CAGR
CALIFORNIA GRAPES INTL
stock OTC

Last year, I had a couple of periods where I was trying things and had some bad math. Literally stuff I should've caught. I ended up sizing way too large and lost a bunch when I had a downturn. I rightsized, but did so at the bottom. My smallest account, which I couldn't size up because of the size, quickly returned to all-time highs. So had I just kept with the size or never sized up incorrectly to begin with, I would've been fine. To answer your question, with all of that, just under 20% CAGR. In terms of raw return, 53.97% net (after commission and fees) for the last 3 years. Since 10/7/24, when I fixed my problem, my CAGR is 52.3%. on 36.6% net return.

If MSTR can raise 100 million a year in capital, they’d would end up with more Bitcoin simply doing that and buying 100 million of Bitcoin every year rather than issuing 1 billion in preferreds and buying a billion in Bitcoin now, if Bitcoins CAGR is only 8%.
It’s that simple. When you pay 10% and buy something that grows 8%, you’re losing.

Not really. It [doesn't give you much diversification](https://testfol.io/?s=96gRSLCkcLy) by combining it with VOO (vs. just holding VOO). I think a lot of people essentially use SCHD as a value and profitability fund, but there are ETFs out there that target those factors more directly.
Regarding tech, I guess you'd just have to look at how it performed during the [lost decade compared to a diversified portfolio](https://testfol.io/?s=emh425ba6qM), when you had a max drawdown over -80 percent and a CAGR of -6.76%, and ask yourself if you'd be able to stick with that allocation. Most people couldn't. They say "pigs get slaughtered" in investing, and it always seems to happen at the worst possible moments in your life.

10% of Americans have it and less than half of the patient population uses prescribed treatments. And the CAGR of the market is like 8%, it's one of the biggest spaces for research investment and highly competitive so the pharma companies throw a ton of $$ at it.

I think Amazon and Microsoft are the most predictably good (>10% CAGR) going forward, valuation considered (although MSFT feels a little stretched).
I think GOOG will give really good returns going forward, but less predictably so. Search dominance and click through rates in 5-10 years are the big question, the DOJ suit doesn't scare me as much. But everything else under the Alphabet umbrella like YouTube and Cloud, combined with the pessimistic valuation make it a slam dunk IMO.
Meta continuously pours money into things that have very mixed results. Instagram/Facebook/Whatsapp? Astoundingly good. Oculus/AR? Okayish bet I guess. Metaverse? Infamously terrible for 10's of billions. AI models? We'll have to wait and see. Altogether, I'd be surprised if we see less than 10% CAGR through the next 5-10 years.
Nvidia as a business is probably going to do quite well over the next 3 or 4 years, but I'm not convinced the design moat or the CUDA moat is strong enough long term to support 50x earnings. Could see competition coming from China, or especially from the big players that rent out their custom GPU's like AWS/GCP. Like it at 25-30x earnings, not at 50x.
Apple is a wonderful business (still are, ignore the doomers that say otherwise) trading at too high of a multiple. Solid buy in the high teens PE, not worth >30x earnings.
Tesla is a car manufacturer with some promising side bets that trades as though it's in the same league as the big guys. It is not. What Elon and company did with the model 3/Y was nothing short of a miracle, and should be recognized as such (despite him being a shitty human). However, 175x earnings is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Stay on the sidelines with this one, don't go long or short.

I see their ROIC [(link)](https://www.financecharts.com/stocks/AMAT/value/roic) and see a company that's good at turning its money into more money. I see 10 years worth of market bottoms [(link)](https://i.imgur.com/cNoE7IB.png) and how the 29% CAGR slope of the line that runs through them is basically the same as the 10 year average ROIC calculated by that website. (I could have used tops or eyeballed the middles or whatever but I feel like times the market has said "enough is enough, this is a deal" is more definitive)
With ROIC data going back to FY 1979 [(link)](https://www.roic.ai/quote/amat/ratios?period=annual&yearRange=1000&selected=return_on_inv_capital) my quick and dirty average is around 15%. The CAGR from my earliest price data in 1972 to the most recent close is 17.5%. [(link)](https://i.imgur.com/pGyjwYT.png)
Magic lines on a chart are worthless. To me this is the long term weighing machine making itself visible above the (very loud in this case) short term noise of the voting machine. It's what Charlie Munger said about long term returns being comparable to a company's own ROIC.
I'd rather kick myself over what I paid than kick myself over what I bought. If I fall into a coma for 10 years, would I wake up worried about my AMAT position? No.

