It looks like the actual results were from buys in May '09 just off the lows in '09. (not sure: the inception date and range dates are confusing,) And so a 45% gain, that's achievable by most people who bought a portfolio of almost anything at that time. Bond funds even have made 50% moves.
Now the model portfolio, that's pretty impressive. That is, the gain is a move from 100K to 388K over 11 years. As stated, maybe about 14% compounded. Which to me also seems very impressive especially after you look and see that the average annual gain of the portfolio is 288% over 11 years: It's 26% per year.
This percentage certainly beats my portfolios' performance over the past 11 years. Then again, in my defense to myself, I'm not and wasn't just somebody starting out with a relatively few bucks then. Risk/reward has played some role for me. It's my same knock against numbers put up by Tilson, Burry, others. You start off in your garage (Tilson) or apartment and push $10k or maybe less, to 20K in 18 months and incorporate that percentage gain for the next many years to show how successful you are. (And those early gains are not confirmed by any independent auditor.) Result: Everybody shows they can meet or beat Buffett on the percentage gain. Or here, where it's a "model". Seems to work great. Just isn't so easy (at least for me) when big dollars are involved. Jmo.
I try to keep competitiveness out of investing (but I get caught up in it). If people were to just invest and keep doing it for decades and just get "average" results, they'd do okay or well. Again jmo. |
