Back on June 30, 2006, Andy (wagnerjb) and I made a "bet" in which he took the ishares Russell 1000 ETF (IWD) and I took Windsor II for a 5 year period the bet pit active against passive in a quien es mas macho challenge, winner take all.

As of today, here's where we stand:

• Windsor II: 10.93%
• Russell 1000:  10.23%

Petrocelli 

petro, thanks for the update.

May you have continued success!

Greg

I hope it won't be like this!!

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/perv.htm

Scary!  (No pictures, please.)

pjstack

Oooops!

The above link was meant for the Primecap "bet" thread. (It doesn't make sense here.)

Petro said in the Primecap "bet" thread that the loser had to type responses in women's clothing, hence the above "FlameWarrior" link.

Sorry.

pjstack

Does the 10.23% return reflect the return of the Russell 1000 Value Index or IWD?  IWD has expenses whereas the pure index does not.

Ken

Ken:

It's the return of IWD.   However, it does not take into account brokerage fees in ourchasing the ETF, which would lower the return a little.

Petrocelli 

Well, it looks like IWD has overtaken Windsor II this year.  It is also in the lead for this "bet".  Not only that, but the Wiener "hot hands" fund -  Growth Equity - is the very bottom fund of all domestic funds for Vanguard this year.  Things aren't looking rosy for those chasing yesterday's performance.....

 Best wishes.

Andy

Andy:

M*'s portfolio shows that Windsor II has lost 2.38% since we made the bet, and IWD has lost 3.58%.   That's a 1.2% difference in favor of Windsor II.  

As for the hot hands fund, most Dan Wiener subscribers bought another large growth fund based on DW's recommendation not to buy Growth Equity.  I bought Growth Index, and it is doing just fine.

Petrocelli

Andy, who's correct, you or Petro?

[Double post.]

Andy, who's correct, you or Petro?

[/quote]

I think Andy may have been correct when he posted.

I realized I did not record a dividend in June 2008. Right now, Windsor II has a lead of .11%, and that should increase at the close today.

I have some thoughts on this "bet".  I will post them later tonight. 

Petrocelli

Andy, who's correct, you or Petro?

[/quote]

I think Andy may have been correct when he posted.

I realized I did not record a dividend in June 2008. Right now, Windsor II has a lead of .11%, and that should increase at the close today.

I have some thoughts on this "bet".  I will post them later tonight. 

Petrocelli

Andy, who's correct, you or Petro?

[/quote]

I think Andy may have been correct when he posted.

I realized I did not record a dividend in June 2008. Right now, Windsor II has a lead of .11%, and that should increase at the close today.

I have some thoughts on this "bet".  I will post them later tonight. 

Petrocelli

[/quote]

 Petro, care to share your thoughts on this friendly wager?

I don't have time to re-check the numbers, but I assumed the reason Petro had different (and lower) returns for IWD was because he was using the NAV and I was using the market prices for IWD.  When I did the calculations last week, I noticed that IWD had a much larger return on a market price basis than on a NAV basis.

Best wishes.

Andy

Here are my thoughts:

I have always thought that the active/index  distinction is a distraction.  Unlike many posters, I think Windsor II is as good as any index fund.

The focus is on low costs versus high costs.

No one, not me, Andy, or John Bogle, knows which of these two funds will perform better over the next 5 years.  It's a 50/50 chance that one or the other will win.

Therefore, if you like active funds but Windsor II.  If you like index funds, but one of the 25 or so value index funds or ETFs out there.

Petrocelli

Here are my thoughts:

I have always thought that the active/index  distinction is a distraction.  Unlike many posters, I think Windsor II is as good as any index fund.

[/quote]

Distraction?  It's a fundamental approach to investing, not a distraction.