The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Motley Fool Global Gains / GGM: Really Basic Questions
|Subject: Rating Motley Fool Newsletters||Date: 2/22/2008 6:29 PM|
|Author: sulpolitix||Number: 23 of 847|
All Fools, Including the Gardner Brothers,
It seems to me that Motley Fool's members/customers would be best served if the Fool reported Premium Service/Newsletter (such as Inside Value) returns in a new format instead of the old one, the old one being returns since inception. I propose that the Fool show all newsletter/premium service ANNUAL returns in the following format:
Last Five Years
Last Three Years
Last One Year
Year to Date (obviously this measure cannot be annual for most of the year unless the returns are annualized each month).
With the old Motley Fool format, i.e., returns since inception, it is impossible to tell from the summary performance figures if a Foolish premium service/newsletter started out with great annual returns, but is recently turning in poor performance.
It would be fair (and, more importantly, useful) if the Motley Fool would use the new format suggested above in reporting individual Foolish service/newsletter returns, and also when advertising Foolish service/newsletter returns to potential subscribers. Current and potential subscribers cannot evaluate Foolish performance with any accuracy, reliability or comparability without the change proposed above.
p.s. My recommendation is made in the spirit of treating Motley Fool newsletters as businesses: Like Warren Buffett, I am interested in long run returns, but as an investor/businessman (again like Warren Buffett) I treat them as businesses and thus want to see how they are doing on an annual basis. Does the Fool have the courage to subject their newsletter performance to the added scrutiny my recommendation would entail?
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|