No. of Recommendations: 2
[highlighting largest number]
       Best 5   Worst 5    SPY
2003 24% 58% 29%
2004 14 33 9
2005 44 14 3
2006 12 20 14
2007 15 - 4 5
2008 -62 -54 -38
2009 31 49 32
2010 31 12 15
2011 -23 - 4 2
.
CAGR 3% 8% 6%


Is that table right?
Shouldn't the values in the first column always be higher than the values in the second?
Maybe I misunderstood--was this the performance of the ones that had the highest
performance the year before or simply highest performance in the year shown?
I'm not sure whether this was intended to be a demonstration of how
VL screens have done or how a VL screen WWL scheme would have done.

Jim
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
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.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
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.
Advertisement