Discussion

You have a typo in the opening definition of the arithmatic average, i.e.,

"Most people ....., which adds ......, and then dividends by the number of listings.

Should be "divide", not "dividends".

posted over 2 years ago by Gordon from Colorado

Thank you; the error has been fixed. Jean at AAII.

posted about 1 year ago by Jean from Illinois

Shouldn't the geometric average be calculated this way???

(1.1 * 1.15 * 1.12 * 1.02 * .7) ^ (1/5) - 1

= .0023 = 0.23%


The article mentions taking the n'th root, but the chart shows simply multiplying by (1/5).


posted about 1 year ago by Jon from Alabama

The geometric problem states the third year return is 0.02% which in the calculation should be 1.0002 yielding a final answer of -.16%

posted about 1 year ago by John from Pennsylvania

So when I see the term "average annual return" on a fund, am I seeing the geometric average? I had always wondered why the figures never added up to the actual result over a period of several years.

posted about 1 year ago by Opal from California

Jon - We've fixed the box so that the geometric average is now showing to take the nth root. Thanks for pointing that error out. Jean from AAII

posted about 1 year ago by Jean from Illinois

John - The third year return is 0.2%, which is correctly shown in the box as 1.002 in the geometric average calculation. Jean from AAII

posted about 1 year ago by Jean from Illinois

Where would a weighted average be useful? Calculating the return of the S&P 500 where some companies are far larger than others?

posted about 1 year ago by Rick from Illinois

I am not "embarrassed" to admit it, but I can't wrap my head around how +100%, +100%, -100% is equal to a 50% average return.
100+100-100=100/3 = 33.3% return over the 3 years. ??

posted about 1 year ago by Dave from Washington

Sorry, you cannot add comments while on a mobile device or while printing.