How does the yield on my investments stack up against other investors?
"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is ""time weighted"" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show ""investor return"" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend ""beating the market"" (or ""matching the market"" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is ""the point"" - I feel ""the point"" is to achieve your financial goals.)" Generally S&P 500 will be used as the benchmark for US investors because it represents how's the US market performs as a whole. If you've outperformed the S&P 500 during the last couple years, great. However, at the end of day, you would want to look at the total growth percent that your portfolio has achieved, as compared with that of S&P 500.  Anyway, your portfolio might actually ride along with the bull market during the 2009-2010 period (more-so for the small caps). From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.
First, I suggest that the route gives you the discount. You work the block with goldman and they say that if you work 20 blocks with them you get 50bps back, regardless of the issue.  Also, as a hedge fund you have a very different model than an ETF or MF.  That said, how exactly would that this be disclosed to the investor? Is there a standard in place for that? 1) Explicitly, how a company's share price in the secondary market affects the company's operations. (Simply: How does it matter to a company that its share price drops?) I have a vague idea of the answer, but I'd like to see someone cover it in detail.  2) Negative yield curves, or bonds/bills with negative yields  Thanks! I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return.  The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time.  TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis! "My guess is that the point is that yields on bonds and cash equivalents is so low that inflation will cause the inflation-adjusted returns to be negative. There is something to be said for how much inflation can eat out of investment returns. At the same time, I would note the occupation of the person making that post along with what biases this person likely has. ""Entrepreneur, Started & sold several cos, Author 11 books (latest ""Choose Yourself!"") , Angel Inv., JamesAltucher.com"" would to me read as someone that isn't who I'd turn for investment advice when it comes to employer-sponsored plans. Be careful of what you blindly follow as sometimes that is how wolves lead the sheep to slaughter." I've used prosper for a while and have a pretty good return based purely on shotgun approach.  I recently invested a few thousand with their automated tool.  Some people will default, but that's expected and part of their expected return calculation. "You quickly run into issues of what denotes ""similar"", and how to construct an appropriate index methodology. For example, do you group all CB arb funds together globally or separate them by country? Is long-bias equity long-short different to no-bias and variable-bias? Is a fund that concentrates on sovereign debt more like a macro fund or a fixed income fund? And so on. By definition, hedge funds try not to mimic their peers, with varying degrees of success.  Even if you get through that problem, how do you create the index? You may not be able to get return numbers for all the ""similar"" funds, and even if you do, how do you weight them? By AUM, or equal weight?  There are commercial indices out there (CSFB, Eurekahedge, Marhedge, Barclays, MSCI, etc) but there's no one accepted standard, and it's unlikely that there ever will be as a result. It's certainly interesting to look at your performance versus one of these indices, and many investors do monitor fund performance this way, but to demand strict benchmarking to one of them is a big ask..." "I kind of understand the ""basics"", and have done a couple (with the assistance of pre-made excel sheets haha), I just don't feel that I'm creating an actual valuable valuation when I do one. While on the topic though, do you know where an individual investor can calculate the cost of debt for the WACC? I've been looking on morningstar and search up that public company and take the average of the coupon on all outstanding bonds. I don't feel like that's very correct though :(" https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009m.png  &gt;The following charts will provide a sense of where the U.S. equity market currently stands. The first chart shows our margin-adjusted CAPE, which as noted above has a correlation of about -0.89 with actual subsequent market returns across U.S. market cycles since the 1920’s.  https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009.htm  It will turn, downside potential is historic. "You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to ""closed as duplicate of..."" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random." More questions!  1.) I thought the criticism of the Dow was that it's much smaller than other indexes and thus less representative of the market as a whole?  2,) When you say private investors are you talking about a few specific people? Or anyone who invests at all?  Thanks Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks.  It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity.  However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising.  It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized).  It's worth remembering that it is still stock.  If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk).  So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average?  Yes.. -ish.  Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy) Will the investor beat the benchmark for a given period will follow a Bernoulli distribution -- each period is a coin toss, and heads mean the investor beat the market for that period.   I can't prove the negative that there is no investor ever whose probability function p = 1, but you can statistically expect a number of individual investors with p ~ 0.5 to have a sequence of many heads in a row, as a function of the total population.   By example, my father explained investment scams and hot-hand theory to me this way when I was younger:  Imagine an investor newsletter which mails out to a mailing list of 1024 prospects (or alternately, a field of 1024 amateur investor bloggers in a challenge).  Half the letters or bloggers state AAPL will go up this week, half that AAPL will go down this week.  In the newsletter case, next week ignore the people we got wrong.  In the blogger case, they're losers, so we don't pay attention to them.  Next week, similar split: half newsletters or bloggers claim GOOG go up, half GOOG go down.  This continues for a 10 week cycle.   Now, in week 10: the newsletter has a prospect they have hit correct 10x in a row: how much will he pay for a subscription?  Or, one amateur investor blogger has been on a 10 week winning streak and wins the challenge, so of course let's give her a CNBC show after Jim Cramer.  No matter what, next week, this newsletter or investor is shooting 50-50.   How do you know this person is not the statistically expected instance backed up by a pyramid of 1023 Bernoulli distribution losers?  Alternately, if you think you're going to be the winner, you've got a 1/1024 shot. "There seems to be a common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns. What evidence exists for or against this? First off, even if the markets were entirely random there would be individual investors that would consistently beat the market throughout their lifetime entirely by luck.  