Correction Losses

bowlhead99

ivormonee wrote: »

eskbanker wrote: »

you don't get many bowlhead99 posts to the pound

I think you mean to the kilo. Don't you?

Unless you highly value your reading time, you get loads to the £. At least, I don't get any £s for them. But you probably get fewer to the lb.

Post count ~7750. If we assume the 'typical bowlhead99 post' is 600 words (though some will be 400 and some 800 or more) that's about a page of A4; perhaps there are 5000 of those; and then 2750 less-typical posts that fit two or three to the page, so maybe a little over 1000 pages for that. So maybe a bit over 6000 pages.

But maybe our minds play tricks on us when making generalisations and actually there are only 2750 of the 600-word missives which we remember for their lack of brevity, and the other 5000 are the shorter 2-or-3-to-a-page ones, so maybe only 5000 pages needed total.

Assuming we're printing single sided on 80gsm office printer paper, which weighs 5 grams per A4 sheet, those 5000-6000 pages would weigh 25-30kg or 55-66 lbs.

That's similar to the weight of a labrador. Barring accident, labradors might be expected to reach 13 years (the age of the bowlhead99 account) but probably offer signifcantly fewer snippets of fact and opinion in relation to the UK personal finance landscape. So if you are looking to find out about financial products and services: while you might not get many posts to the pound, the pounds are relatively content-rich, compared to other options.

eskbanker

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Unless you highly value your reading time, you get loads to the £. At least, I don't get any £s for them. But you probably get fewer to the lb.

[...]

That's similar to the weight of a labrador.

"You ain't nothing but a pound dog...."

stoozie1

bowlhead99 wrote: »

So if you are looking to find out about financial products and services: while you might not get many posts to the pound, the pounds are relatively content-rich, compared to other options.

Extremely content-rich. I value them highly :beer:

grey_gym_sock

bowlhead99 wrote: »

That's similar to the weight of a labrador. Barring accident, labradors might be expected to reach 13 years (the age of the bowlhead99 account) but probably offer signifcantly fewer snippets of fact and opinion in relation to the UK personal finance landscape.

however, a 5000 page stack of paper is unlikely to fetch a ball. that would be something like a 5-sigma event.

also, what about the dogs of the dow? apparently the current dogs include pfizer and merck, both of which definitely involve labs.

george4064

ChesterDog wrote: »

Late to the party here, but my total investments are this afternoon showing an overall loss since Jan 1 of £18. :-)

That's on a portfolio value of (this afternoon) £1,061,565.

Whats the % gain/loss?

No-one needs to know the £ gain/loss.

bowlhead99

george4064 wrote: »

Whats the % gain/loss?

No-one needs to know the £ gain/loss.

No-one needs to know the % gain/loss either, they are just nosy.

When given the £ loss as above, you could always work out the percentage if you wanted it, as you've been told the closing value and the loss figure, both in the same currency.

Although, the discussion requested from OP was around the level of loss from "January at its height", rather than from 1 Jan. I don't know what my figures are as I don't check my account daily and my provider doesn't give a historic record of all my daily account value figures for me to see what it was at the highest part of a particular month.

george4064

bowlhead99 wrote: »

No-one needs to know the % gain/loss either, they are just nosy.

When given the £ loss as above, you could always work out the percentage if you wanted it, as you've been told the closing value and the loss figure, both in the same currency.

Although, the discussion requested from OP was around the level of loss from "January at its height", rather than from 1 Jan. I don't know what my figures are as I don't check my account daily and my provider doesn't give a historic record of all my daily account value figures for me to see what it was at the highest part of a particular month.

My point was there is no need to include £ values. Just a sly way to trying to showboat the value of their portfolio (IMO).

A simple % change is fine and removes any childish boasting.

Prism

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Although, the discussion requested from OP was around the level of loss from "January at its height", rather than from 1 Jan. I don't know what my figures are as I don't check my account daily and my provider doesn't give a historic record of all my daily account value figures for me to see what it was at the highest part of a particular month.

Thats I weakness of Youinvest that is a shame i reckon. I do like an upwards sloping graph.

Also, for me, March was actually the height rather than January.

bowlhead99

george4064 wrote: »

My point was there is no need to include £ values. Just a sly way to trying to showboat the value of their portfolio (IMO).

A simple % change is fine and removes any childish boasting.

A person with a large portfolio may have a more complex set of holdings and quite different set of objectives to a person with a small one. Percentage returns are nothing without context.

Someone who wants to know what other people have got so that they can personally rate their performance against those other people should not demand modesty and claim it's rude or egotistical for those other people to say how much they've got.

george4064

bowlhead99 wrote: »

A person with a large portfolio may have a more complex set of holdings and quite different set of objectives to a person with a small one. Percentage returns are nothing without context.

Someone who wants to know what other people have got so that they can personally rate their performance against those other people should not demand modesty and claim it's rude or egotistical for those other people to say how much they've got.

I never said that was not the case.

I just think that the £ values were unnecessary and wondered why a simple % wasn't posted instead. If anything, the % actually puts any performance into context given that it is on the ratio scale than the (£) ordinal scale.

For example if Portfolio A and Portfolio B have both increased by £100 over Q1 2018 it says nothing about their actual performance, and then to give their starting and ending values just gives everyone an annoying % calculation to make when the original poster should have done it themselves (and also negate the need to unnecessarily post their portfolio value).

Anyway, perhaps we should agree to disagree and put this to bed?