AUTO TRACKER PERFORMANCE TOP 149

[JTH]

28948
28949
28949
28950
28951
28952

[JTH]

Here are the top 15 folks who show up in the top 100 across all 4 timeframes.

You may notice our favorite buy & holder Birchtree shows up on all of them :)

28953

(Deleted the 1st post, some of the charts were out of order)

[JTH]

28954
28955
28956
28957
28958

I only went back to 2009

#1 That's when I first put in a full year

#2 2009 had to be hand-jammed, which took some time.

[userque]

Hi JTH,

How did you come up with the percentages? (I could cross check the numbers and answer my own question, but it's easier just to ask, and the odds favor that you used simple addition :)) If you used simple addition, you will get faulty results:


Suppose, an account has $100 first of the year, ends year up 10% for the year at $110, ends second year up 10% (for that year) at $121.

Simple addition says total percentages over the two year span is 20% (10%+10%). But as you can see, it is actually 21% ($100 into $121).

The differences/errors are amplified with higher account amounts (used internally by the tsptalk spreadsheet) and time (number of years span lasts).

To do this correctly is more complicated and requires more work. (Using a pseudo account balance for each trader that runs to whole time span, etc.)


They also do these simple addition of percentages in the alternative LMBF forums...also getting incorrect conclusions...guess I'll finally let them know as well by copying this to them.

To any sensitive readers: not trying to fight :rolleyes: (as so many times helpful (albeit: critical) information leads to on this site) just thought you would like accurate information. There is no easy way to tell someone: "Sorry, that's not correct if you did it like this..." But I tried.

:)

[RealMoneyIssues]

Sniff... no where to be found :(

[ravensfan]

Sniff... no where to be found :(

I feel your pain RMI. If JTH ever does the bottom 149...I'll show up.:embarrest:

[nasa1974]

I'm shocked to be in this kind of company. I can honestly say it is all luck on my part.

[JTH]

Using anything other than simple addition, Tom is the only one who has the capacity to come up with compounded percentages.

[userque]

Using anything other than simple addition, Tom is the only one who has the capacity to come up with compounded percentages.

That's not true. Suffice to say that you simply don't know how to do it. And that's fine. Hopefully your numbers are close enough for gov't work.:)

[burrocrat]

woohoo! i made the 4-year list, uh huh, that's what i'm talkin bout.

reading down those lists makes me realize how much i miss sugarandspice and mcduck.

jth, that's quite a fan club you are developing there, but apparently you have 3 dissatisfied customers. i suggest you just refund their membership dues back to them and call it even.

[JTH]

I'm shocked to be in this kind of company. I can honestly say it is all luck on my part.

Luck?

Once, twice, maybe three times, but 5 years of luck...

[JTH]

That's not true. Suffice to say that you simply don't know how to do it. And that's fine. Hopefully your numbers are close enough for gov't work.:)

Userque, just because you can post something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

I am well aware of, and know how to calculate the performance differences between adding verses compounding. While you may not agree with simple addition, taking five single years of data and compounding them, does not reflect the true performance either. The duration of time each member spends in each fund is not reflected because I do not have a 5-year history of all IFTs recorded. Tom is the only one who has access to this data and he is one of the few here who can calculate those results on a scale this large. Furthermore, I think most folks know that without account balances and contributions, we can only estimate the performance results, thus we can only be as accurate as the data we have to work with.

If you believe my results to be false or misleading, that's fine, you've made your point.

[JTH]

Sniff... no where to be found :(


I feel your pain RMI. If JTH ever does the bottom 149...I'll show up.:embarrest:

I'm sorry guys, I didn't post all the data because of the 5-picture posting limit. The purpose of the post was not to call out those who underperformed, but to give members a guide on who is performing consistently over time. This is meant to be a guide, there is no trophy given out in this exercise. :)

[Boghie]

I was wondering what happened to me... I'm wandering around in the wilderness...

My crappy returns the past two years - in relation to you studs - dropped me right off the charts:mad:

Good hunting...

[Frixxxx]

Mod Note: When people are posting information, it is the reader who must use judgment on the information provided and what they are going to do with it. The context of any post can differ to each user. I would expect that valuable information is being presented and clarification requests would be welcomed. Play nice!

Please remember to review the rules at: Rules and Guidelines (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/rules-tos-info-please-read/3295-rules-guidelines-tos.html)

Thank you!

[JTH]

I was wondering what happened to me... I'm wandering around in the wilderness...

My crappy returns the past two years - in relation to you studs - dropped me right off the charts:mad:

Good hunting...

