Sabri Oncu wrote: > This is not a good graph Julio, because it is comparing oranges and > apples. S&P and Gold are fine but that 30-year bond is not, because > while the S&P and Gold performances in that graph are measured in > units of return, the 30-year bond performance is measured probably in > terms of the "on-the-run" 30-year bond yield, which is, by the way, > semi-annually compounding. For a more meaningful comparison, you need > to replace that 30-year bond with a long-term US Treasury ETF, if you > can find one, so that all performances are measured in returns. If you > do what I suggest, we will see that in the same period the long-term > treasuries did quite well too. It is for sure that they did way better > than S&P but I don't have a feel for how they did relative to Gold, > although I don't think they did that miserably: their performance > should be in the range from 40% to 60% or so in that five years.
in other words, while gold and the S&P pay returns only via capital gains, bonds also pay interest? -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
