AI
| Followers | 21 |
| Posts | 1152 |
| Boards Moderated | 3 |
| Alias Born | 07/24/2001 |
Sunday, July 04, 2004 3:01:06 PM
>> I just don't understand why did you try to compare your fund with S&P 500 instead of Russell 2000? You know bb stocks are in their own little world...<<
Hi Bernard,
The answer is very simple...I wanted to compare my Fund's performance with all the other Funds that are out there in the investment Universe. And since all those Funds track their performance against the S&P 500, therefore I wanted to do the same...Helps to keep the Fund's performance in perspective.
As for "BB stocks are in their own little world," well Bernard, that statement may sound agreeable from the outside, but when you dissect the performance of the Russell 2000 and compare it to the S&P 500 between the period of November 9th. 2003 and up to the present time, the result obtained is not so out worldly after all...The Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 have pretty much mirrored each other...In fact, had I used the Russell 2000, instead of the S&P 500, my Fund's performance would have looked just about the same. Because as opposed to the S&P 500 which, during the period between November 9th. 2003 and June 30th. 2004, went up 8.32%, the Russell 2000, on the other hand, could only show an 8.94% gain!
(The Russell 2000, on November 9th. 2003 was at 542.96 and on June 30th. 2004, it closed at 591.52, for a total gain of 48.56 points or 8.94% )
And one other thing...On June 30th. 2003, almost half of my Fund's NAV, 49.16% to be exact, was not invested in "BB stocks". (PPHM, EMA and ALAN are either on the regular Nasdaq board or on the AMEX.) Personally, I try not to categorize my individual investments, other than as either good or bad investments
. My interest is strictly about performance with managed risk(s). Wether that performance is obtained from stocks on the BB, the NASDAQ or the AMEX, means nothing, as long as I outperform the Indices...And MOST important of all, my Fund's performance should be honest and completely transparent!
Good to see you again Bernard...hope all is well with you...
Cheers!
contax
Hi Bernard,
The answer is very simple...I wanted to compare my Fund's performance with all the other Funds that are out there in the investment Universe. And since all those Funds track their performance against the S&P 500, therefore I wanted to do the same...Helps to keep the Fund's performance in perspective.
As for "BB stocks are in their own little world," well Bernard, that statement may sound agreeable from the outside, but when you dissect the performance of the Russell 2000 and compare it to the S&P 500 between the period of November 9th. 2003 and up to the present time, the result obtained is not so out worldly after all...The Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 have pretty much mirrored each other...In fact, had I used the Russell 2000, instead of the S&P 500, my Fund's performance would have looked just about the same. Because as opposed to the S&P 500 which, during the period between November 9th. 2003 and June 30th. 2004, went up 8.32%, the Russell 2000, on the other hand, could only show an 8.94% gain!
(The Russell 2000, on November 9th. 2003 was at 542.96 and on June 30th. 2004, it closed at 591.52, for a total gain of 48.56 points or 8.94% )
And one other thing...On June 30th. 2003, almost half of my Fund's NAV, 49.16% to be exact, was not invested in "BB stocks". (PPHM, EMA and ALAN are either on the regular Nasdaq board or on the AMEX.) Personally, I try not to categorize my individual investments, other than as either good or bad investments
. My interest is strictly about performance with managed risk(s). Wether that performance is obtained from stocks on the BB, the NASDAQ or the AMEX, means nothing, as long as I outperform the Indices...And MOST important of all, my Fund's performance should be honest and completely transparent! Good to see you again Bernard...hope all is well with you...
Cheers!
contax
Trade Smarter with Thousands
Leverage decades of market experience shared openly.
