No. of Recommendations: 0
Dave Goldman writes:
Standard Method

Mean 46.84% 46.84% 46.84%
StDev 24.77% 24.58% 24.95%

Thus in this case, rather than reporting the arithmetic mean annual return as 46.8% (+/-24.8%), we would report it as 46.8% (+25.0%/-24.6%).

Log Method

Actual Downside Upside
distribution distribution distribution
-------- -------- --------
Mean 44.89% 44.89% 44.89%
StDev 18.81% 19.45% 18.16%

Thus, the geometric mean annual return is 44.9% (+18.2%/-19.5%).

I admit I'm very light on the higher statistical concepts. But I do have a general understanding of the concept of sampling, mean, and SD. There is just something very different about the calculations when applying them to percentages and CAGRs. How can the SD change from 24.77% using the "standard" method to about 19% using Ln. It sure seems to me that the standard method should apply to the Upside returns. It is just that the mirror of the SD does not make sense when applied to the downside.

Would you look at the returns reported for the RS Bullet and try to interpret them using Logs. Maybe you need the entire return history. But still, I don't exactly see how using logs should change the SD on the Upside.


Good Returns
Charley Meng

Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.