看了一下 Stanley Druckenmiller最近5~10的回报率，不如QQQ，5年15.6% vs. 16.9
Here’s the 5?year performance summary for Stanley Druckenmiller’s Duquesne Family Office portfolio—his hedge fund-managed holdings:
Performance Overview (as of most recent data)
According to StockCircle, over the past 5 years, the portfolio achieved a 5?year cumulative return of ~105.30%, which equates to an approximate annualized return (CAGR) of ~15–16%finance.yahoo.com+10stockcircle.com+10hedgefollow.com+10.
1?Year Return: ~24.19%
3?Year Return: ~108.34%
5?Year Return: ~105.30%
10?Year Return: ~288.40%
Druckenmiller’s 5?Year Annualized Return
As reported by StockCircle, Druckenmiller’s Duquesne Family Office achieved a cumulative return of ~105.3% over 5 years, which translates to an annualized CAGR of approximately 15.6%维基百科+15股圈+15TipRanks+15.
TipRanks highlights his average return over the past 3 years at ~17.94% annually, and 51.86% gain in the last 12 monthsTipRanks.
So, the 5?year average CAGR is estimated around 15.6%.
QQQ (Invesco Nasdaq?100 ETF) 5?Year Performance
According to FinanceCharts, QQQ achieved a 5?year total return of ~124.55%, equating to an annualized CAGR of ~16.9%FinanceCharts.
Year-by-year price returns confirm strong performance, especially in 2021, 2023, and 2024 雅虎财经+1维基百科+1.
Interpretation
QQQ slightly outperformed Druckenmiller’s fund over the past 5 years, achieving a ~16.9% CAGR vs. ~15.6%.
Druckenmiller remains a strong performer, particularly judging by his high Sharpe ratio and consistency across market cycles.
Keep in mind that QQQ is a passive ETF tracking tech-heavy Nasdaq?100, while Druckenmiller manages active positions with different risk/return dynamics.
在投资界享有“零亏损神话”的对冲基金传奇人物Stanley Druckenmiller，曾以其卓越的宏观判断力和精准的资产配置闻名全球。然而，即便是他，也有“看走眼”的时刻。
押注AI核心资产：英伟达早在2022年，当ChatGPT点燃全球对人工智能的热情时，Druckenmiller就敏锐地察觉到AI将引发硬件层面的结构性增长。他的基金在那一时期买入了英伟达（NVDA），认为其GPU芯片将成为AI浪潮的最大“铲子供应商”。随着2023年英伟达股价一路高歌猛进，他的持仓获得了巨额收益。
据公开13F文件披露，截至2023年中期，Druckenmiller管理的Duquesne Family Office持有数十万股英伟达，总市值一度接近数亿美元。在这一波AI行情中，他被称为“宏观投资者中最早理解AI革命的人”。
过早卖出：“我舔着自己的伤口”然而，进入2024年后，Druckenmiller选择大幅减持甚至清空了英伟达仓位。他在接受CNBC采访时坦言：“我以为AI的短期炒作已过头……我卖飞了英伟达，现在正在舔自己的伤口。”
这番话迅速成为财经媒体的头条，也让人惊讶这位数十年未曾有过负年收益的投资大师，居然公开承认自己“错了”。
从数据来看，英伟达在2024年上半年再度翻倍，突破3万亿美元市值，成为全球市值第二的公司。而Druckenmiller在涨势中离场，错失了另一波暴涨。
投资启示德鲁肯米勒这次操作，仍然是一笔盈利的交易，只是**“卖得太早”**。但这个罕见的后悔，恰恰展现了他的投资哲学：
他始终愿意在趋势早期下注，重仓进入；
同时保持敏锐警觉，一旦预期改变，果断退出；
而最重要的是，即便是大师，也承认自己并非完美——这比永远正确更重要。
正如他自己所说：“我的错误不是亏钱，而是错过更大的机会。”这次英伟达事件，提醒我们投资中**“踏空的痛”**，有时比“亏损的痛”更刻骨铭心。
猜顶都不容易。即使是很牛的人。
Here’s the 5?year performance summary for Stanley Druckenmiller’s Duquesne Family Office portfolio—his hedge fund-managed holdings:
Performance Overview (as of most recent data)According to StockCircle, over the past 5 years, the portfolio achieved a 5?year cumulative return of ~105.30%, which equates to an approximate annualized return (CAGR) of ~15–16% finance.yahoo.com+10stockcircle.com+10hedgefollow.com+10.
1?Year Return: ~24.19%
3?Year Return: ~108.34%
5?Year Return: ~105.30%
10?Year Return: ~288.40%
Druckenmiller’s 5?Year Annualized ReturnAs reported by StockCircle, Druckenmiller’s Duquesne Family Office achieved a cumulative return of ~105.3% over 5 years, which translates to an annualized CAGR of approximately 15.6% 维基百科+15股圈+15TipRanks+15.
TipRanks highlights his average return over the past 3 years at ~17.94% annually, and 51.86% gain in the last 12 months TipRanks.
So, the 5?year average CAGR is estimated around 15.6%.
QQQ (Invesco Nasdaq?100 ETF) 5?Year PerformanceAccording to FinanceCharts, QQQ achieved a 5?year total return of ~124.55%, equating to an annualized CAGR of ~16.9% FinanceCharts.
Year-by-year price returns confirm strong performance, especially in 2021, 2023, and 2024 雅虎财经+1维基百科+1.
InterpretationQQQ slightly outperformed Druckenmiller’s fund over the past 5 years, achieving a ~16.9% CAGR vs. ~15.6%.
Druckenmiller remains a strong performer, particularly judging by his high Sharpe ratio and consistency across market cycles.
Keep in mind that QQQ is a passive ETF tracking tech-heavy Nasdaq?100, while Druckenmiller manages active positions with different risk/return dynamics.
Comparison Summary