Hey everyone,
I’ve been hearing words like SIP, mutual funds, ELSS, NAV, CAGR, Bluechip — and I have no clue what any of it means. I used Groww before to trade stocks, but it charged fees, and I honestly didn’t know what I was doing.
Here’s what I do know:
• I want to invest monthly (even just ₹1,000–₹2,000)
• I don’t want to pick individual stocks
• I’m okay waiting 5–10 years
• I don’t want to get screwed with hidden fees or bad choices
So:
• What’s the difference between SIP and mutual fund and all the other stuff?
• Do I pick companies myself? Or is it all handled by the app/fund?
• Should I just pick what’s popular on Groww?
• What’s the simplest, safest option for someone who just wants to build wealth slowly without knowing all the terms?
If you were me — 23, confused, and just starting — what would you do?
Thanks 🙏
I appreciate all real, honest advice — not just YouTube hype.

After many emotionally fueled arguments with my family, I decided to calm down and approach them with numbers. I read 2 policies that were recently taken out in my name a few years ago( I am 25, so I was blissfully unaware, and trusted my parents blindly). So I read the policies from start to end. I built this sheet and compared these scenarios
* Keep investing in these policies
* What would happen if we invested the same amount in a vanilla Nifty 50 index fund(with a conservative CAGR of 8%)
The difference in the amount we would be able to save at the time of policy lapse is huge! Almost 1.5CR!
Attaching my calculation excel for the community to review, and use themselves to put forth logical and mathematical arguments if required with their family over these policies.
**Excel sheet description**
* In the top table, I compared another policy we broke recently, and what would have happened if we had invested in nifty 50 index instead. Here I also checked my formula for calculating CAGR, i.e. GeometricMean(1+xi) - 1. The amount at the final was the same for when I used yearly return or the CAGR calculated. I also calculated the CAGR of Nifty 50 index over last 25 years. The CAGR for the last 10 years and 25 years were 13.11% and 20.99% respectively.
**TATA AIA Life Insurance Fortune Guarantee Plus**
* For this policy, I assumed a conservative future cagr of nifty50 to be 8% over the future, looking at past values.
* I used the units method here, because the policy has some yearly payout as well. I added that as a redemption of units, and calculated LTCG as well with current formula and the FIFO method of LTCG tax on units method. (Wrote a simple python script for it)
* So even if we did the yearly payouts from our index fund investment AND paid LTCG on it, then too we would be left with some 77 Lakhs extra invested money
* The life insurance provided here is abysmal, 13.3L. I can get many times that with a simple term insurance
**Tata AIA Life Insurance Smart Income plus**
* For this policy, the calculation is simpler, straight away geometric progression. As no yearly payouts in the policy
* At the end of the policy, over two years, we would get 3 payouts totalling around 2Cr
* Here I calculated the end value for index fund investment, which came around to be 3Cr
* Even if we took it out all at once, paying 12.5% on all the profits gained, then too we would be left with 2.69Cr. 69 Lakhs more
* Here too, 67 Lakh life insurance is given. I can get more in simple term insurance for much less of the cost
Finally I told them, that lets not fret over a couple lakhs lost here and there over early closure of these policies. We need to think long term, and how much disservice we wouldd be doing to ourselves and our children's and granchildren's savings over this.
Verdict: They had some followup questions which I answered, and they were convinced. Over the next week we will be moving to closure for these policies!

Additional information: 8% is probably too conservative. But i wanted to put forth my argument, that even something remotely better than an FD is better than these policies. If nifty gave 9-10% CAGR or even 8.5%, the savings would increase exponentially. Open to thoughts of the community on this!

TLDR: Explained my parents how we can save 1.5Cr if we stopped policies and invested in index fund instead. They agreed, that as an investment as well as an insurance, this is a SCAM
Sheet link: [ulip scam](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VSK5O490di0p-i39Y_N1UC5J34STPVlo3JQZVJTm7y4/edit?usp=sharing)

I've never argued that CAGR isn't decreasing. But to say CAGR now is 14% (as you described in your first post) is just inaccurate. It would be more accurate to calculate a CAGR from a simple moving average.

