| |
 |
|
|
Finance & Stock Groups Forum Index » Mutual Funds » Small Cap fund - HRVIX
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mark Freeland |
 Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ro2dndE64pIOEQLVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
Quote: Morningstar gives you charts of the growth of a $10,000 investment too
(taking into account NAV, capital gains and dividend distributions).
Unfortunately they don't expose the data, so you can't do your own
technical analysis on them.
Once again - Yahoo adjusted prices are virtually the same as this data, and
they are there for the downloading. So you _can_ do your own technical
analysis on them.
Mark Freeland
nNeEwTs@nyc.rr.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Evojeesus |
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 12, 7:06 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote: David wrote:
"If the 200 period (day) moving average is up, generally it shows that
institutions are buying the market. If the 200 period moving average
is down, usually it shows that the institutions are selling the
market. Given those facts, why argue with a gorilla?
One reason is that this "gorilla" is quite fickle: After he takes a
nibble of that banana, he might either eat the whole banana or just toss
it away. Impossible to know that in advance from the first couple of
nibbles.
Also I've understood that the quote above was more accurate when most
of the institutions were long-only. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steven L. |
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David wrote:
Quote: On Aug 8, 8:19 pm, "Ed" <fri...@frishinthe.net> wrote:
"-herb" <x...@yyy.com> wrote
More crap. Can't you go finda boyfriend or something?
To add to Ed's comment, a nice quote I just read:
"If the 200 period (day) moving average is up, generally it shows that
institutions are buying the market. If the 200 period moving average
is down, usually it shows that the institutions are selling the
market. Given those facts, why argue with a gorilla?
One reason is that this "gorilla" is quite fickle: After he takes a
nibble of that banana, he might either eat the whole banana or just toss
it away. Impossible to know that in advance from the first couple of
nibbles.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steven L. |
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mark Freeland wrote:
Quote: "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ro2dndE64pIOEQLVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
Morningstar gives you charts of the growth of a $10,000 investment too
(taking into account NAV, capital gains and dividend distributions).
Unfortunately they don't expose the data, so you can't do your own
technical analysis on them.
Once again - Yahoo adjusted prices are virtually the same as this data, and
they are there for the downloading. So you _can_ do your own technical
analysis on them.
No it's not.
It's exactly the opposite of what GFG is doing, in fact.
On Yahoo, they subtract, rather than add, the dividends into the
adjusted closing prices following the x-dividend date. That makes sense
if you're expecting the dividend to be paid to you as income. But
that's not what most investors, like myself, do with it.
To handle the scenario of reinvesting dividends in additional shares,
you would add back the dividend amounts, not subtract them out. Or
conversely, subtract them out prior to the x-dividend date. This
latter method is what Growth Fund Guide uses.
So, for example, if a fund has been trading at $10 per share, and
declares a dividend of $0.10, all previous NAVs prior to that date get
adjusted *downward* to $9.90. Thus any subsequent NAV higher than $9.90
represents a profit (as it should if you reinvested that dividend in
additional shares, as most investors do).
To handle reinvestment of dividends as additional shares via the Yahoo
method requires you to compute a separate tally of the total growth of
an investment. And yes, that's what Morningstar charts for a
hypothetical $10,000 initial investment.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark Freeland |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ucGdnd56-dVXXTzVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
Quote: Mark Freeland wrote:
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ro2dndE64pIOEQLVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
Morningstar gives you charts of the growth of a $10,000 investment too
(taking into account NAV, capital gains and dividend distributions).
Unfortunately they don't expose the data, so you can't do your own
technical analysis on them.
Once again - Yahoo adjusted prices are virtually the same as this data,
and they are there for the downloading. So you _can_ do your own
technical analysis on them.
No it's not.
It's exactly the opposite of what GFG is doing, in fact.
On Yahoo, they subtract, rather than add, the dividends into the adjusted
closing prices following the x-dividend date. That makes sense if you're
expecting the dividend to be paid to you as income. But that's not what
most investors, like myself, do with it.
Following the ex-dividend date, Yahoo adjusts the old (not current, post
dividend) prices downward, to represent the amount of money you would have
had to pay per share to get the current value per share had the share merely
appreciated rather than "split" via dividends.
Quote: To handle the scenario of reinvesting dividends in additional shares, you
would add back the dividend amounts, not subtract them out. Or
conversely, subtract them out prior to the x-dividend date. This latter
method is what Growth Fund Guide uses.
So, for example, if a fund has been trading at $10 per share, and declares
a dividend of $0.10, all previous NAVs prior to that date get adjusted
*downward* to $9.90. Thus any subsequent NAV higher than $9.90 represents
a profit (as it should if you reinvested that dividend in additional
shares, as most investors do).