There are just so many people this is a statistical certainty.  So let's talk about evidence of beating the market due to persistent skill. I should hedge by saying there isn't a lot of good data here as most understandably most individual investors don't give out their investment information but there are some ok datasets.  There is weak evidence, for instance, that the best individual investors keep outperforming and interestingly that the trading of individual investors can predict future market movements.  Though the evidence is more clear that individual investors make a lot of mistakes and that these winning portfolios are not from commonly available strategies and involve portfolios that are much riskier than most  would recommend. Is there really no investment strategy that would make it likely for this investor to consistently outperform her benchmark? There are so, many, papers (many reasonable even) out there about how to outperform benchmarks (especially risk-adjusted basis).  Not too mention some advisers with great track records and a sea of questionable websites.  You can even copy most of what Buffet does if you want. Remember though that the average investor by definition makes the average ""market"" return and then pays fees on top of that.  If there is a strategy out there that is obviously better than the market and a bunch of people start doing it, it quickly becomes expensive to do and becomes part the market.  If there was a proven, easy to implement way to beat the market everyone would do it and it would be the market. So why is it that on this site or elsewhere, whenever an active trading strategy is discussed that potentially beats the market, there is always a claim that it probably won't work? To start with there are a large number of clearly bad ideas posed here and elsewhere.  Sometimes though the ideas might be good and may even have a good chance to beat the market.  Like so many of the portfolios that beat the market though and they add a lot of uncertainty and in particular, for this personal finance site, risk that the person will not be able to live comfortably in retirement. There is so much uncertainty in the market and that is why there will always be people that consistently outperform the market but at the same time why there will be few, if any, strategies that will outperform consistently with any certainty." "Historically that 'divide by 1000' rule of thumb is what many people in Australia have thought of as normal, and yes, it's about a 5.2% gross yield.  Net of expenses, perhaps 3-4%, without allowing for interest. If you're comparing this to shares, I think the right comparison is to the dividend yield, not to the overall PE.  A dividend yield of about 3-5% is also about typical: if you look at the Vanguard Index Australian Shares Fund as a proxy for the ASX the yield last year was about 4%. Obviously a 4% return is not very competitive with a term deposit.  But with both shares and housing you can hope for some capital growth in addition to the income yield.  If you get 4% rental yield plus 5% growth it is more attractive. Is it ""good"" to buy at what people have historically thought was ""normal""?  Perhaps you are better off looking around, or sitting out, until you find a much better price than normal. ""Is 5% actually historically normal?"" deserves a longer answer." "Mint.com uses something called OFX (Open Financial Exchange) to get the information in your bank account. If someone accessed your mint account they would not be able to perform any transactions with your bank. All they would be able to do is view the same information you do, which some of it could be personal <- that's up to you. Generally the weakest point in security is with the user. An ""attacker"" is far more likely to get your account information from you then he is from the site your registered with.  Why you're the weakest point: When you enter your account information, your password is never saved exactly how you enter it. It's passed through what is called a ""one way function"", these functions are easy to compute one way but given the end-result is EXTREMELY difficult to compute in reverse. So in a database if someone looked up your password they would see it something like this ""31435008693ce6976f45dedc5532e2c1"". When you log in to an account your password is sent through this function and then the result is checked against what is saved in the database, if they match you are granted access. The way an attacker would go about getting your password is by entering values into the function and checking the values against yours, this is known as a brute force attack. For our example (31435008693ce6976f45dedc5532e2c1) it would take someone 5 million years to decry-pt using a basic brute force attack. I used ""thisismypassword"" as my example password, it's 12 characters long. This is why most sites urge you to create long passwords with a mix of numbers, uppercase, lowercase and symbols. This is a very basic explanation of security and both sides have better tools then the one explained but this gives you an idea of how security works for sites like these. You're far more likely to get a virus or a key logger steal your information. I do use Mint. Edit: From the Mint FAQ: Do you store my bank login information on your servers?   Your bank login credentials are stored securely in a separate database   using multi-layered hardware and software encryption. We only store the   information needed to save you the trouble of updating, syncing or   uploading financial information manually. Edit 2:  From OFX About Security Open Financial Exchange (OFX) is a unified specification for the   electronic exchange of financial data between financial institutions,   businesses and consumers via the Internet. This is how mint is able to communicate with even your small local bank. FINAL EDIT: ( This answers everything )  For passwords to Mint itself, we compute a secure hash of the user's   chosen password and store only the hash (the hash is also salted - see   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal... ).  Hashing is a one-way function   and cannot be reversed.   It is not possible to ever see or recover   the password itself.  When the user tries to login, we compute the   hash of the password they are attempting to use and compare it to the   hashed value on record. (This is a standard technique which every site   should use). For banking credentials, we generally must use reversible encryption   for which we have special procedures and secure hardware kept in our   secure and guarded datacenter.  The decryption keys never leave the   hardware device (which is built to destroy the key material if the   tamper protection is attacked).  This device will only decrypt after   it is activated by a quorum of other keys, each of which is stored on   a smartcard and also encrypted by a password known to only one person.   Furthermore the device requires a time-limited   cryptographically-signed permission token for each decryption. The   system (which I designed and patented) also has facilities for secure   remote auditing of each decryption. Source: David K Michaels, VP Engineering, Mint.com - http://www.quora.com/How-do-mint-com-and-similar-websites-avoid-storing-passwords-in-plain-text"