Canadian Money Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Sold 40% of my stocks and converted to laddered GIC. Checked my performance summary today and it is around 15%/yr over 20 years. Wondering is this the average you expected ? What is yours so far ? Like to know how I do compare with you people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
So you just sold stocks that you held for over 20 years at 15%?

If yes, you must have a dire need of cash or why would you incur that capital gain?

If not, why would you care how much OTHER PEOPLE make? If can be 1000% like bitcoin, you were not part of it anyway.

So I don't understand your 20 year performance thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
Doesn't 100K at 15%/yr for 20 years total 1.6M?
I think your math makes more sense... this also means, for 100k, there will be $1.5M in capital gain tax to lose. It hurts but it is a good problem to have.

I did not realize the OP is 73 years old (Ben, born in 1941?). So maybe he did gain 15% for 20 years... and it is finally time to sell. So not too many posters here have that kind of experience. Kudos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Hahaha, yeah, I am 73. Can't fool you guys :)
Wish I started with $100,000. My investment is all in my RRSP/RRIF. There is no capital gain I need to worry about. But, I am forced to withdraw and pay tax each year from now on.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Even if you didn't start with 100K, getting a 15% avg for 20 years is great, much above the normal IMO ... maybe you should change your name from Ben1491 to LuckyBen! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
15% per year over the LAST 20 years is fabulous! (You're not using Beardstown Ladies' math are you?) Great work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Just curious how you calculated 15% over 20 years?

Does this account for additional contributions over several occasions in that time or a single lump sum 20 years ago that you've parlayed into 16X the original amount?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
lightcycle, how did you come up with 16X ?
May be I mislead you people. The figure I got is from the summery of my self-directed plan, 14.8% since inception (1996). I contribute to RRSP each January and bought stocks and held. That goes on for 15 years until I retired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
lightcycle, how did you come up with 16X ?
If you had an average 15% annual return (assuming compounded if you aren't taking money out), over 20 years you use the simple formula:

Future value = Present value * (1+% annual return)^20

With 15% over 20 years, you end up with the Future value = approx 16x present value.

Of course that the simple formula as it doesn't take into account future contributions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
I notice the returns reported on this site tend to be far above average. 15% per year over 20 years would be in the Warren Buffett camp of investing. Possible but not likely. I don't suspect that the OP is being purposely misleading as he strikes me as honest but I think a mistake in calculations in possible - someone mentioned Beardstown Ladies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,061 Posts
lightcycle, how did you come up with 16X ?
May be I mislead you people. The figure I got is from the summery of my self-directed plan, 14.8% since inception (1996). I contribute to RRSP each January and bought stocks and held. That goes on for 15 years until I retired.
Okay, that makes more sense: I think what you're reporting is your total Gain/Loss percentage since the beginning, not your annual average rate of return.

The gain/loss% is a very different figure from the annual average rate of return: it's the difference between the book value and the market value of your investments. At first glance you might be disappointed in 15%, because it makes it sound like you've only made 15% total since 1996. But the book value is not just what you put into your investments out of your own pocket: it also represents any dividends or other income from your investments that you reinvested. So some of your growth is represented in the book value and the rest is represented in the market value.

Personally, I think the gain/loss figure is much more relevant for retirement investments than your annual average rate of return anyway. Who cares what the annual rate was? What you should care about is your total return; in fact the percentage isn't as important as the dollar figure. If you can calculate what your average annual expenses would be in retirement, a portion of that will be funded by your principal, but some of it will be funded by your growth. If you get enough growth to fund at least one year of retirement, that's good. If you get enough growth to fund many years of retirement, even better. I measure my growth in retirement years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,223 Posts
May be I mislead you people. The figure I got is from the summery of my self-directed plan, 14.8% since inception (1996). I contribute to RRSP each January and bought stocks and held. That goes on for 15 years until I retired.
I suspect this is portfolio gain which incorporates contributions, but is not investment returns. If so, the figure is meaningless to anyone other than the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Hmmm... I am getting real confused now. I really need help to understanding this. Just checked my account performance summery. Average since inception (1996), my account-14.8%, while S&P/TSX omposite-8.63% and S&P500-6.83%. Year to date is 7.83%, last 12 months is 20.66% and last 3 years is 8%. And, a few from the prior year average: 1996 +41%, 1997 +55%, 1999 +20%, 2005 +33%, 2007 -8.0%, 2008 -32% and 2009 +61%. In between are single digit gains and loses. I guess the number 14.8% is the sum of these prior years divided by 18 years of my plan. What are all these mean ? Let's look at the number of the last 12 months which I did not contribute. Is that mean this 20.66% is the total gain from the principal ? Say, 100k a year ago would become 120k ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Hmmm... I am getting real confused now. I really need help to understanding this. Just checked my account performance summery. Average since inception (1996), my account-14.8%, while S&P/TSX omposite-8.63% and S&P500-6.83%. Year to date is 7.83%, last 12 months is 20.66% and last 3 years is 8%. And, a few from the prior year average: 1996 +41%, 1997 +55%, 1999 +20%, 2005 +33%, 2007 -8.0%, 2008 -32% and 2009 +61%. In between are single digit gains and loses. I guess the number 14.8% is the sum of these prior years divided by 18 years of my plan. What are all these mean ? Let's look at the number of the last 12 months which I did not contribute. Is that mean this 20.66% is the total gain from the principal ? Say, 100k a year ago would become 120k ?
Yes.
If you and your employer did not deposit any money into your portfolio over the last 12 months (from summer 2013 to today), and your return is 20.66%, then your balance should be 20.66% higher over that time.

Is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
I have been tracking my portfolio (professionally managed) since the summer of 2006. It is 60% equities (mostly Canadian) and 40% bonds. I have an annual compounded return of 5.6%. And , yes, I do control for monies added and there have been no withdrawals. I think this is pretty good as the returns for the equivalent period for the indices are:
TSX 1.2%
S&P 500 3.8%
Dow 3.2%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
I have been tracking my portfolio (professionally managed) since the summer of 2006. It is 60% equities (mostly Canadian) and 40% bonds. I have an annual compounded return of 5.6%. And , yes, I do control for monies added and there have been no withdrawals. I think this is pretty good as the returns for the equivalent period for the indices are:
TSX 1.2%
S&P 500 3.8%
Dow 3.2%
I don't know where you took these percents for the indices... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&P_500
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top