To handle reinvestment of dividends as additional shares via the Yahoo
method requires you to compute a separate tally of the total growth of an
investment. And yes, that's what Morningstar charts for a hypothetical
$10,000 initial investment.
Let's take your example. The fund that is trading at $10/share pays a 10c
dividend, and adjusts down to $9.90. (We'll be concrete, and say that you
bought $990 worth originally, so you had 99 shares @$10/share, and after the
dividend, you have 100 shares @$9.90/share.)
Yahoo simply adjusts the price of the old shares so that it is as if,
instead of making distributions and then reinvesting to get more shares, the
price of the share merely appreciated (as unit values do for funds wrapped
inside annuities). So in a sense, it is indeed subtracting off the
dividend. This gives the same effect - the same appreciation (or lack
thereof) of the investment, without the messiness of extra shares.
Let's make this even more real. HRVIX, on March 31, closed at $23.25 and
paid a dividend of $0.049/share. So, if you'd owned 0.998 shares prior to
the dividend, you'd have exactly one share post dividend, after
reinvestments.
How much would you have had to pay on March 28th (previous trading day) for
that 0.998 shares? The actual price was $23.05, so you'd have had to have
paid $23 even (0.998 * $23.05). It's as if shares on March 28th cost $23
even, and simply rose to $23.05 on March 31, without having to deal with
dividends (because you reinvested everything).
Surprise, surprise - $23.00 is just what Yahoo shows for the adjusted price
on March 28. The adjusted price is what you would have paid on that date to
have in hand, today, 1 share, assuming you reinvested all dividends.
Now there does appear to be an underlying flaw with Yahoo's calculations.
It looks like Yahoo is assuming that 1/(1+x) = (1 - x), where x is the
fractional share that you get because of the dividend. This is a reasonable
approximation for usual distributions, but has significant error if the
fractional share is significant. I haven't verified yet whether this is
indeed built into Yahoo's calculations, but I doubt that this is the issue
you are raising (since what I'm pointing out is a calculation "rounding"
error dependent on the percentage of distribution, while you're pointing out
a more absolute error due to not reinvesting at all).
Mark Freeland
nNeEwTs@nyc.rr.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| -herb |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kOSdnen2A-KTXjzVnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Quote:
One reason is that this "gorilla" is quite fickle: After he takes a
nibble of that banana, he might either eat the whole banana or just toss
it away. Impossible to know that in advance from the first couple of
nibbles.
Not to mention that there are more gorillas in the world than we know about.
Wouldn't life be easy if some monolithic group of instituions were simply
moving in unison into or out of the entire market.
The simple fact is that you don't know if a move is a trend or a blip until
it's too late to do much about it.
-herb |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 13, 6:00 am, "-herb" <x...@yyy.com> wrote:
Quote: "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kOSdnen2A-KTXjzVnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@earthlink.com...
One reason is that this "gorilla" is quite fickle: After he takes a
nibble of that banana, he might either eat the whole banana or just toss
it away. Impossible to know that in advance from the first couple of
nibbles.
Not to mention that there are more gorillas in the world than we know about.
Wouldn't life be easy if some monolithic group of instituions were simply
moving in unison into or out of the entire market.
The simple fact is that you don't know if a move is a trend or a blip until
it's too late to do much about it.
-herb
Herb
Herb
You don't know, you mean. It's a question of probabilities, like
quantum theory. If the majority of mutual fund and hedge fund managers
and the brokers are selling then prices will go down and drop below
the 200-day MA which will also decline and vice versa. I see it
happening all the time for individual stocks and the indices. You
obviously don't watch the prices daily. Economic theory is no
substitute for seeing the market in action.
David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steven L. |
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David wrote:
Quote: On Aug 13, 6:00 am, "-herb" <x...@yyy.com> wrote:
"Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kOSdnen2A-KTXjzVnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@earthlink.com...
One reason is that this "gorilla" is quite fickle: After he takes a
nibble of that banana, he might either eat the whole banana or just toss
it away. Impossible to know that in advance from the first couple of
nibbles.
Not to mention that there are more gorillas in the world than we know about.
Wouldn't life be easy if some monolithic group of instituions were simply
moving in unison into or out of the entire market.
The simple fact is that you don't know if a move is a trend or a blip until
it's too late to do much about it.
-herb
Herb
Herb
You don't know, you mean. It's a question of probabilities, like
quantum theory. If the majority of mutual fund and hedge fund managers
and the brokers are selling then prices will go down and drop below
the 200-day MA which will also decline and vice versa. I see it
happening all the time for individual stocks and the indices.
Oh, I agree that it's a question of probabilities.
But I maintain that those probabilities cannot be accurately estimated
from technical analysis alone. Especially not from the crossing of a
200 day MA alone.
It's fundamentals that let you distinguish a sharp correction from a new
bear market, or a sharp rally from a new bull market.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT
The time now is Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:22 pm
|
|
|