Add system price to the grid

As a newbie, it took me awhile to discover that the “system finder” is useless while “the grid” is the way to find systems. So I would suggest you change the names.

Thank goodness for “the grid” an excellent system screen, or I might give up on using this site. But the one major problem is it doesn’t show the price! So I waste most of my time checking the price which is usually too high. And just no way to scan all low-priced and all high-priced systems which would be very informative as well.

Click "Select Columns" to customize the grid.

Yes. Note that you need to select three columns to get the full picture. See this previous post:

Ahoy! Much better than expected. Thank you folks.

Lots of interesting features spark my curiosity. Realism factor? Hidden risk? I assume I can find out what these are later, by surfing the site. I also like the fact I can remove columns I don’t want. Much more pleasant!

One question: what is the difference between CAGR and Ann Return?

In another forum I joined, CAGR is the standard unit of equities performance comparison. Then for mutual funds there is NAV return and “total market return.” Evidently one of these does not include dividends, but is used for the main graph, which often gives a much worse performance picture than is correct. It is necessary to look under “performance,” which usually does not include a graph. (The only site I know of that does have Performance graphs is TDameritrade.)

I.e., I understand basically the differences behind these various terms, but I am not yet totally clear about them. I also suspect that different sites may use them differently. So I just try to be careful.

Anyway, here is why I bring this up. In my experience, the difference between NAV and “total returns” can be great, but the difference between CAGR and “annualized return” is usually not great, especially for periods of less than 5 years. However on the C2 grid, Topaz shows “annual return” of 83 and CAGR of 43. Then S&P ETF Timer shows Annualized Return of 43 and CAGR of 42.

Which is the meaningful comparison? Does Topaz have about twice the total returns, 83:43? Or are the systems about the same in average past performances?

Clicking to the system pages, the performance figure given is “Annual return (compounded).” This I believe is CAGR. So my guess is that the “real” annualized performance figures for Topaz and S&P Timer are about the same.

But if so, why is “Ann Return” the default value in the grid? If I am correct, “Ann Return” is not a reliable comparison value.

One more suggestion: 1-yr CAGR, 2-yr CAGR, 3-yr CAGR, etc. These would give a more apples-to-apples comparison. Otherwise, an older system such as Topaz is averaging-in years that did not exist for others. For example, most investments lost significantly during 2008. So a system dating back to Jan 2008 could show a much lower CAGR than its twin brother that started in Jan 2009. If you know what I mean.

Yes, CAGR = "Annual return (compounded)"

Much more useful than "Ann Return" which does not take compounding into account, especially if considering the long term.

Good suggestion for apples-to-apples comparisons. However, even those should be used with care.

Thank you Dean.

I was still mystified how can “Annualized return” be 1071 and CAGR be 240… (ShadowBanker)… Well after much head-scratching, it finally occurs to me that “Ann” must be “annual” and not “annualized”… Suggestions for c2…

1. Change the header “Ann Return” to “Latest Annual Return”. (You do have 3 rows for text there and room to spell out.)

2. Change “CAGR” to “Compounded Annualized Return.” I prefer the CAGR title myself–but a lot of people won’t know what that is.

3. Include “Compounded Annualized Return” as a default column.

4. On each System Description page, change “Annual return (compounded)” to "Annualized return (compounded)."

5. For the Grid, please enable an “Average Review” column showing 1-5 stars. For the System Description, also show the “Average Review” at the top of the page, along with the number of reviews. I would find this helpful when seeking systems myself.