x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 1 一个简单的数学算一算2%的management fee 怎样wipe out 你几乎所有收益。
假设你买某个fund, 这个fund平均年收益是5%, 50年后的return是:
(1)没有management fee: 1.05^50-1=10.5
(2) 每年2% management fee: 1.03^50-1=3.4
也就是说,虽然只有2%fee, 长期来看,你的收益有(10.5-3.4)/10.5=68%都被manager
拿走了,你只有32%. 而且人家是没风险的,可怕吗?
那么你会问,fund的收益率必须是多少,才能保证你和manager平分profit呢?
解方程:(1+x)^50-1=2*((1+x-0.02)^50-1) 这样保证一人一半。
结果x=0.45. 这个现实中可能吗? 没有fund能保证每年45% for 50 years.
结论,如果长期投入2%management fee的fund,基本上是肯定亏。除非fund巨牛无比,
每年的average return非常高。一旦有任何不确定发生,就很惨。
所以买fund,不如自己买index, 这些index fee极其低(0.1% ?)。如果你想长期持有
index, 可以每个月卖下个月的covered call. 如果到时候涨了太多,你就buy back
the call, immediately sell next month's call. 这样你每个月都可以collect time
premium. |
r***l 发帖数: 9084 | 2 股市赚钱其实不是个太难的事情,只不过很多人"不屑"去做,呵呵 |
k**********4 发帖数: 16092 | 3 it's true, but I guess not many people will invest
in a fund for 50 yrs, how about 5 or 10 yrs? I think
these time span is more realistic. |
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 4 主要是买index赚得太少,都看不上。其实大部分的manager都搞不赢index.
钱投给他们基本上已经亏了(因为他们收高额的fee)。
【在 r***l 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 股市赚钱其实不是个太难的事情,只不过很多人"不屑"去做,呵呵
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 5 if 10 years, 1.05^10-1=0.63, 1.03^10-1=0.34, about half profits go to the
manager. (assuming there is any profit, if the stock goes down, then the fund still charges fee while you are down even more)
【在 k**********4 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : it's true, but I guess not many people will invest : in a fund for 50 yrs, how about 5 or 10 yrs? I think : these time span is more realistic.
|
i******g 发帖数: 1444 | 6 你这个算的根本就不对。。。。
management fee 2% 要从本金里面去除啊,第二年本金也就增长了3%。。
你就不能用1.05^50 来计算总的增长率。
所以50年,每年的都赚钱5%,有2%的手续费,
那金主赚得是1.03^50-1=3.38倍
fund的赚得是0.02+0.02*1.03+0.02*1.03^2......+0.02*1.03^49=2.2559倍 |
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 7 if there were no fee, then your return
would have been 1.05^50-1. With the fee, you only get 1.03^50-1.
The difference is the amount you would lose due to the management fee.
I think your calculation is not correct: the fund can use the fee to re-
invest with 5% return every year. For example, at the first year, they
collect 0.02 fee, reinvest it for 49 years to get 0.02*1.05^49, which is
much larger than 0.02*1.03^49 as in your formula. The idea is that they don't need to pay fee for their part (even they pay, they get the money themselves). So their return should use 0.02*1.05^49.
【在 i******g 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 你这个算的根本就不对。。。。 : management fee 2% 要从本金里面去除啊,第二年本金也就增长了3%。。 : 你就不能用1.05^50 来计算总的增长率。 : 所以50年,每年的都赚钱5%,有2%的手续费, : 那金主赚得是1.03^50-1=3.38倍 : fund的赚得是0.02+0.02*1.03+0.02*1.03^2......+0.02*1.03^49=2.2559倍
|
j*****y 发帖数: 1916 | 8 Finally there is a smart girl coming out.
Ding!
You take 3% profit every year, manager takes 2% profit every year. How can
you claim that manager takes away 68% of profit 50 years later? It just
does not make sense.
【在 i******g 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 你这个算的根本就不对。。。。 : management fee 2% 要从本金里面去除啊,第二年本金也就增长了3%。。 : 你就不能用1.05^50 来计算总的增长率。 : 所以50年,每年的都赚钱5%,有2%的手续费, : 那金主赚得是1.03^50-1=3.38倍 : fund的赚得是0.02+0.02*1.03+0.02*1.03^2......+0.02*1.03^49=2.2559倍
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 9 You can imagine that the manager takes your money but immediately invest in the same equity, so the combined account of you and the manager still has the same balance as if there is no fee. The manager of course does not take fee from his own part.
So any loss of potential gain (70%) from you would go to the manager.
The idea that the manager makes more than you do is that, the manager can re-invest the fee to make 5% every year (because he does not take fee from his part), but your part only makes 3% per year.
Due to the compounding factor, he makes more and more than you do.
So the girl's calculation is wrong. For example, at the first year, the manager takes 0.02, re-invest it for 49 years with 5% return, so the return for that part is 0.02*1.05^49, much larger than the one calculated in her expression.
Does that make sense?
