[AltaRed]

FWIW, my ex who has zero interest in DIY stock picking thus holds both XIU and XDIV in her portfolio for her Canadian equity component. XIU in particular has been held for a long time and I suspect she will still own them when her POA and/or her Executor takes over or crystallizes them in 5 or 15 years. XIU should provide more 'total return = growth' than does XDIV, the latter of which provides disproportionate dividend income. Her portfolio is designed to essentially track markets while at the same time giving her the investment (dividend) income to be oblivious to the financial markets. Her portfolio is on auto-pilot.

 

[Pescado]

I find it interesting that morningstar has a strong sell rating of 32 on XIU. They like XDIV and ZLB and have buy ratings on both. Morningstar gives XDIV a 99....very strong buy. I wonder why morningstar would have such a dislike for XIU?

 

[AltaRed]

I find a lot of Morningstar recommendations unusual, or at least counter-intuitive. In this particular case, it may well be a belief that value (dividend) stocks stand to shine with money rotating out of momentum growth stocks. I don't give Morningstar recommendations much attention, i.e. no more than any other analyst.

 

[Pescado]

I wish I had your confidence Alta. I do lots of research and use the tools I have available to me to make my decisions. I am starting to buy more ETF's now. I am using the ETF's as a way of investing some wins and also some losses. Your theory of growth to value stock rotation may very well be true to morningsatrs approach.
Thanks for being there for people like myself that need the help. I appreciate the time the people give to this forum.

 

[AltaRed]

I think a key thing is most, if not all, analysts are probably no better than 50-50 (plus or minus 10 percentage points) with their responses. The real value, when it is provided and it seldom is, is their actual reasoning for their views.

 

[Benting]

A question that I am looking for a long time to check the performance of my investment.
Is the 'Average Annual Compound Rate of Return' with BMOIL Performance Summary same as CAGR ?

 

[AltaRed]

Yes, but it depends on which tab you pick. The default tab is on a time weighted basis which is fine but is not quite as good as money weighted basis. BMOIL says they started doing money weighted in 2016

Since January 1, 2016, you can also measure the rate of return of your investments using a money-weighted methodology. We’ve added this formula because the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) has mandated that all investment providers report money-weighted returns to their clients. Money-weighted returns take into consideration the impact and timing of all your contributions and withdrawals to your portfolio to give you a unique and more accurate performance snapshot of your wealth accumulation (or depletion).

The two methodologies would result in similar numbers EXCEPT when significant monies are added or deleted from the portfolio. The standard should always be money weighted (in my opinion) since portfolios are not usually static.

Added: My two 5 year CAGRs at BMOIL are almost exact with a difference only at the second decimal place.

 

[Covariance]

A question that I am looking for a long time to check the performance of my investment.
Is the 'Average Annual Compound Rate of Return' with BMOIL Performance Summary same as CAGR ?

Is this return for the account or a specific fund?

 

[Benting]

Is this return for the account or a specific fund?

It is for the account.

 

[Benting]

Yes, but it depends on which tab you pick. The default tab is on a time weighted basis which is fine but is not quite as good as money weighted basis. BMOIL says they started doing money weighted in 2016

The two methodologies would result in similar numbers EXCEPT when significant monies are added or deleted from the portfolio. The standard should always be money weighted (in my opinion) since portfolios are not usually static.

Added: My two 5 year CAGRs at BMOIL are almost exact with a difference only at the second decimal place.

Thank you AR ! Now I can comprehend what everybody talking about beating TSX....
Just checked, comparing the 2 (time weighted vs money weighted) for my account, the difference is 0.32% in last 5 year. Don't exactly know what it means. Anyway, it is close enough for me. All I need is a ball park figure

 

[AltaRed]

My difference is 0.04% between 5 year time weighted and money weighted. I didn't expect there to be much difference because I have not, in my case, withdrawn substantially from my BMOIL account. One needs to remember these returns are account based, so if one has several accounts or more than one brokerage, then one must consolidate elsewhere via other proprietary software or a home built spreadsheet.

P.S. I wouldn't spend more than 60 seconds trying to come up with a meaning of your 0.32%. It means essentially nothing. Money weighted returns is the most appropriate way.

I might add that for benchmarking one's performance against an appropriate benchmark, one can find an index fund that approximates one's own asset allocation or build your own via Norm's Asset Mixer. The latter is the best is one is rather persnickety about being precise for benchmarking. I don't care that much about decimal points in the overall scheme of things so I tend to dismiss such precise measures.

 

[Covariance]

It is for the account.

The money weighted return is the singe rate that equates all cashflows with the beginning value. It's the IRR. For instance if we put money in and the investments rise in value it pulls the MWR return metric up.

The time weighted return removes the effect of timing of cash flows. Basically it is calculated by determining a period by period series of returns between cashflows and geometrically linking them. Thus removing the impact of the external cashflows on the return metric.

In this case, if you are managing the account your macro performance is MWRR as you are controlling the timing of the cashflows. However, your performance as a portfolio manager would use the TWRR in comparison to your benchmark (to remove the effect of external cashflows and allow for accurate comparison). And you would evaluate the performance of the funds you are in by evaluating their tracking error or absolute performance as the case may be.

Hope that helps.

 

[Benting]

Thank you Covariance.

 

[Benting]

My difference is 0.04% between 5 year time weighted and money weighted. I didn't expect there to be much difference because I have not, in my case, withdrawn substantially from my BMOIL account. One needs to remember these returns are account based, so if one has several accounts or more than one brokerage, then one must consolidate elsewhere via other proprietary software or a home built spreadsheet.

P.S. I wouldn't spend more than 60 seconds trying to come up with a meaning of your 0.32%. It means essentially nothing. Money weighted returns is the most appropriate way.

I might add that for benchmarking one's performance against an appropriate benchmark, one can find an index fund that approximates one's own asset allocation or build your own via Norm's Asset Mixer. The latter is the best is one is rather persnickety about being precise for benchmarking. I don't care that much about decimal points in the overall scheme of things so I tend to dismiss such precise measures.

The number I showed is my RIF account. You are right, the withdrawal every year may affect the difference,

 

[Sam Sun]

I don't use BTSX as an investing strategy, but out of curiosity, checked the 52-week high/low stats, and surprised to see that most of them are close to 52-week highs.

The only one I own on this list is CNQ at around -12% unrealised loss.

 

[Sam Sun]

BTSX page shows BCE dividend yield as 11.9%. This is not correct.