# Max Hopper's meanderings



## Brendan Burgess (13 Oct 2004)

Max Hopper hijacked an important post with his meanderings.

Rather than just delete them, I have copied them here.


----------



## rainyday (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Can't let this one go. So , the equities have risen 3.7 - 4.0% per annum. And what annual rate of manglement fee was hacked out of the gain? EBS egregiously scoops 1.5%. And QL? IIRC, a bit more. So the equities are up ca. 6.5% over 3 years. Brilliant investing! And the inflation rates in 2001 - 2004 got the rest. Oh well, be happy that Minister McGreedy stumped-up 25% instead of spending it on non-essentials like health and education.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->But this is  for us, rainyday.


----------



## Bad Logic (13 Oct 2004)

*Bad logic*

Max

Not all of the investment in SSIA went in on day one, so it is over simplistic to say 3-4% return per annum.  Only maximum of €254 has been invested for the duration of the full term of the SSIA (ignoring Gov adhoc).  QL management fee is 1%. The returns Rainyday quotes are already net of that charge.

Please also remember SSIA investors are buyers at the moment and the overall performance of equity v fixed interest can only be judged at the end of the term of 5yrs.  

Whether or not the SSIA scheme should have been available at all is a seperate issue.  Can I ask what the agenda is re: Rainyday/EBS etc or have I missed something?


----------



## rainyday (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Bad logic*



> And QL? IIRC, a bit more.


Nope - a bit less - 1% - and as BL points out, the return figures I quote are after all fees.


> the equities have risen 3.7 - 4.0% per annum


Simplistic in the extreme - they actually were falling for the first 12-18 months and have been recovering since then. But the real issue is the return at the end of the 5 years.



> Oh well, be happy that Minister McGreedy stumped-up 25% instead of spending it on non-essentials like health and education.


I'm quite unhappy about this and I've argued elsewhere for the abolition of the SSIA scheme.

Have you got anything positive to offer in terms of investment advice, Max (instead of just taking potshots at others)?


----------



## Max Hopper (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

I am well aware of the value of _dollar averaging_, Bad Logic. And exactly how did you divine that rainday's gain was quoted net? Did *we* miss something? Without resorting to an Excel spreadsheet and religiously posting monthly unit purchases, where does one unearth rainyday's numbers? The [broken link removed] simply report present value. What is *fact* is that Summit Growth gained *6.7% from 1999 through Y/E 2003*. In other words, *1.34% gross*.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->But I am open to some evidence.


----------



## rainyday (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Well you only had to ask, Max - but I know that is not half as much fun as jumping to a half-baked conclusion. You can get historical prices from the EBS site. The increase in the unit price (which is net of all charges) for the EBS mutual growth from from 1st Aug 2001 (.997) to today (1.165) is 16.85% - What's yer problem???


----------



## rainday (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Ahh, ! Apologies for omitting the term '_annualised_'. The return is still meager.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->My issue is with the inflexiblity of investment products in Ireland. In the USA most mutual funds investors can alter their selections on the 'net and as often as they wish. My gripe is that the Irish mutual funds manglers have a very poor (and passive) record given the fees they collect.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->WTF, lend your money to them for a couple of points and borrow it back in the form of a variable rate mortgage at .


----------



## rainyday (13 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Obviously a great business opportunity for an expert like you then Max - I can see it now - the Hopper Hedge fund .....


----------



## Bad Logic (13 Oct 2004)

*Bad Logic*

Max

Not Divine inspiration, just knowing a little about the EBS and QL funds in question.  Unit Prices are net of charges.  It would be a very time consuming for Rainyday to calculate the return on this funds gross of the charge.  There are advantages of knowing what you are talking about!


----------



## Max Hopper (14 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

And I missed the opportunity that rainyday and Bad Logic had to lodge 36 contributions in August 2001, along with the 'net of charges' statement. But then IANAL so this means 'net of charges' to everyone else -





> (from the EBS website)<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Prices are updated at approximately 3.00pm daily. Prices quoted on a particular day are a reflection of the market activity on the previous day.


<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Hmmm. Missed that 'net of charges' statement, again! Fancy figures





> 1st Aug 2001 (.997) to today (1.165) is 16.85%


from rainyday, but do you grasp the concept of ?


----------



## rainyday (14 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*



> from rainyday, but do you grasp the concept of dollar averaging?



Hi Max - my figures were simply to contrast to your own more selective use of figures, i.e. "What is fact is that Summit Growth gained 6.7% from 1999 through Y/E 2003".


----------



## Max Hopper (14 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Mine come from the 2003 Summit Mutual Funds Annual Report published December last. Care to match numbers? AFAIK some others are directly out of thin air or fat a**es. Using the NAVs of 01August01 and 13September04 is disingenuous given that your SSIS lodgements were made at different NAVs (_dollar averaging_). But you did not see fit to disclose that.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->So how did the Oracle of Offaly derive his numbers?<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->BTW, are you possibly confusing the meaning of net and gross NAV figures? They mean 'net of taxes' and 'gross roll up (aka before tax)'. Try a bit of perusing  (you too, Bad Logic) before you cast stones.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->So, Brendo, in short, equities-based SSIAs are just squeaking ahead of break-even. A milestone? More towards a few grains of sand in one's sock.


----------



## rainyday (14 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*



> But you did not see fit to disclose that.