【在 j*****y 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : Finally there is a smart girl coming out. : Ding! : You take 3% profit every year, manager takes 2% profit every year. How can : you claim that manager takes away 68% of profit 50 years later? It just : does not make sense.
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 10 sigh. seems people don't understand the simple logic here: the manager can
re-invest the 2% fee to have 5% return each year (he does not need to pay
the fee for that part, it's all his money), but your part only gets 3% per
year. So his effective rate is much larger than yours. With compounding, the
difference becomes larger and larger.
in the same equity, so the combined account of you and the manager still has
the same balance as if there is no fee. The manager of course does not take
fee from his own part.
re-invest the fee to make 5% every year (because he does not take fee from
his part), but your part only makes 3% per year.
manager takes 0.02, re-invest it for 49 years with 5% return, so the return
for that part is 0.02*1.05^49, much larger than the one calculated in her
expression.
【在 x***u 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : You can imagine that the manager takes your money but immediately invest in the same equity, so the combined account of you and the manager still has the same balance as if there is no fee. The manager of course does not take fee from his own part. : So any loss of potential gain (70%) from you would go to the manager. : The idea that the manager makes more than you do is that, the manager can re-invest the fee to make 5% every year (because he does not take fee from his part), but your part only makes 3% per year. : Due to the compounding factor, he makes more and more than you do. : So the girl's calculation is wrong. For example, at the first year, the manager takes 0.02, re-invest it for 49 years with 5% return, so the return for that part is 0.02*1.05^49, much larger than the one calculated in her expression. : Does that make sense?
|
|
|
i******g 发帖数: 1444 | 11 你这个逻辑太强盗了。。
1, 如果投资人觉得自己能100%的能到达5%,那他肯定自己trade了,一分钱不用给
fund.
2. 投资人能达到5%,但不愿意花那个精力,2%给fund就是买人家的劳动力。
3. 你所谓的借鸡下蛋,风险是很高的。 就好比借了margin. 你只考虑了赚得情况,如
果赔了,他自己2%的管理费就少了,得拿出拉来补差价给投资人。
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 12 我们不是以开始就假设每年5%的回报么?如果这个假设不成立,当然后面的计算都不
对了。但是如果这个假设成立,后面确实是fund拿70%,自己30%.
还有,从来没有听说fund会补差价的。输了是顾客的,但是fee还是2%.
结论就是去买fee高的fund,绝对不如自己买index. 否则自己承担了风险,别人拿70%. 而且大部分managers can't beat the index.
【在 i******g 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 你这个逻辑太强盗了。。 : 1, 如果投资人觉得自己能100%的能到达5%,那他肯定自己trade了,一分钱不用给 : fund. : 2. 投资人能达到5%,但不愿意花那个精力,2%给fund就是买人家的劳动力。 : 3. 你所谓的借鸡下蛋,风险是很高的。 就好比借了margin. 你只考虑了赚得情况,如 : 果赔了,他自己2%的管理费就少了,得拿出拉来补差价给投资人。 : : :
|
i******g 发帖数: 1444 | 13 你这个逻辑太强盗了。。
1, 如果投资人觉得自己能100%的能到达5%,那他肯定自己trade了,一分钱不用给
fund.
2. 投资人能达到5%,但不愿意花那个精力,2%给fund就是买人家的劳动力。
3. 你所谓的借鸡下蛋,风险是很高的。 就好比借了margin. 你只考虑了赚得情况,如
果赔了,他自己2%的管理费就少了,得拿出拉来补差价给投资人。
|
i******g 发帖数: 1444 | 14 我们不是以开始就假设每年5%的回报么?但是如果这个假设成立,后面确实是fund拿
70%,自己30%.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
假设成立,那你怎么知道,这2%的佣金一定会用于之后的投资呢
还有,从来没有听说fund会补差价的。输了是顾客的,但是fee还是2%.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
这样我举个例子:
比如说105是本金,输了10%就是10.5,但是投资人的认知是他的本金是103,输了10%就
是10.3。 那么这0.2的差价不是fund来补么? 投资人也没那么傻,赢了本金就是103,
输了本金就是105。come on~
. 而且大部分managers can't beat the index.
【在 x***u 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 我们不是以开始就假设每年5%的回报么?如果这个假设不成立,当然后面的计算都不 : 对了。但是如果这个假设成立,后面确实是fund拿70%,自己30%. : 还有,从来没有听说fund会补差价的。输了是顾客的,但是fee还是2%. : 结论就是去买fee高的fund,绝对不如自己买index. 否则自己承担了风险,别人拿70%. 而且大部分managers can't beat the index.
