Almost 50% of its top holdings are Mag 7. Of course it beat the S & P during that time.
How unfair of them to pick those...
APPL is Invesco's largest holding at 9%. It is up 25,000% the last 25 years. 2nd largest holding - NVDA - trading at 0.03 in 1999. Now at 115. Similar with its other largest holdings.
APPL is Invesco's largest holding at 9%. It is up 25,000% the last 25 years. 2nd largest holding - NVDA - trading at 0.03 in 1999. Now at 115. Similar with its other largest holdings.
These stocks were on the NASDAQ before they exploded in value. They became the mag 7 after they were in the fund.
Again, index funds beat actively managed funds about 80% of the time. Those actively managed funds who beat the S & P for 1 or 2 years don't do it for very long.
But some of them do... for decades.
Invesco's QQQ index fund has beaten the S&P 500 by almost 450% since it's inception in 1999.
QQQ is a passive index fund. Tracks the nasdaq 100 INDEX.
APPL is Invesco's largest holding at 9%. It is up 25,000% the last 25 years. 2nd largest holding - NVDA - trading at 0.03 in 1999. Now at 115. Similar with its other largest holdings.
These stocks were on the NASDAQ before they exploded in value. They became the mag 7 after they were in the fund.
QQQ is just a passive index fund. The reference index is the NASDAQ 100. So, by definition, if QQQ owned it, it was in the NASDAQ 100 INDEX
These stocks were on the NASDAQ before they exploded in value. They became the mag 7 after they were in the fund.
QQQ is just a passive index fund. The reference index is the NASDAQ 100. So, by definition, if QQQ owned it, it was in the NASDAQ 100 INDEX
The QQQM mimics the index with 90% of its funds allocated as they're weighted in the NASDAQ 100. The QQQ Trust weights the stocks from the index how they see fit and doesn't mimic the index.
Again you're demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about.
In theory, the tariffs should incentivize the domestic American companies and manufacturers to invest in raw materials and other products in the United States instead of the countries the tariffs are being levied on. One of the biggest problems that the American consumer has is that her real income (income adjusted for inflation) has decreased to an all time low due to outsourcing over a period of decades, and trade agreements with foreign companies that had replaced all of the decent paying manufacturing and energy jobs before the Great Job Exodus overseas. The new artificial demand, created by an incentive for both American and international companies to invest in American jobs and equipment rather than pay absorbent prices to Chinese manufacturing firms with the additional tariff costs, will create hundreds of thousands of new domestic American jobs in industries such as manufacturing, energy, and services. It isn't going to happen overnight, but any inflation at all will be mild and temporary. Trump's tariffs during his last administration barely affected prices beyond the short run before wages rose and prices stabilized. The same thing will happen here, only now the tariffs are higher at 25% and more countries are being tariffed.
You will start to see American workers finally be able to be paid a decent living wage by producing products that they themselves will be able to afford just like during the Henry Ford era. And America will be able to sell finished goods and oil overseas as exports and make huge profits. You'll see unemployment go down, the cost of healthcare tumble, life satisfaction and happiness increase, a cleaner environment, less crime, and more peaceful interaction with law enforcement. America will no longer be beholden to foreign industry which has badly abused its foreign own workers and has delivered many poor quality finished products for the American consumer market.
In theory, yes, but I thought that isn’t how tariffs actually play out. In the next four years, Americans will shift to making all those goods in the United States that they typically imported? Who will be taking those factory jobs? Who will be paying a high enough wage for Americans to take those jobs?
The people taking those jobs will be workers who are working in retail, fast food, services, and other low paying jobs who are seeking a higher paying job. The labor market is similar to the goods and services market, the difference being when the wage goes up, the labor demand curve shifts to the right. This signals a job supply quantity at a designated wage has created a new job market demand. American companies and also foreign companies who rent land from American land lease agents, will both build firms and production factories and fields to create new products. In order to do this they need a domestic American workforce. The way to create a new workforce is to offer salaries, benefits, and perks that are higher and better than those that American workers are currently receiving. So you'll see American Walmart workers leave in droves to work higher paying jobs at an American energy company or Chinese owned clothing company down the street in their own hometown.
This would be impractical and irrational if alternative prices for imports produced by a foreign located workforce were the same as they've been: much cheaper. But the new outrageous 25% tariffs will allow for companies both American and otherwise to build in the U.S. if the comparative cost of doing so is much cheaper now. "It is morning in America".
Again, index funds beat actively managed funds about 80% of the time. Those actively managed funds who beat the S & P for 1 or 2 years don't do it for very long.
But some of them do... for decades.
Invesco's QQQ index fund has beaten the S&P 500 by almost 450% since it's inception in 1999.
The Invesco QQQ index fund is obviously tracking a different index than the S&P 500 index. It is tracking the Nasdaq, and I believe it is actually the largest 100 companies in the Nasdaq.
