believe it's the Energy, Health, P.Metals columns that don't match between Returns_85_06 and Data_85_06 that are causing things to shift.
Yes, No, Maybe So?
One of these days I have to learn all those formulas you use in Excel.
johnb wrote:Thanks very much for posting this. I've found it highly useful.
I added Short-Term Treasuries data to my copy of the spreadsheet, because I've found it to be a fantastic diversifier.
investorperson wrote:Yes, this is great Simba. You're the best.
Suggestion
- For data that we can change, make the cells blue . For formulas/data we shouldn't change, leave it black. This is standard practice in the finance world I believe. (I'm not in finance.) That way, users know, "OK, I can change blue."
Question
- What do the bold numbers mean in the Data sheets?
Return to Investing - Theory, News & General
Users browsing this forum: 1210sda, aaronmagan1, Bing [Bot], core5, datamonkee, Five Scoop, larryswedroe, tnjj and 45 guests