Just a little snark comment for those throwing percentages around, as you probably figured out already Growth in percentages should mean compounding, or else it loses its real meaning, which means someone is mis-reporting something. Of course, in reality percentage growth successes are not sustainable and scalable to the degree investors hope for. For some startups it might hold true for a few good years, and then it's all downhill from there.
Ratios are used sequentially or not. Profit margins are also expressed in %. However there is no compounding @ work. % Growth doesn't have to be "compoundable". In addition, as rightly said, it's not always doable. What's good with Ratios is their dimensionless property. It allows you to compare Apple and Orange. Compound or not.
Ratios, if not compoundable, or more generally, expressed as parts of the whole, are not comparable or even meaningful across events. You CAN say, there was a certain % growth between year 2000 and 2010. However, that may add dependencies and constraints that was not present in a more general description, ie. a one time event, non-repeatable. Such descriptions and graphs can easily be used to mislead due to ambiguity. For ratios to truly work, they must be universal, and not constrained by undercommunicated expectations. So should be compoundable and/or describe level of completedness, up to certain realistic points. This is not about correct expression, but about correct understanding, so as long as understanding is right, all is right. Ie. a system generating +0.0001% may fail when volume*price exceeds a certain value in practical trading, as things tend to break when they scale to reality, but the maths underneath should be sound and non-ambiguous. However, my understanding may not be generally acceptable to general trader knowledge, and if so, I will rest my case I like and respect ratios so much as to stand up for them a little bit .
Agree. Principle of Charity. Honesty. However with business it's a battle for not being the sucker. 1% per day is not realistic due to microstructure constraints alone. Non Ambiguity is agreeing on the terms of the contract btw the parties. I get your point. You get mine. We disagree in general but anyway. Next time we'll have to settle a deal then we'll be specific. In this case I am sure we'll both agree on the terms.
I believe we both can agree both arguments are coherent, thus no need to argue in-disguise about differences in perspectives, semantics, personal opinions/experiences, etc. Coherence as a tool to broaden understanding / reach consensus discussed here: Remains to see if the concept works in practice though!
I agree, I hate those kind of sarcastic replies...that say...then you Must be the Richest man on the Planet in five or whatever number of years. You generally take some money out, and/or start over again...after each Goal has been met You can't expect to become a Billionaire by compounding and compounding your trading returns on top of each other to the Moon. ...atleast not for the individual, retail trader. -- Maybe for the big hedge fund founder after a great number of years.
500$ / day = 182,500 / year 182,500 / year on 50k initial = 36.5x return. Put it all on Red 34, and you can get a 35x return. So pretty close. That's an ambitious return. Of course, anything is do-able. But I think it's safe to say its not within the normal returns of most professional investors and traders.
Who are these people digging up 4 years old threads? The OP is obviously retired by now and living it large on the Bahamas....