So, it is not correct to say it is beating the index, since it by definition is tracking a different index than the S&P 500.
The Nasdaq 100 index has outperformed the S&P 500 index for quite a number of years now.
Invesco's QQQ index fund has beaten the S&P 500 by almost 450% since it's inception in 1999.
The Invesco QQQ index fund is obviously tracking a different index than the S&P 500 index. It is tracking the Nasdaq, and I believe it is actually the largest 100 companies in the Nasdaq.
So, it is not correct to say it is beating the index, since it by definition is tracking a different index than the S&P 500.
The Nasdaq 100 index has outperformed the S&P 500 index for quite a number of years now.
I believe the only thing that has beaten the NASDAQ 100 over the last 30 years is Flagpole's portfolio.
Invesco's QQQ index fund has beaten the S&P 500 by almost 450% since it's inception in 1999.
The Invesco QQQ index fund is obviously tracking a different index than the S&P 500 index. It is tracking the Nasdaq, and I believe it is actually the largest 100 companies in the Nasdaq.
So, it is not correct to say it is beating the index, since it by definition is tracking a different index than the S&P 500.
The Nasdaq 100 index has outperformed the S&P 500 index for quite a number of years now.
The point of an index fund is diviersification.
It's perfectly reasonable to compare the performance of any index fund to any major index.
Wall Street is right now wrestling with the fact that Trump's tariffs and massive layoffs of the federal workforce are going to lead the US straight to a recession, but at the same time companies will be able to dump toxic chemicals behind the local elementary school to increase profits, bust their unions, cheat on their taxes and defraud their investors with impunity now that DOGE will eliminate any sort of federal regulatory oversight. But at the end of the day, US consumer spending drives not just the US economy, but much of the world economy. Doing anything that harms US consumer spending is a prescription for a big recession.
And the really big problem with Trump's tariffs is that onshoring production is going to be a necessity in the next 10 years because China's demographic collapse is well underway and is going to devastate China's ability to continue to be the world's manufacturer. While other countries in SE Asia and India will be able to pick up the slack on production of cheap consumer goods, there are more advanced manufacturing that China does that cannot quickly shift to other labor markets. Basic computer chips that are needed to run everything from TVs to cars to smart appliances involve advanced manufacturing and take years to build out production capacity. The US will not be able to go it alone to rev up the mass production of microchips in the next 10 years. That is because the US is pretty much at full employment (that could change with a big recession) and US labor is pretty expensive. The US will need to work with Mexico and Canada in a coordinated industrial policy to take over the production of things like microchips from China. The best place to do that kind of manufacturing is along the Texas/Mexico border where there has already been a manufacturing boom in the auto sector. Mexico has a workforce that can fill the jobs and the US has the technical expertise to set up and run the factories. But if we are all going to spend the next 4 years fighting with each other, there will be no way we will be able to ramp up production in advance of China's demographic collapse.
It's $60 a share higher than it was a few months ago when you leftist idiots got big mad at Elon and starting rage selling your shares and selling your Teslas.
In theory, the tariffs should incentivize the domestic American companies and manufacturers to invest in raw materials and other products in the United States instead of the countries the tariffs are being levied on. One of the biggest problems that the American consumer has is that her real income (income adjusted for inflation) has decreased to an all time low due to outsourcing over a period of decades, and trade agreements with foreign companies that had replaced all of the decent paying manufacturing and energy jobs before the Great Job Exodus overseas. The new artificial demand, created by an incentive for both American and international companies to invest in American jobs and equipment rather than pay absorbent prices to Chinese manufacturing firms with the additional tariff costs, will create hundreds of thousands of new domestic American jobs in industries such as manufacturing, energy, and services. It isn't going to happen overnight, but any inflation at all will be mild and temporary. Trump's tariffs during his last administration barely affected prices beyond the short run before wages rose and prices stabilized. The same thing will happen here, only now the tariffs are higher at 25% and more countries are being tariffed.
You will start to see American workers finally be able to be paid a decent living wage by producing products that they themselves will be able to afford just like during the Henry Ford era. And America will be able to sell finished goods and oil overseas as exports and make huge profits. You'll see unemployment go down, the cost of healthcare tumble, life satisfaction and happiness increase, a cleaner environment, less crime, and more peaceful interaction with law enforcement. America will no longer be beholden to foreign industry which has badly abused its foreign own workers and has delivered many poor quality finished products for the American consumer market.
The problem isn't salaries, but how expensive everything in US is. And it will get even more expensive.