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 15 算了,我认错。哈哈。:)
【在 i******g 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 你这个逻辑太强盗了。。 : 1, 如果投资人觉得自己能100%的能到达5%,那他肯定自己trade了,一分钱不用给 : fund. : 2. 投资人能达到5%,但不愿意花那个精力,2%给fund就是买人家的劳动力。 : 3. 你所谓的借鸡下蛋,风险是很高的。 就好比借了margin. 你只考虑了赚得情况,如 : 果赔了,他自己2%的管理费就少了,得拿出拉来补差价给投资人。 : : :
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 16 我认错。哈哈。:)
【在 i******g 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 我们不是以开始就假设每年5%的回报么?但是如果这个假设成立,后面确实是fund拿 : 70%,自己30%. : %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% : 假设成立,那你怎么知道,这2%的佣金一定会用于之后的投资呢 : 还有,从来没有听说fund会补差价的。输了是顾客的,但是fee还是2%. : %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% : 这样我举个例子: : 比如说105是本金,输了10%就是10.5,但是投资人的认知是他的本金是103,输了10%就 : 是10.3。 那么这0.2的差价不是fund来补么? 投资人也没那么傻,赢了本金就是103, : 输了本金就是105。come on~
|
c*******e 发帖数: 8624 | 17 LZ已经给了你solution了,就是买index,实际上很少有人在20年以上
能beat index.就是无脑in index吧,愿意的话按照年纪买x%的bond
比如30就买30% bond,50就买50% bond
【在 i******g 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 你这个逻辑太强盗了。。 : 1, 如果投资人觉得自己能100%的能到达5%,那他肯定自己trade了,一分钱不用给 : fund. : 2. 投资人能达到5%,但不愿意花那个精力,2%给fund就是买人家的劳动力。 : 3. 你所谓的借鸡下蛋,风险是很高的。 就好比借了margin. 你只考虑了赚得情况,如 : 果赔了,他自己2%的管理费就少了,得拿出拉来补差价给投资人。 : : :
|
d*********e 发帖数: 279 | 18
manager
你们思路太狭窄了,就没想投好的hedge fund,不过门槛比较高是真的,很多fund
minimum investment 1MM,我朋友的fund 能做到每年up 20%左右after fee.
【在 x***u 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 一个简单的数学算一算2%的management fee 怎样wipe out 你几乎所有收益。 : 假设你买某个fund, 这个fund平均年收益是5%, 50年后的return是: : (1)没有management fee: 1.05^50-1=10.5 : (2) 每年2% management fee: 1.03^50-1=3.4 : 也就是说,虽然只有2%fee, 长期来看,你的收益有(10.5-3.4)/10.5=68%都被manager : 拿走了,你只有32%. 而且人家是没风险的,可怕吗? : 那么你会问,fund的收益率必须是多少,才能保证你和manager平分profit呢? : 解方程:(1+x)^50-1=2*((1+x-0.02)^50-1) 这样保证一人一半。 : 结果x=0.45. 这个现实中可能吗? 没有fund能保证每年45% for 50 years. : 结论,如果长期投入2%management fee的fund,基本上是肯定亏。除非fund巨牛无比,
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 19 "每年up 20%左右after fee" for how many years?
【在 d*********e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : : manager : 你们思路太狭窄了,就没想投好的hedge fund,不过门槛比较高是真的,很多fund : minimum investment 1MM,我朋友的fund 能做到每年up 20%左右after fee.
|
d*****d 发帖数: 10658 | 20 收藏. 从来不买401K的飘过...买Index比买Fund好,是不是指去买SPY,IWM之类的比买
401K里形形色色的fund好?
【在 x***u 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : "每年up 20%左右after fee" for how many years?
|
|
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 21 Yes. In long term, very few funds can beat index (for example, SPY,QQQ etc)
【在 d*****d 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 收藏. 从来不买401K的飘过...买Index比买Fund好,是不是指去买SPY,IWM之类的比买 : 401K里形形色色的fund好?
|
d*********e 发帖数: 279 | 22
Ten years.
【在 x***u 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : "每年up 20%左右after fee" for how many years?
|
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 23 very impressive!
【在 d*********e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : : Ten years.
|
d***y 发帖数: 92 | 24 "
如果你想长期持有
index, 可以每个月卖下个月的covered call. 如果到时候涨了太多,你就buy back
the call, immediately sell next month's call. 这样你每个月都可以collect time
premium. "
How exactly do you do that? Can you beat index that way?
manager
【在 x***u 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 一个简单的数学算一算2%的management fee 怎样wipe out 你几乎所有收益。 : 假设你买某个fund, 这个fund平均年收益是5%, 50年后的return是: : (1)没有management fee: 1.05^50-1=10.5 : (2) 每年2% management fee: 1.03^50-1=3.4 : 也就是说,虽然只有2%fee, 长期来看,你的收益有(10.5-3.4)/10.5=68%都被manager : 拿走了,你只有32%. 而且人家是没风险的,可怕吗? : 那么你会问,fund的收益率必须是多少,才能保证你和manager平分profit呢? : 解方程:(1+x)^50-1=2*((1+x-0.02)^50-1) 这样保证一人一半。 : 结果x=0.45. 这个现实中可能吗? 没有fund能保证每年45% for 50 years. : 结论,如果长期投入2%management fee的fund,基本上是肯定亏。除非fund巨牛无比,
|
c*****v 发帖数: 839 | 25 别忘了即使是-5%的return, 2% 也是要收的。 |
x***u 发帖数: 1087 | 26 对. 必须的.
【在 c*****v 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 别忘了即使是-5%的return, 2% 也是要收的。
|