Hmmmm.... so NVDA is down 12.3 % in last few days??? You forgot to mention it is up 430,000% (YES, 430 THOUSAND %) in last 25 years while your favorite fund (hussman "strategic" where is the strategy) is down 40% in the same time line.
Since it's inception, NVDA had 5 drawdowns of over 50%!
When James Chanos was once asked why he goes short, his response, so I can go long. Yes, Hussman's fund has done poorly, but here's the thing, it zigs when NVDA or the S&P 500 zags.* You can use Portfolio Visualizer's Efficient Frontier and it will spit out a 55-45 allocation for a HSGFX-NVDA portfolio, rebalanced annually. It's Sharpe ratio is 1.59 vs 1.42 for NVDA, you're better compensated for risk. It will cut max drawdown for NVDA BY 1/2. ( Past performance is no guarantee of future results )
* HSGFX was originally intended to be market neutral when valuations were considered too high. I've pointed out in other posts Hussman went short around 2011. I would use BTAL if I was doing this, it's portfolio and methodology are more transparent. Not a recommendation, do your own DD.
Hmmmm.... so NVDA is down 12.3 % in last few days??? You forgot to mention it is up 430,000% (YES, 430 THOUSAND %) in last 25 years while your favorite fund (hussman "strategic" where is the strategy) is down 40% in the same time line.
Since it's inception, NVDA had 5 drawdowns of over 50%!
When James Chanos was once asked why he goes short, his response, so I can go long. Yes, Hussman's fund has done poorly, but here's the thing, it zigs when NVDA or the S&P 500 zags.* You can use Portfolio Visualizer's Efficient Frontier and it will spit out a 55-45 allocation for a HSGFX-NVDA portfolio, rebalanced annually. It's Sharpe ratio is 1.59 vs 1.42 for NVDA, you're better compensated for risk. It will cut max drawdown for NVDA BY 1/2. ( Past performance is no guarantee of future results )
* HSGFX was originally intended to be market neutral when valuations were considered too high. I've pointed out in other posts Hussman went short around 2011. I would use BTAL if I was doing this, it's portfolio and methodology are more transparent. Not a recommendation, do your own DD.
The drawdowns you talk about are only focusing on the index appreciation/depreciation. But don't figure in dividends - yes?
But the bottom line is that NVDA is up 430,000% since 2000. That really is all that matters.
When James Chanos was once asked why he goes short, his response, so I can go long. Yes, Hussman's fund has done poorly, but here's the thing, it zigs when NVDA or the S&P 500 zags.* You can use Portfolio Visualizer's Efficient Frontier and it will spit out a 55-45 allocation for a HSGFX-NVDA portfolio, rebalanced annually. It's Sharpe ratio is 1.59 vs 1.42 for NVDA, you're better compensated for risk. It will cut max drawdown for NVDA BY 1/2. ( Past performance is no guarantee of future results )
* HSGFX was originally intended to be market neutral when valuations were considered too high. I've pointed out in other posts Hussman went short around 2011. I would use BTAL if I was doing this, it's portfolio and methodology are more transparent. Not a recommendation, do your own DD.
The drawdowns you talk about are only focusing on the index appreciation/depreciation. But don't figure in dividends - yes?
But the bottom line is that NVDA is up 430,000% since 2000. That really is all that matters.
I just verified at least one of these drawdowns and it appears to be correct.
Those are massive.
I contend that the big cumulative appreciation of NVDA is NOT "all that matters." I say that from the perspective of risk to reward calculation in evaluating an investment. Yes, based on past performance, NVDA has potential for high returns, but it is just as eveident that it has high likelihood for big downside potential (based on the large historical drawdowns). In determining if an investment is right for any particular investor, a basic understanding of it's risk to reward profile is helpful.
In short, that thing isn't your grandmother's 'buy-it-and-forgetaboutit' investment.
When James Chanos was once asked why he goes short, his response, so I can go long. Yes, Hussman's fund has done poorly, but here's the thing, it zigs when NVDA or the S&P 500 zags.* You can use Portfolio Visualizer's Efficient Frontier and it will spit out a 55-45 allocation for a HSGFX-NVDA portfolio, rebalanced annually. It's Sharpe ratio is 1.59 vs 1.42 for NVDA, you're better compensated for risk. It will cut max drawdown for NVDA BY 1/2. ( Past performance is no guarantee of future results )
* HSGFX was originally intended to be market neutral when valuations were considered too high. I've pointed out in other posts Hussman went short around 2011. I would use BTAL if I was doing this, it's portfolio and methodology are more transparent. Not a recommendation, do your own DD.
The drawdowns you talk about are only focusing on the index appreciation/depreciation. But don't figure in dividends - yes?
But the bottom line is that NVDA is up 430,000% since 2000. That really is all that matters.
NVDA didn't start paying dividends until the end of 2012. Current dividend yield is 0.02%. I doubt there are any retail investors that held NVDA in 2000 and didn't sell in the past 25 years.
The drawdowns you talk about are only focusing on the index appreciation/depreciation. But don't figure in dividends - yes?
But the bottom line is that NVDA is up 430,000% since 2000. That really is all that matters.
NVDA didn't start paying dividends until the end of 2012. Current dividend yield is 0.02%. I doubt there are any retail investors that held NVDA in 2000 and didn't sell in the past 25 years.
Concerning dividends, I read fairly recently that over the last 100 years 40% of the S & P total return has been from dividends but have a hard time believing that. Also, not very many of the Mag 7 even pay dividends.
NVDA didn't start paying dividends until the end of 2012. Current dividend yield is 0.02%. I doubt there are any retail investors that held NVDA in 2000 and didn't sell in the past 25 years.
Concerning dividends, I read fairly recently that over the last 100 years 40% of the S & P total return has been from dividends but have a hard time believing that. Also, not very many of the Mag 7 even pay dividends.
Growth stocks usually don't pay a dividend at all, or at least one of any size. Their objectives are different, and their big focus is in reinvesting in growing the comapny and in research and development.
It appears that Apple pays a small one, Nvidia virtually none, Amazon none, Microsoft's is samll, etc.