QUOTE(cherroy @ Mar 14 2009, 09:33 AM)
Yup 12/9 should be the annualised rate. More precise should be ROI p.a.
But actual non-annualised ROI is without 12/9 figure. This figure is the actual gain, annualised means nothing although it is still correct, it can mean nothing or meaningless as below example.
Just like I buy today and sell off those gaining shares tomorrow, example my initial capital is 5,000 then I sell off with gain at 5,050, gaining 50 or 1% out of it. Annualised it it become 1% x 365/1, my annualised ROI is 365%! sound a lot and great, but in actual fact, it is little (50 only) or gaining 1% only.
If I am a fund manager, I can come out with 365% annualised return rate to impress people. This tactic is quite norm nowadays which has happened in some insurance saving plan lately that put high rate to attract people. No offence. They are correct figure as well.
But do remember, annualised rate doesn't mean much in term of decision making or justification for investment especially those figure get from shorter duration, it can somehow misleading or precisely give us the wrong idea/perception.
So it is just an academic term, what we want is always real figure that reflect better or more accurate situation.
Figure is up to human being plays it around, it depends on creativity of individual. Always dig more into it instead just purely looking at headline figure.
My 2 cents.
Cheeroy, I'm confused now. Normally if the intention is to annualised an income, the timeline must be set first right? Is it even right to use the 12/9 or 365/1 figure to calculate annualised income? But actual non-annualised ROI is without 12/9 figure. This figure is the actual gain, annualised means nothing although it is still correct, it can mean nothing or meaningless as below example.
Just like I buy today and sell off those gaining shares tomorrow, example my initial capital is 5,000 then I sell off with gain at 5,050, gaining 50 or 1% out of it. Annualised it it become 1% x 365/1, my annualised ROI is 365%! sound a lot and great, but in actual fact, it is little (50 only) or gaining 1% only.
If I am a fund manager, I can come out with 365% annualised return rate to impress people. This tactic is quite norm nowadays which has happened in some insurance saving plan lately that put high rate to attract people. No offence. They are correct figure as well.
But do remember, annualised rate doesn't mean much in term of decision making or justification for investment especially those figure get from shorter duration, it can somehow misleading or precisely give us the wrong idea/perception.
So it is just an academic term, what we want is always real figure that reflect better or more accurate situation.
Figure is up to human being plays it around, it depends on creativity of individual. Always dig more into it instead just purely looking at headline figure.
My 2 cents.
Using the 12/9 figure with a % calculation is wrong in my opinion. Simply because the figures that comes out doesn't make sense. I'm just wondering if there is any article/research paper/ report that uses it? Or an even an example of how it is suppose to be use correctly.
Edit:
I think I got it already why the 365/1 is used. Mainly to put an estimate on how much at the end of the term would the fund be if the current return is continued consistently. Since it's estimating an expected income at the end of the period based on current data, it will be flawed if it was calculated very early in the set timeline. Accuracy would improve if it is calculated nearer to the end of time line. I myself use it to estimate yearly earnings based on 1 quarter performance sometimes.
So it's used to calculate 'Expected ROI' and not 'ROI'.
This post has been edited by skiddtrader: Mar 15 2009, 12:10 AM
Mar 14 2009, 11:50 PM

Quote
0.0510sec
0.70
7 queries
GZIP Disabled