Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
There's not many funds that will look so hot if you start the comparison right before the tech bubble bursting. On the other hand, if you look at the performance since early 2009, it's over doubled in 4 years.I'm not saying you're wrong(see earlier statement of limited knowledge) but I typed that stock symbol into google and they have a little tool that shows the fund's performance over X amount of time. If you set it to max, which I think is ~13 years(founding?), it's rate of return over that whole time is only 27.07%(non annualized). Bad timing of the max window?
If you want a quick, simple, easy read on why trying to beat the market is largely pointless for the average investor, pick this book up:http://www.amazon.ca/Little-Book-Com.../dp/0470102101
He goes over how unlikely it is for actively managed funds to consistently beat the market over long time horizons, and has statistics to back him up. There's plenty of academic research in to that, and from what I'm aware, it all points to the same thing: the chances of beating the market consistently over the long term are extremely rare. And trying to do so is costly in terms of fees. In all likelihood you are better off instead simply trying to match the market, and keeping your costs/fees as low as possible. Hence index investing.
Unfortunately stock returns for the previous and following 5-10 years are likely to be pretty shitty because of the hangover from the financial crisis. But over 20 year periods, there is not a single one in the past 100 or so years that has seen a negative annualized return. Including the great depression:http://petetheplanner.com/site/2013/...r-investments/
Shit, even on 10 year timelines only a few years have been negative: 1938/39 and 2008/2009
Only caveat to index investing is that there's different kinds of indexes, and some research I think has indicated that some ways of indexing can be better than others. I don't really recall the details.