I'm well aware that the dividend isn't paid out by a lump sum, but I summed it up at the end of 10 years just to simplify the math. It is fully accurate that a 1 billion dollar debt with a 10% annual coupon pays out 1 billion dollars after 10 years. The coupon doesn't compound.
1 billion dollars of preferred, pays out a quarterly dividend of 25 million dollars. It's the same amount every quarter, forever. That adds up to 1 billion dollars paid out after 10 years (or 40 quarters).
It is true that the success of MSTR hinges on the true CAGR of Bitcoin. My point is even we take extremely bearish assumptions on the CAGR (14% now which is the absolute worst case you calculated using a 2021 ATH, decreasing to sub 10% within the decade), it still leads to a positive BTC gain on a per share basis of MSTR. Yes, there is a CAGR that BTC can fall to in the future that's so low, you would theoretically see a negative BTC yield since the preferred dividends are perpetual.
I mean, you can save this debate and we can look back at this in 3 years and see where things stand.

> The dividned come from the profit of the company not the value or share price of the stock.
The profits accumulate on the company’s balance sheet before some are paid out as dividends. The company opting to distribute cash to shareholders via a dividend payment (or share buyback) reduces its intrinsic value by that amount, and brokers are required by law to adjust open orders to reflect that fact.
> So you can use a growth fund that focuses on share price abreaction or focus on a 10% yield diviend fund only and get similar performance over any 20 year period.
Assuming they both achieve a 10% CAGR on a pre-tax basis with the benefit of hindsight, the returns would be equivalent in a tax-sheltered account, but the after-tax returns in a taxable account would be lower for the high-yield fund due to tax drag around its regular distributions.
> For example ARCC with its 9% dividned has performed as well as the S&P500 index over the last 20m years.
I don’t know why a single cherry-picked BDC stock is relevant here. Plenty of individual stocks (though a small minority of all individual stocks) have performed similarly to or outperformed the S&P 500 with the benefit of hindsight, regardless of their dividend payout policy.

Could buy a house without problems, but selling the bitcoin and losing 40-50% CAGR on the house-invest? lol hell no I'm not giving up those insane gains I get every year.
fuck that 2-3% gains with property, after paying all the taxes and running costs and repair costs and what not, you can be happy if you even dodge inflation with your property.
I will keep on renting as long as I want.
I will buy property in the future for use and consume, but only if I have to sell like 5-10% of my bitcoin for it.

Pick whatever points you like. As long as you are including all of the data, it will tell you the same thing. CAGR is decreasing, and it’s been decreasing since inception. Picking from the bottom of the FTX collapse until now is actual cherry picking. Picking 5 data points that span the entire price history is not. You can pick any 5 points that span the entire price history and get the same picture, which is why it’s not cherry picking. You using 2 points that don’t represent the entire price history, only a small segment of it is the literal definition of cherry picking.
I only used ATHs because those are the easiest data points available, I don’t remember what the average price of each year was, but I do know the ATH of each cycle so far.
And no, your example is completely wrong on the preferreds. They don’t pay back a lump sum at the end of the ten years. They pay the dividends quarterly. If they paid back only at the end of ten years, the yield would not be 10%, it would be about 7.2%. They pay quarterly and MSTR doesn’t have the cash flow to pay it. So they must issue either new preferreds, at which point you’re paying 10% a year compounded quarterly, meaning at the end of ten years they’d owe 2.68 Billion, more than the 2.15 Billion in Bitcoin.
Yes, if you ignore actually having to make payments it works. But that’s not how it works. And you are correct if you say they don’t pay for the preferreds by issuing common stock instead of more preferreds, except that means you are continually diluting shares indefinitely and not purchasing new Bitcoin. So future BTC yield will be negative because of this preferreds issuance. This is one of the reasons I think MSTR will stop reporting BTC yield by 2027 or 2028, because their BTC yield will be low single digits at best, and possibly negative after 2026.

Cherrypicking in the sense that you chose the peak of a cycle to calculate a CAGR. Why would you choose a single period in time as your baseline to calculate a CAGR? You could have chosen the bottom of the post FTX collapse and get a CAGR of over 100% since then. If you're going to use a summative metric like CAGR, it should use some sort of average statistic on the baseline to give you a better idea of what's actually going on.

Also, you really don't understand math if you think a CAGR of less than 10% can't pay a 10% coupon, so I will explain. MSTR borrows 1 billion dollars and immediately buys bitcoin with it. Let's assume a horrible scenario where Bitcoin's CAGR is only 8% from the moment they buy it. MSTR has to pay back 1 billion dollars over 10 years (since its a 10% annual dividend). In the time that they paid out 1 billion dollars. In the same time period, the Bitcoin they bought has appreciated to a market value of 2.15 billlion (1 billion \*1.08\^10). Subtracting out the 1 billion they had to pay out in dividends, the MSTR shareholder still pockets a 150 million dollar spread (the BTC gain in dollar terms). If you do the math out for 20 years, the results are even better.
This what I mean by exponential vs linear.

