That's because, so far, the S&P has been overfunded relative to drawdown risk reserves. Balance it out to an apples-to-apples comparison, and you'll see different results.But... you're smart. You already know this, and that's why you refuse to balance it out.I'll assume that you hadn't read my post# 73041 when you wrote this. Because that post lays the data out just that way -- I think it's essentially what you're asking for. It's funny...I thought of that last night, ran the numbers this morning, and posted it this afternoon.But now your efforts are just trying to save face at this community????? I could care less about face. So you're wrong there. BTW, you use a lot of non-standard terminology, and that sometimes makes it hard to understand just what you are saying. For example, you keep saying "naked S&P500", but the standard terminology in the investment world is "long". Doesn't matter what wikipedia page you can find that appears to have that definiton of "naked", that is NOT the way the investors use it. You're doing what those Chinenglish instruction manual translatore do, looking up a word in the dictionary and assuming that any of the definitions can be used, without realising that connotation and standard usage is important.Maybe you're not purposely trying to smuggle in the concept that a long position is "naked" risky, but that's sure the way it comes across. I read a lot of financial sites and none of them say, "I have a naked position in XYZ" -- it's always "I am long XYZ." or "I have a short position in XYZ".
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M