You may have read thousands of such headlines and claims online.
They tell you only half the story.
Mutual fund returns shown by investment platforms and newspapers mislead you.
Why should you think twice?
[A thread] 🧵
You may have read thousands of such headlines and claims online.
They tell you only half the story.
To calculate trailing returns, you have to pick a mutual fund’s NAV from two specific dates.
And calculate how much the NAV has increased during the period.
NAV of ‘ABC’ fund on 1st Oct 18 = INR 100
NAV of ‘ABC’ fund on 30th Sept 21 = INR 175
3-year CAGR = 20.51%
You have to calculate it point to point.
If you change the dates, the returns may fluctuate.
Trailing returns depend heavily on specific dates.
Here you calculate returns over a fixed period based on different start dates.
Then average all those returns to find out the rolling returns.
Returns are rolled every month.
1st Jan 2007 to 1st Jan 2010
1st Feb 2007 to 1st Feb 2010
1st March 2007 to 1st March 2010 and so on...till 1st Jan 2017 to 1st Jan 2020.
• MAX,
• MIN
• Average rolling returns.
It shows a clear picture of a fund’s performance.
Many research websites do this job for you.
You can find out every fund’s rolling returns with Google search.
More from All
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.