Equity Performance Figures

capital0ne

Now that Bowler has explained perfomance figures and their calculation in fantastic detail - cheers mate!

Can I have some discussion on the performance figures from different sites.

City of London Ord : CTY
https://www.ii.co.uk
1m 1y 3y 5y
+2.85% +6.99% +28.16% +34.50%
http://tools.morningstar.co.uk/
1m 1y 3y ann 5y ann
+2.85 +6.99 +8.62 +6.11
https://www.hl.co.uk/
1m 1y 3y 5y
+3.23% +3.75% +12.31% +9.59%

I can understand the ii and morningstar figures for 1m and 1y - it's not annualised, but I can't follow any of the other figures, or why Hargreaves is completely different.

TIA

bowlhead99

At Morningstar the 3 year "ann" figure means the total return over the three year period works out to 8.82 annualised. So the 8.82% is an annual figure, not the total figure. If you received that rate of return for three years in a row with all the returns left reinvested and compounded up, you would end up after three years with a total profit of 28.16%. Which agrees with what ii.co.uk told you the fund delivered after three years in total.

So the 3 and 5 years figures at Morningstar are annual average compounding returns, white the 3 and 5 years figures at ii co.uk are total returns over the period. If you are trying to compare a fund's performance against other funds' published data, you might prefer to be told the annualised return over a period, or the total return for the period, depending what format the rest of your data is in.

The Morningstar (5 year ann) figure means it gave an annualised return of 6.11% over 5 years.

What happens if you invest some money and grow it by an annual return of 6.11% five times in a row?

£10,000 x 1.0611 x 1.0611 x 1.0611 x 1.0611 x 1.0611 = about £13,450.
Same as if you got a total return of 34.5% (10,000 x 1.345 = £13,450).

So, Morningstar and ii are wholly consistent, just presenting the same performance in a different format.

londoninvestor

capital0ne wrote: »

or why Hargreaves is completely different.

For ITs, HL shows performance based on the change in share price, with dividends ignored.

dividendhero

londoninvestor wrote: »

For ITs, HL shows performance based on the change in share price, with dividends ignored.

It depends where you look, some of HL's charts do show Total Return

londoninvestor

dividendhero wrote: »

It depends where you look, some of HL's charts do show Total Return

I know how to get that for funds - do you know how to get to it for ITs?

dividendhero

londoninvestor wrote: »

I know how to get that for funds - do you know how to get to it for ITs?

It's a little bit counter intuitive, you go into funds - pick a fund and chart it. You can then compare it to equities, which includes IT's. You have a choice of price or total return.

One hitch is that it maxes at 5 years

cloud_dog

bowlhead99 wrote: »

At Morningstar the 3 year "ann" figure means the total return over the three year period works out to 8.82 annualised. So the 8.82% is an annual figure, not the total figure. If you received that rate of return for three years in a row with all the returns left reinvested and compounded up, you would end up after three years with a total profit of 28.16%. Which agrees with what ii.co.uk told you the fund delivered after three years in total.

So the 3 and 5 years figures at Morningstar are annual average compounding returns, white the 3 and 5 years figures at ii co.uk are total returns over the period. If you are trying to compare a fund's performance against other funds' published data, you might prefer to be told the annualised return over a period, or the total return for the period, depending what format the rest of your data is in.

The Morningstar (5 year ann) figure means it gave an annualised return of 6.11% over 5 years.

What happens if you invest some money and grow it by an annual return of 6.11% five times in a row?

£10,000 x 1.0611 x 1.0611 x 1.0611 x 1.0611 x 1.0611 = about £13,450.
Same as if you got a total return of 34.5% (10,000 x 1.345 = £13,450).

So, Morningstar and ii are wholly consistent, just presenting the same performance in a different format.

I'm sure the OP knew this all along but, was just putting it out there to stimulate debate and raise awareness for others.

londoninvestor

dividendhero wrote: »

It's a little bit counter intuitive, you go into funds - pick a fund and chart it. You can then compare it to equities, which includes IT's. You have a choice of price or total return.

One hitch is that it maxes at 5 years

Aha - got it. Thanks very much!

And it gives 34.5% total performance for CTY over 5 years, just like Morningstar.

Prism

cloud_dog wrote: »

I'm sure the OP knew this all along but, was just putting it out there to stimulate debate and raise awareness for others.

Of course. I mean you couldn't get to a situation where you had so much wealth that each years ISA contribution was just a small blip, without knowing this stuff. Could you?

bowlhead99

Prism wrote: »

I mean you couldn't get to a situation where you had so much wealth that each years ISA contribution was just a small blip...

I'm sure lots of us find ourselves in that position by luck or judgement. Wouldn't want to speculate how capital0ne found himself there.

But when you get to a largish portfolio, it becomes meaningless to consider prospective performance of new invested money because it would be such a small single digit percentage of the random gains and losses delivered by the rest of the haphazardly constructed portfolio.

So I only invest in individual shares, and then I don't need to look at so-called 'performance tables' published by investment funds and consider whether their annualised or total return percentages are interchangable.

For posterity
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74158062 :rotfl: