Playing the Percentages: The Effect of Gains and Losses
Stumble It!
Digg It!
Tip It!
del.ico.us
FacebookQuestion: When is 50% not equal to 50%?
Answer: When you’re talking about investment gains and losses.
This is a relatively simple mathematical truism, but I find it interesting just the same… Did you know that if you experience a 50% investment loss you’ll need a 100% gain just to break even? It’s sad, but true… And the order in which these gains and losses occur doesn’t matter. Indeed, consider the following:
If you start with $100 and lose 50%, you’re down to just $50. Now, if you gain 50%, you’re only back up to $75. Similarly, if you start out by gaining 50%, you’d have $150. But if you then lost 50%, you’d fall back to $75. See? It’s the same either way.
In fact, this is a generally true phenomenon that holds for larger or smaller percentages, as well. Consider a 10% loss on that initial $100 investment – you’d be down to $90. If that was followed by a 10% gain, you’d be back up to $99. Start with a 10% gain and you’re up to $110. Follow that with a 10% loss and your back below where you started at $99.
I’m really not sure what my point is here… I’ve always just found this interesting to think about, and it’s a good thing to keep in mind when roughing out investment returns in your head.
Published on April 30th, 2007 - 11 Comments
Filed under: Saving & Investing
email this article
- bookmark it
About the author: Nickel is the founder and editor-in-chief of this site. He's a thirty-something family man who has been writing about personal finance since 2005, and guess what? He's on Twitter!
Related articles...
» Carnivals – Week of 05/07/07» From the Archives (April 13th – May 3rd)
» The Best of April 2007
» Don’t Miss These Tax Breaks, Part 2
» Common Income Tax Deductions
» Stocks are for Losers?
» Unemployment Jumps, Worst Month in 34 Years
» How to Make Money in the Stock Market, Re-Revisited
Was this article useful? Please sign up to receive our content via e-mail:
11 Responses to “Playing the Percentages: The Effect of Gains and Losses”
Leave a Reply
Great deals...
Readers’ choice...
Recent articles...
- New Home, New Expenses
- Lending Club Reduces Interest Rates for Borrowers
- Save for Retirement With a Spousal IRA
- How to Handle a Missing 1099 Form
- Pursuing Financial Independence: Now What?
- Determining Your Financial Priorities
- Lending Club Update - December/January Performance
- 2010 Outlook for Mortgage Rates
- Reducing Your Automotive Expenses
- OptionsHouse 100 Free Trades Promo Extended
Most talked about...
- Dave Ramsey is Bad at Math
- $8,000 Homebuyer Tax Credit
- Dish Network Customer Service SUCKS
- How to Claim the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit
- $15,000 Homebuyer Tax Credit
- Reduced Credit Limits? Share Your Experience
- Pay Off Mortgage Early? Or Invest?
- Would the "Fair Tax" Gut the Economy?
- $7500 First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit
- Tax Stimulus Rebate Payments to Start Early
- Best Online High Interest Savings Accounts (Updated!)
- Life's Too Short to Drink Cheap Beer
April 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
I often wondered this about commission-based broker fees also. If they charge you 1.5% of the balance when your portfolio is up 5% one year but still charge 1.5% when it is down 2% the next year, wouldn’t your effective fee rate be higher than 1.5%?
Or do they charge 1.5% of earnings? Or does it vary?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
As basic as this seems, it is amazing that many people don’t really seem to grasp this fact.
IMO, this is a big reason why I feel it is so important to cut your losses early on stock transactions. Trying to hang on and wait for a stock to “come back” often results in a loss that is difficult to recover from.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
So in other words, I should just aim for 50% gains in anything that I do? Heheh…
April 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Sorry nickel, love your site, but this is stupid. Percentages are only meaningful when it is understood what it is a percentage of. If you have a hundred dollars as your original balance, and you lose 50% of your original balance, you then need to gain 50% of your original balance to break even. But it is true that you now have less money to work with and thus less opportunity to make a gain.
If you lost 50% last year in a stock, yes, that stock will need to gain 100% of its current value in the next year for you to be able to sell at break even–but that’s still only 50% of its purchase value that it needs to gain.
Stores exploit this confusion by giving you “additional” percentages off. This new discount is off the “new” price after the regular “sale”. For example, if you have a $100 list price shirt on a 50% off “sale”, then a “20% additional off clearance”, the shirt will cost $40 (50% + 20%*50% off), not the $30 you thought (50% + 20% off).
April 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Unlike the last comment, I think this is a very useful post. Mainly because most investors miss this point when they try to pick a ‘good’ mutual fund.
Assume you have $1,000 to invest and two options. 1) that returns +50%, -50%, +50% over the next three years and 2) that is +10%, +20%, +5% over the next three years.
If you chose option 1, you would end up with $1,125 after the three years and if you chose option 2 you would end up with $1,386. But if you read the average returns for these funds over those years then option 1 has an average return of 16.7% whereas option 2 has an average return of 11.7%.
People think they read average returns and know that they will end up with more money, when this post is a great example of why higher average returns does not mean more money.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Begging your pardon, the “stupid” comment was a little harsh. Forgive me? The applications of what you are saying are indeed meaningful.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
that was so nice of you to apologize patrick!
April 30th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
He’s just kissing butt because he wants to win a flash drive.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:08 am
Kurt said:
Assume you have $1,000 to invest and two options. 1) that returns +50%, -50%, +50% over the next three years and 2) that is +10%, +20%, +5% over the next three years.
I calculate that the annualised average returns are 4.0% and 11.5% respectively. With percentages you can’t average by adding them up and dividing by three and percentages are multiplied not summed.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:10 am
Right. That’s the point. It’s essentially the difference between and arithmetic mean and a geometric mean.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:15 am
And don’t forget that you have to take the tax bite out of that too.