Yes, the low wages in US is extremely low, but look to Scandinavia. Our minimum-wage are much closer to average salary, and extremely few people make 100k USD. But at the same time the cost of living is much lower. If you will have to pay 25% more for stuff you need then it will be extremely expensive for you
The problem is salaries. The prices for staple and consumer goods are only high relative to the average consumer's disposable income. If the average American's disposable income rises say 28% over a 24 month period, he or she will be able to much more easily afford expenses and products even if inflation rises as high as 5.5%. The incentive to pay American workers in the continental U.S. will now be much better and more cost effective than companies paying a Chinese or Mexican Auto manufacturer the previous prices but including the new 25% tariffs. The historical inflation rate relative to tariff rates is much lower than people realize and consumers barely ever notice much more pain in spending at the store. Despite what you have been hearing, firms are reluctant to pass the tariff costs on to their customers, because there is too much of a risk of those customers somehow finding alternative cheaper options. The bulk of the cost saving by firms is normally done by having to invest less in maintenance and overhead fees and cutting worker benefits. They barely if at all raise customer product prices. In 2017 after Trump enacted tariffs to China, inflation only went up by an average half a percent for two quarters, and then wages rose as expected, and then inflation stabilized.
Finn, your RELATIVE cost of living is lower because as you freely just admitted your bottom percentage wages are considerably higher than the U.S. minimum wage. This is still true even though your overall percentage of affluence is much lower than it is in the U.S. To reiterate we won't have to pay 25% more for stuff at the store because the tariffs fees do not completely pass on to consumer goods finished prices, and small incremental price increases won't matter because the wages for the average American will be through the roof in about eight months once energy and manufacturing start building back in the U.S. Let me know if you need me to clarify.
Wall Street is right now wrestling with the fact that Trump's tariffs and massive layoffs of the federal workforce are going to lead the US straight to a recession, but at the same time companies will be able to dump toxic chemicals behind the local elementary school to increase profits, bust their unions, cheat on their taxes and defraud their investors with impunity now that DOGE will eliminate any sort of federal regulatory oversight. But at the end of the day, US consumer spending drives not just the US economy, but much of the world economy. Doing anything that harms US consumer spending is a prescription for a big recession.
And the really big problem with Trump's tariffs is that onshoring production is going to be a necessity in the next 10 years because China's demographic collapse is well underway and is going to devastate China's ability to continue to be the world's manufacturer. While other countries in SE Asia and India will be able to pick up the slack on production of cheap consumer goods, there are more advanced manufacturing that China does that cannot quickly shift to other labor markets. Basic computer chips that are needed to run everything from TVs to cars to smart appliances involve advanced manufacturing and take years to build out production capacity. The US will not be able to go it alone to rev up the mass production of microchips in the next 10 years. That is because the US is pretty much at full employment (that could change with a big recession) and US labor is pretty expensive. The US will need to work with Mexico and Canada in a coordinated industrial policy to take over the production of things like microchips from China. The best place to do that kind of manufacturing is along the Texas/Mexico border where there has already been a manufacturing boom in the auto sector. Mexico has a workforce that can fill the jobs and the US has the technical expertise to set up and run the factories. But if we are all going to spend the next 4 years fighting with each other, there will be no way we will be able to ramp up production in advance of China's demographic collapse.
The certainty with which you speak about things you know nothing about is amazing.
Taiwan semiconductor company TSMC plans to make a fresh $100 billion investment in the United States that involves building five additional chip facilities there in coming years, its CEO announced with President Donald Trump...
The Invesco QQQ index fund is obviously tracking a different index than the S&P 500 index. It is tracking the Nasdaq, and I believe it is actually the largest 100 companies in the Nasdaq.
So, it is not correct to say it is beating the index, since it by definition is tracking a different index than the S&P 500.
The Nasdaq 100 index has outperformed the S&P 500 index for quite a number of years now.
The point of an index fund is diviersification.
It's perfectly reasonable to compare the performance of any index fund to any major index.
QQQ is also greatly outperforming the NASDAQ 100.
You are headed off course on this one.
1) An index fund tracks a particular index. So a small cap index fund is limited to strictly small caps, a large cap index fund is limited to strictly large cap stocks, an international company index fund is limited to strictly international companies, as represented by their respective indices. They are not diversified in the sense that they represent only a select portion of the overall stock market. If you want an index that represent all sectors, you would look to the total stock market index.
2) The Invesco QQQ Trust tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index (NDX) and it's performance is essentially identical.
Your assertion about the Invesco QQQ Trust beating the index is misguided and misleading.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
expand on terminology and stock tickers
It's perfectly reasonable to compare the performance of any index fund to any major index.
QQQ is also greatly outperforming the NASDAQ 100.
You are headed off course on this one.
1) An index fund tracks a particular index. So a small cap index fund is limited to strictly small caps, a large cap index fund is limited to strictly large cap stocks, an international company index fund is limited to strictly international companies, as represented by their respective indices. They are not diversified in the sense that they represent only a select portion of the overall stock market. If you want an index that represent all sectors, you would look to the total stock market index.
2) The Invesco QQQ Trust tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index (NDX) and it's performance is essentially identical.
Your assertion about the Invesco QQQ Trust beating the index is misguided and misleading.
If they are identical why do they have different names and why is their growth different?