Not crappy, most folks here would love to have that sort of performance. :)

28961

[Boghie]

It's my inner Amoeba that is holding me back. Got to get a bit more ego and get back into the game.

Thinking of adjusting my allocation to somewhere between: 5/26/40/17/12 and 0/26/40/17/17.

That 'G Fund' is a real drag on the returns. It is really only good if you can swing (like you, but definitely not like me) or if we are in a 2008 collapse. What am I doing in it??? But, I don't think the 'F Fund' is as safe as it once was. Decisions, decisions. I think I might just nap in place...

[JTH]

I just want to add that this list was comprised by identifying, filtering and deleting non-duplicate names. As a result, I had to manual change IT & Ebbs name to prevent them from dropping off the list. Those were the only names I manually changed, but I failed to identify the name change with the Sentiment Survey/System, therefore it was inadvertently excluded from the list.

[userque]

Userque, just because you can post something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

I am well aware of, and know how to calculate the performance differences between adding verses compounding. While you may not agree with simple addition, taking five single years of data and compounding them, does not reflect the true performance either. The duration of time each member spends in each fund is not reflected because I do not have a 5-year history of all IFTs recorded. Tom is the only one who has access to this data and he is one of the few here who can calculate those results on a scale this large. Furthermore, I think most folks know that without account balances and contributions, we can only estimate the performance results, thus we can only be as accurate as the data we have to work with.

If you believe my results to be false or misleading, that's fine, you've made your point.

It has nothing to do with IFT's, my simple example explains it all. However, if everyone likes it, I love it. :)Like you've said in the past, I felt I had an obligation to speak on it for those who might appreciate it.

You've also made your point. And that's fine.:)

[JTH]

I just want to add that this list was comprised by identifying, filtering and deleting non-duplicate names. As a result, I had to manual change IT & Ebbs name to prevent them from dropping off the list. Those were the only names I manually changed, but I failed to identify the name change with the Sentiment Survey/System, therefore it was inadvertently excluded from the list.

Here are the top 15 folks who show up in the top 100 across all 4 timeframes.

You may notice our favorite buy & holder Birchtree shows up on all of them :)

Here is where the Sentiment System falls within this analysis, as we can the SS made the top 100 list across all timeframes used.

28968

[ebbnflow]

Folks, don't hang your hats on past performance. Random is as random does.

My patterns remain in the core of my old and new system. The new system uses probabilities that takes randomness out of the equation. It's never been done before, but if it keeps working the way it has, then watch out! I've been tinkering with the system for about three years (2012-2014), and it has beaten the S&P 500 in 2012, lost in 2013, and is beating it again this year. If we look back to 2007 using the triple patterns, even without the double patterns, the new system would have beaten the S&P 500 in 7 of the last 8 years.

Let's say a drug company is competing against other companies and not doing that great. Then their research finally pays off by discovering something about their product. They know that their product can now outperform anything in the market. If the product can truly be the best, what do you do? Closed-minded folks need not answer. :D

When it comes to research and development (R&D), innovation is what you're after. Don't be fooled with the illusion of past performance, especially when random chance has it by the balls. :rolleyes:

[Boghie]

You know what I think...

I think equities go up because greedy, rapacious capitalistic pig 1%ers need their companies to grow to make themselves wealthy.

Simple. Plus, anyone else out there notice that the indexes add and drop companies. Enron would be quite a drag on the S&P500 and DOW right now, as would Kodak, as would Polaroid, etc... Systems are nice on the margin - or when things are about to crap out like 2008. But, in the norm, anything that moves you out of the market gets you out of the ownership society. And, out of the influence of those dastardly 1%ers in the Bilderberger Society.

[Sensei]

Thanks for the interesting lists, JTH! Check me out at #69 on the 2-yr list! Woohoo!!!

Also, look at "Total_US_Market" on the 5-yr list - it's just set and forget with an allocation of 36%C/64%S. Imagine what BT could have accomplished if he wasn't holding that I-fund turd. ;)

[Boghie]

Thanks for the interesting lists, JTH! Check me out at #69 on the 2-yr list! Woohoo!!!

Also, look at "Total_US_Market" on the 5-yr list - it's just set and forget with an allocation of 36%C/64%S. Imagine what BT could have accomplished if he wasn't holding that I-fund turd. ;)

My money is on the turd soon. Turds rise to the top after they sink to the bottom. Always invest in the turds - especially when they are equity indexes. Those are the best turds ever. And, I know my turds.

The only turd that doesn't go anywhere is the 'G Fund' turd. And, it is built to be a stable turd. Why am I holding 12% in that turd - why!!!