Dividend FundBack to Armchair Insider fund
Armchair Insider

PBDC Putnam BDC Income

A portfolio of business development companies.

Total-return consistency rank#82100 eligible investments

The recent period is the weaker standing, setting a ranking score of 0.8958. Lower scores rank first.

Hypothetical investment

Growth of $10,000

Dividends reinvested · no additional contributions

PBDC would be worth$16,100Available history · 5Y requested · as of Sep 18, 2026
S&P 500 (SPY)$22,460Same $10,000 · same dates
Total gain / loss+$6,100+61.0% total return
PBDCS&P 500 (SPY)
Sep 30, 2022 · $10,000 investedSep 18, 2026

The selected period exceeds this investment’s age; the chart shows its complete available trading history. Based on adjusted market prices through the latest available completed session, before personal taxes and trading costs.

Checking the latest completed session…

Market performance

Total return

Price movement plus reinvested distributions, compared with SPY.

+61.0% over available history
1 YEAR TOTAL RETURN-7.5%
Price-16.7%
Dividend+9.2%

Net loss; shares not shown.

#87 return rank · 97 peers
3.9 YEARS TOTAL RETURN+61.0%Since inception+12.8% / yr annualized
Price16% of return+9.7%
Dividend84% of return+51.3%
#50 return rank · 85 peers

Dividend includes all distributions and reinvestment.

Sep 30, 2022Sep 18, 2026
Total return+61.00%
S&P 500 (SPY)+124.60%
Annualized return+12.75%
Largest drawdown-20.47%
Transparent ranking calculation

Why PBDC ranks #82

Total-return consistency · Compared with the active Armchair Insider collection through Sep 18, 2026.

01 · Recent period

1-year period

Sep 18, 2025 – Sep 18, 2026
-7.52%cumulative total return

#87 of 97 eligible investments on these dates.

86 investments have a higher return.

(87 − 1) ÷ (97 − 1)≈ 0.8958
02 · Longer period

3.9 years since inception

Sep 30, 2022 – Sep 18, 2026
+61.00%cumulative total return

#50 of 85 eligible investments on these dates.

49 investments have a higher return.

(50 − 1) ÷ (85 − 1)≈ 0.5833

Period score = (rank − 1) ÷ (eligible count − 1). This is the fraction of other eligible investments ahead of this one, from 0 (none ahead) to 1 (all ahead). It makes standings comparable when the two periods have different peer counts. A single eligible investment scores 0.

03 · First sorting rule

Use the weaker period

max(0.8958, 0.5833)≈ 0.8958

Lower scores come first. A stronger period cannot cancel a weaker one.

04 · If scores tie

Add the two period scores

0.8958 + 0.5833≈ 1.4792

The lower combined score comes first when the weaker-period scores match.

PBDC places #82 of 100

The recent period is the weaker standing, setting a ranking score of 0.8958. Lower scores rank first.

Remaining tie-breaks & return formula

If both scores tie, higher longer total-return rate comes first, followed by higher recent total return. Investments equal on both scores and both returns to eight decimal places share a rank; ticker A–Z only orders those tied rows.

For PBDC, the longer total-return tie-break is +12.7549% annualized; the recent total-return tie-break is -7.5194% cumulative.

Total return = 100 × (ending adjusted close ÷ starting adjusted close − 1). The period standings compare cumulative total returns on the same dates. Annualization is only used for the longer-return tie-break.

Annualized return = 100 × ((1 + total return ÷ 100)^(1 ÷ years) − 1), with years measured as elapsed days ÷ 365.2425. Histories under one year are never annualized. Peer returns are compared to eight decimal places; score sorting uses unrounded fractions. Numbers above are rounded for display.

This ranks observed total-return consistency, not business quality, dividend safety or expected future return. Each investment is compared with eligible peers over its own exact dates, so peer counts can differ. No quality, valuation or risk factors are added to this calculation.

This explains the collection’s default ranking. Search, category filters and chart periods do not change it; choosing another sort changes the list order. This is Income Lens’s calculation, not a score published by the strategy creator.