Year to date, the stock market has produced flat returns on the S&P500, and a -9% return on the TSX300. This is demonstrated in the charts of the S&P500 and TSX300 below. Investment Pro’s, who by and far believe in a lower turnover approach (i.e. less trading, more buy & hold) to managing their clients’ money typically follow the returns of the index’s. Thus, many clients of such managers haven’t made much money this year.
At ValueTrend, we’re happy to report that our highly active/high turnover approach has produced significantly better returns than the indices. In fact, independent Portfolio Manager Analysis done by Patterson & Associates has ranked us as the 3rd lowest volatility and 8th best risk/return compared to Canadian Portfolio Managers in our space (Canadian Focused) to the end of October. This is great news – But it appears that ValueTrend is not the only ones who can outperform the markets with less risk.
TradingMarkets – a Web site that provides its subscribers with stock analysis – invited 10 Playboy models to participate in an investing contest.
When results were tallied toward the end of the year after their last contest (2006), 40 percent of the bunnies delivered better returns than the S&P 500, compared with just 29 percent of actively managed mutual funds.
So, if you want better returns than the markets, you might want to consider the services of ValueTrend, or ask the Playboy Bunny crew for some stock tips.
On the subject of transparency
I try to be open about my trading philosophies and thought processes that go into the ValueTrend equity platforms. This transparency is evident in my bi-weekly blogs, along with the media writings and BNN appearances. I am also proud of the fact that performance numbers are available for all who wish to view them–right here on this website. This is something less common in the investment industry. Many Investment Advisors have mentioned to me that they don’t like the public to see their performance numbers, and they don’t spend time talking to their clients about their relative performance numbers. They’d prefer to concentrate on the client/ Advisor relationship rather than performance. They claim their clients don’t know and don’t care how markets have done, or how they’ve performed relative to them. Their clients top criteria is how much the Advisor “cares” for them. Strange, as I’ve always felt that the best way to show a client you care is to offer good performance and be fully transparent about everything involved in the process.
Each to their own, I guess.