I’ve done some rationalisation of my equity portfolio and realised that at least for calendar year 2008, I actually beat Temasek holdings -$40 billion losses.

My calendar 2008 realised returns were around 4%+ and mark-to-market (paper) losses as at 31 December 2008 were around -55%.

My 2009 calendar year to date realised returns are -2.9% with a mark-to-market paper gains of 12.13%.

So I’ve managed to out-perform a sovereign wealth fund even though my total net worth is possibly not even 1 month’s wage for the CEO (whoever it is) of Temasek Holdings.

What does that say about the performance of people who are paid plenty of money to outperform their benchmarks full-time compared to a hobbyist like me who has a regular 9 to 5 job while managing my own equity portfolio?

Of course, the common refrain is “LONG TERM” but I’m not sure why equities in some US and UK financials by Temasek were bought and sold within 1 year at great losses when the overall approach is “LONG TERM”.

Did your equity or investment portfolio outperform Temasek for 2008 or 2009?

Be well and prosper.

_{»crosslinked«}