Canada's wealthiest province utterly rejects the left

[geoffrey]

Please do tell where you would get that 10% return (compounded monthly) over the last 30 years.

IMT also talked about companies returning 3000%. Hmmm, I sure bet those weren't companies with proven reserves. Gotta pick one side of this game if you insist on playing. Is it companies returning 3000% (or even 10% compounded monthly) or is it companies iwth proven reserves? You know the whole risk/return tradeoff. Tends to drive the returns down with the whole *proven reserves* thing.

IMT is right, about $280 billion. Though you should really compound that more frequently (you compounded annually) because any earnings would be instantly reinvested. Using a monthly compound @10% we are looking at about $318 billion dollars. Chances are it would be higher.

Also right on investment in companies with proven reserves, this is a very reliable investment and my portfolio is heavily invested in this. Though its rare that you'll find any company valued strictly on that, and you can get into some trouble if the company becomes overvalued through some belief in unproven supply. Any decent investment firm could make a few bucks off that anyways. Plus it has direct benifet in Alberta.

Give me $16 billion and I'll have an average ROI over 10%/a.

The FV of a $16b investment compounded monthly over 30 years is $317.398 billion.

FV=P(1+r/n)^yn

FV=1.6E10(1+0.1/12)^360=~317000000000

Check my math if you wish (if its my math you were debating?), I've had a few drinks and its 12:30. I can be wrong, it is possible.

I do agree with you on the 3000% idea. Your not going to see alot of 3000% in major stocks. You can't put $16b into penny stocks with 3000% potential without destroying the market. You can easily get 15-25% gainers solidly in the natural resources sector though.

[betsy]

Obviously Alberta is doing something good. Other provinces ought to take a closer look and learn from it.

[shoop]

No real qualms with your math. (You probably aren't the only one who took intro Finance).

Do show me where you would have gotten those returns though. Very tough to assume you would have outgained the market over a prolonged period of time.

Give me $16 billion and I'll have an average ROI over 10%/a.

The FV of a $16b investment compounded monthly over 30 years is $317.398 billion.

FV=P(1+r/n)^yn

FV=1.6E10(1+0.1/12)^360=~317000000000

Check my math if you wish (if its my math you were debating?), I've had a few drinks and its 12:30. I can be wrong, it is possible.

I do agree with you on the 3000% idea. Your not going to see alot of 3000% in major stocks. You can't put $16b into penny stocks with 3000% potential without destroying the market. You can easily get 15-25% gainers solidly in the natural resources sector though.

[geoffrey]

No real qualms with your math. (You probably aren't the only one who took intro Finance).

Do show me where you would have gotten those returns though. Very tough to assume you would have outgained the market over a prolonged period of time.

Give me $16 billion and I'll have an average ROI over 10%/a.

The FV of a $16b investment compounded monthly over 30 years is $317.398 billion.

FV=P(1+r/n)^yn

FV=1.6E10(1+0.1/12)^360=~317000000000

Check my math if you wish (if its my math you were debating?), I've had a few drinks and its 12:30. I can be wrong, it is possible.

I do agree with you on the 3000% idea. Your not going to see alot of 3000% in major stocks. You can't put $16b into penny stocks with 3000% potential without destroying the market. You can easily get 15-25% gainers solidly in the natural resources sector though.

Well shoop, by investing in whats hot you can easily get a 10% average over that period of time. 10% is a fairly conservative estimate. With that kind of money, making direct investments with guarnteed returns, you could easily do it.

Remember for a big chunk of the last 30 years, interest rates were considerably higher than they are currently, investments in these times would be more stable in bonds or the such with gains over 10% easily. Base metals at times were strong, once upon a time, the auto sector was strong.

It's really not hard to conceive a 10% return average. You couldn't get 10% consistantly of straight oil and gas investment, but if you played it right, it really don't see the problem. Some years you might only get 8%, others you'd be getting 15%. 10% is simply average.

[shoop]

Well geoffrey, you also have to take a look at the risk profile involved.

There is *no way* you would get guaranteed returns at that rate of return.

Talk about simply average makes me think you are basing this more on textbook learnin' than any actual experience with investments.

Well shoop, by investing in whats hot you can easily get a 10% average over that period of time. 10% is a fairly conservative estimate. With that kind of money, making direct investments with guarnteed returns, you could easily do it.

Remember for a big chunk of the last 30 years, interest rates were considerably higher than they are currently, investments in these times would be more stable in bonds or the such with gains over 10% easily. Base metals at times were strong, once upon a time, the auto sector was strong.

It's really not hard to conceive a 10% return average. You couldn't get 10% consistantly of straight oil and gas investment, but if you played it right, it really don't see the problem. Some years you might only get 8%, others you'd be getting 15%. 10% is simply average.

[geoffrey]

Well geoffrey, you also have to take a look at the risk profile involved.

There is *no way* you would get guaranteed returns at that rate of return.

Talk about simply average makes me think you are basing this more on textbook learnin' than any actual experience with investments.

Well shoop, by investing in whats hot you can easily get a 10% average over that period of time. 10% is a fairly conservative estimate. With that kind of money, making direct investments with guarnteed returns, you could easily do it.

Remember for a big chunk of the last 30 years, interest rates were considerably higher than they are currently, investments in these times would be more stable in bonds or the such with gains over 10% easily. Base metals at times were strong, once upon a time, the auto sector was strong.