Ah you've caught me out on my hidden secret that my SSIA contributions were made monthly. :rolleyes


----------



## Bad Logic (14 Oct 2004)

*Bad Logic*

Max

"a reflection of the market activity"

..note a reflection not the movement on the market.  I don't have an EBS SSIS so I do not have the advantage of a statement as you suggest.  But I do have the advantage of research before making comments (I rung and asked), good reason, logic and an understanding of basic maths.

I understand NAV, gross and net funds, averaging and annualised return.  You have the definitions, these can be used to assist with gaining an understanding of the concepts!!


----------



## Max Hopper (14 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

So with SSIS statement to hand, my gain over 31 months is 13.48%. Bear in mind that this year I have locked in gains whilst you have lost. But my hindsight works better, at least that is what I am told on AAM. By my reckoning the 100% equity-based SSIS is about 6.5% ahead since opening in mid-2001, not the double-digits fraudulently claimed by others. But YMMV when using real numbers. And 6.5 (%) / 2.5 (years) = 2.6 (% _*annualised*_ and let us not forget the 1 - 1.5% charge for mangling your account). Pretty poor ROI.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->BTW, rainday, Bad Logic asserts that you  of your SSIS. But feel free to divulge how you arrived at the stellar figures of 11 - 12%.


----------



## Bad Logic (15 Oct 2004)

*Bad logic*

Max

You really are showing yourself up here.  

 6.5 (%) / 2.5 (years) = 2.6 (% annualised 

This is not correct.  An annualised return is not simply dividing the return by the number of years.  Let me give you a simple example, €100 invested annualised return 5% :

Yr 0  €100
Yr 1  €105
Yr 2  €110.25
Yr 3  €115.76

By your calc the "annualised" return is €15.76 /3 = 5.25%
That wrong, it is 5%.


----------



## Guest (15 Oct 2004)

*Bad Logic*

Somebody send Max to the back of the compond interest class please! :lol


----------



## Andyringey (15 Oct 2004)

*compound interest*

To see how long it takes for your money to double at compound interest 

Divide the interest into 72

so 10 = 7.2 years  i.e.  72/10=7.2 years

@12% it takes 6 years    72/12=6


----------



## tomj (16 Oct 2004)

*Compoun Interest*

Before you all reveal yourselves as 'clever Beckhams'... the rhetoric between ye is getting petty and uninteresting.  

The main point Max is missing that SSIA investors are continuously buying at the moment, not selling.

The other gripe (that I ascertain between the nonsense) is that Max bewoes that we can't alter our investments as often as our US counterparts. Well, good luck to them.  I'll give you an analogy:  There are thousands of 'active' managers out there.  They work full time on analysing companies.  Few have ever outpeformed the average.  So, does an individual investor working part-time on gut feeling and patchy analyses honestly think they can out out-guess the professionals?  Hardly.  If they do, then they are gambling.  The net present value of gambling is negative for the 'investor' (positive for the poker house!).  Max, if you can prove the contrary, then you shouldn't be on this website... you should have successfully just taken ownership of Barbados, what with your excess cash from those wonderfully speculative  equity investments (oh yes, concentrate only on the management fee... reminds me of the people looking at the branches and not noticing the forest was being mowed down).


----------



## Max Hopper (16 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Here's your [broken link removed] - *(((((254*1.25)*26)*1.065)/((254*1.25)*26))^(1/2.16)-1)*100* (or 2.958416725%). Thanks *Bad Logic*.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->And the question was was how did rainyday arrive at 11 - 12%? But we'll never see the that formula unless we file a FOI request.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->*Andyringey*, where are you earning 12%? The [broken link removed] reveals (at 2.9584%) a doubling in 24.33 years.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->_And all that is *before* manglement fees._<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->*tomj*, don't you ever play the Lotto or visit Shelbourne Park? I don't. I spend that _part-time_ studying world events and market-effecting news. You are right in observing that active managers rarely beat the passive ones. But I am after beating inflation and egregious manglement fees. So 6-7% _*CAGR*_ in today's environment satisfies me.


----------



## Max Hopper (18 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Couldn't resist this -  also rang a prominent Irish financial institution and got '_answers_' - 





> <snip> that was what an EBS official told me. <snip> . So I enquired again only to be told this time that </snip>


*Bad Logic*, I presume you have a written document detailing the definitions of *net* and *gross* NAVs? I certainly do _ and it does not match your *out-of-hand* ones_.


----------



## Max Hopper (18 Oct 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Far too much drivel paraded about as fact is written on this board.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--> I have made my point which is that the ISEQ today is still underwater after 36 months. Regardless of the differing and unsubstantiated posts to the contrary, Irish investors which includes the property segment are being taken for an expensive and dangerous ride.


----------



## Max Hopper (8 Nov 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Has   _all_ costs? Not being a QLer, I have to ask if monthly SSIA transactions are also levied (as  reveals) -





> I’m not sure you have this right. QL impose a 1% administration fee on its euro funds and a 1.2% fee on its US funds. There is a post somewhere on AAM explaining how the fees are applied, but basically it is hidden in the price quoted for the units. *There is also a transaction charge of 2.54 euro for each investment*.


----------



## rainyday (8 Nov 2004)

*Re: Did we miss an important milestone?*

Unfortunately for you Max, no conspiracy applies. There is no monthly transaction fee for QL SSIA accounts.


----------

