The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/then-its-risk-adjusted-returns-are-its-gross-30873174.aspx

Subject:  Re: Hi gang... wow!!! Date:  9/16/2013  7:26 PM
Author:  Rayvt Number:  72895 of 75810

then it's risk-adjusted returns are its gross returns times 1-drawdown.
There are a bunch of standard ways that risk-adjusted returns are calculated.
Average return divided by MaxDD is not one of those ways.
In fact, MaxDD is virtually useless because it is just a measure of the one-time worst case event.

CalMar, StdDev, Sortino, Sharpe, Ulcer Index, Ulcer Performance Index -- these are all common measures.

Just eyeballing the 40 year balance on the IUL I ran, versus the 40 year balance on the spreadsheet... looks to me like the IUL finishes with more money.
The spreadsheet uses actual historical data.
I can't cut-paste from your pdf, but it says, "reflect a hypothetical rate at the average historical rates". I don't see anywhere where they state what the rate they used. So you cannot compare the two, since one uses real data and the other uses an average.

How *did* you create that PDF? I can't cut/paste from it, which is rather annoying. [...sounds of typing, grumbling in the background...]
YES! HA! WHO'S THE MAN!
Got it!
I checked the Illustration at 4 different dates 10 years apart, and every one computed as an annual gain of 8.8%.

This illustration is garbage and arguably fraudulent. They don't show any years where the return is zero, nor any years where the return is 12%. Yet we know from the historical data that 25% of the annual returns are < 0% (and therefore would be floored at 0%) and 45% of the annual returns are > 12% (and therefore would be capped at 12%)

In order to do a like-to-like comparison, you'd have to compare their illustration with a S&P500 B&H spreadsheet with a fixed 10.8% annual return. Or 9.2% for a 60/40 asset allocation.

Oh, hmmm, very interesting. My spreadsheet computes the CAGR for the IUL portfolio and it computes as [....drum roll ....] 7.0% to 8.5%, depending on the exact starting date. So it appears they not only bogusly used a constant annual gain, but they put a bit of thumb on the scale.
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us