It's really not hard to conceive a 10% return average. You couldn't get 10% consistantly of straight oil and gas investment, but if you played it right, it really don't see the problem. Some years you might only get 8%, others you'd be getting 15%. 10% is simply average.

shoop, when you have $16b to play with, your not just throwing it into securities. Alot of it can be invested in venture capital forms and the such. Gaurnteed was the wrong word yes, but I insist that 10% is do-able on average.

Heres some stuff I quickly gathered from the Heritage Fund website:

1977-1982: Between 1977 and 1982, six provinces borrowed a total of $1.9 billion from the Heritage Fund - Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. These loans proved to be beneficial to both Alberta and to those provinces that were loaned the money. Those borrowing provinces benefited by using Alberta's credit rating, which is much lower than they would have paid using their own credit rating. Even with Alberta's credit rating, Alberta secured the loans at a very high interest rate - an average of 12.5 per cent. And it strengthened interprovincial bond issues.

So we have 12.5 percent in a secure investment... why not create more investments in this manner? It wouldn't be hard to negotiate such loans on a world market beyond our borders.

The S&P Index has increased some 25% this year. I know this isn't consistantly like this (actually rarely like this), but its growth none the less.

The average at 10% isn't unattainable.

[fellowtraveller]

Even with Alberta's credit rating, Alberta secured the loans at a very high interest rate - an average of 12.5 per cent

12.5% would be at or below prevailing interest rates of that time. Only a relatively high risk loan would gain that now. Second or third mortgages might get you that.

[shoop]

I hear you ft. Somehow geoffrey just isn't getting that point.

When was the last time a 10% rate of return would have been relatively low risk? Early 90s?

12.5% would be at or below prevailing interest rates of that time. Only a relatively high risk loan would gain that now. Second or third mortgages might get you that.

[geoffrey]

I hear you ft. Somehow geoffrey just isn't getting that point.

When was the last time a 10% rate of return would have been relatively low risk? Early 90s?

12.5% would be at or below prevailing interest rates of that time. Only a relatively high risk loan would gain that now. Second or third mortgages might get you that.

Hey wow whoa!

Thats why securities and commodity based investments are more attractive right now. If you only invested in one type of investment your going to only gain maybe higher than inflation if your lucky. But by swtiching between whats making money at the time and whats making money in the future you could do 10%. I'm done arguing this.

--

Or a credit card. Maybe we could issue a hertiage fund credit card?

[shoop]

Don't argue. Just show what they where they would have had to invest over the past 30 years to get your 10% compounded monthly return. btw, nice trick with compounding it monthly. What would the return have to be if it were only compounded annually.

Clearly you are a Finance major, but if you are going to argue a ridiculously high rate of return that back it up.

The 12.5% the Fund got from loans to other provinces in this climate, and probably wouldn't have been able to do so at any point in the past 15 years.

But please if you honestly believe this is true

You can easily get 15-25% gainers solidly in the natural resources sector

point the way to those easy money stocks...

Hey wow whoa!

Thats why securities and commodity based investments are more attractive right now. If you only invested in one type of investment your going to only gain maybe higher than inflation if your lucky. But by swtiching between whats making money at the time and whats making money in the future you could do 10%. I'm done arguing this.

--

Or a credit card. Maybe we could issue a hertiage fund credit card?

[geoffrey]

Don't argue. Just show what they where they would have had to invest over the past 30 years to get your 10% compounded monthly return. btw, nice trick with compounding it monthly. What would the return have to be if it were only compounded annually.

Clearly you are a Finance major, but if you are going to argue a ridiculously high rate of return that back it up.

The 12.5% the Fund got from loans to other provinces in this climate, and probably wouldn't have been able to do so at any point in the past 15 years.

But please if you honestly believe this is true

You can easily get 15-25% gainers solidly in the natural resources sector

point the way to those easy money stocks...

Well shoop, I would say compounding it monthly would give it a better representation because your constantly re-investing the income, not just once a year right. It's not completely accurate that way, but its probably the best way to represent this situation.

And just take a look at for example a mutual fund top performance list. You'll find tons in the over 10% range, and these mutuals are normally a pretty solid investment, not that a province can throw a few billion into one, but could manage their own. In weaker markets (and normally higher bank rates) you can loan to other governments, which is highly secure.

If you'd like some areas to check to see if 10% is possible in a mutual you can look at some stuff in Precious or Base Metals or anything really in Natural Resources has been returning solidly over 10% for some time now.

For specific examples:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=sglsx&d=t

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=pspfx&d=t

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ignvx&d=t

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ekwyx&d=t

Just for some examples for mutuals that have been performing in the range of 30% annually for the last 5 years. I understand that a province can't invest that sum in mutuals, but if a mutual can produce that, then a $16b fund can do it as well, and hedge alot of risk too.

Like I said, in downturns in the market, you roll these investments into govenment loans or even loans to your citizens. Shoop, I'm telling ya, if you had a team of 50 or 60 investment bankers working for ya you could get at least 10%. I'm sure a $16b fund could employ a team of that nature.

I don't own any of those personally.

[geoffrey]

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/finance/...hot100_2005.xls

Another thing to check out my doubting Thomases. It's in excel, some of these funds have been around well over 10 years and have an average yearly return of over 10%, some over 20%...

And these are Canadian funds.