Finally, no they don't pay for the dividends with more preferred issuance, they pay the dividends with common stock issuance. The BTC yield metric applies to the common stock. When MSTR issues the preferred, it immediately leads to a BTC gain to the common. This gain gets slowly diluted out over time as they pay for the dividends. The point, again, is that exponential growth always beats out linear growth. You can see even in an extremely bearish scenario like the example I gave, it's still accretive to the common stock shareholder on a BTC/share basis.

I am literally using the entire history of Bitcoin, it’s not cherry picking data, it’s the entire data. The CAGR has been declining since inception no matter which data points you pick.
And no, if the CAGR of Bitcoin is below 10% you can’t use preferreds paying 10%. How are you paying the 10% coupon? Bitcoin provides no cash flow so the only way MSTR can pay the preferred dividends is to issue more preferred stock…. So it also grows exponentially, faster than your Bitcoin value.
I am very concerned that you didn’t realize that, this is basic stuff.

>and yet the index struggles to take off.
Explain to me what you mean by that. This is from 2020 to now.
|Ticker|CAGR|Cumulative|$10k Invested|Years|Max Drawdown|Sharpe|Sortino|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|**SMH**|**38.59%**|**459.94%**|**$55,993.61**|**5.28**|**-45.30%**|**1.09**|**1.66**|
|LRCX|37.29%|432.74%|$53,274.02|5.28|\-56.85%|0.90|1.40|
|AMAT|35.62%|399.34%|$49,934.46|5.28|\-55.14%|0.91|1.38|
|QQQ|25.85%|236.62%|$33,661.96|5.28|\-35.12%|1.07|1.54|
|SPY|23.34%|202.56%|$30,255.96|5.28|\-24.50%|1.20|1.69|

If you want to cherry pick timeline data, you should at least be fair. How many cryptocurrencies can you find from 2021 actually have a positive CAGR from the 2021 peak?
If you're referencing Strategy's preferred stock method of acquiring Bitcoin, you have to keep in mind that it pays out dividend's linearly, while compound growth is exponential. BTC could have a CAGR well below 10% a decade from now, and it would still be compounding quicker than the dividend payments made on the principal debt. You can do some basic modeling to show that this is true.

Bitcoins CAGR has been in constant decline since the beginning, which shouldn’t be a surprise because of the law of large numbers. Since the 2021 ATH it’s CAGR is only 14%. Thinking it will do 30% a year is delusional.
2009-2013 Bitcoin went up 130,000x
2013-2017 Bitcoin went up 15x
2017-2021 Bitcoin went up 3.5x
2021-2025 Bitcoin went up 1.6x
The days of massive gains for Bitcoin are over. Paying 10% interest to get a current 14% return that will decline from here will look pretty funny in a couple of years. 2026 will probably be the last year MSTR even reports BTC yield because by 2027 that yield might turn negative.

It all depends on time period and CAGR. Even if he averaged 4k/month for 27 years ( assumption) @19.6%( possible )it will be 4.7 cr.

I’m not focused on dividend yield, I’m focused on High CAGR dividend growth with fantastic stock appreciation too. I think people in this sub don’t seem to understand when I said High CAGR growth. Usually companies that are very high quality with enough Cash flow per share growth to sustain that growth also have their stock price grow fast too as investors are willing to pay a premium for high quality stocks with fantastic cash flows

I don’t agree with that, I think you’re a bit confused on what I mean by dividend strategy
besides O, all my positions are focused on Long term dividend CAGR growth not just high dividend yield. Companies such as Mastercard and visa have an annual CAGR of 15% with amazing cash flow and very low payout ratios. I trust to hold them for the next 20 years, a 15% CAGR growth can quadruple in 10 years and it has in the last 10 years, not something you can achieve with an index fund typically.
It’s alright if you don’t like Texas Roadhouse but they align with my strategy, they have very good free cash flow, low payout ratios, very low debt and a record of increasing dividends
I think maybe you think that you can only have one or the other, growth or dividends but these companies have not only grown their dividends massively but they’ve beat the S&P500 in terms of capital appreciation as these are very high quality company.
( also I only hold O for slow dividend growth, it’s a reit so I already don’t expect high growth )