Down goes the Dow

I update my spreadsheet a couple times a year...that's enough. I only want a general snapshot. I'm not obsessed about this as you appear to be.

Since you say I'm "tech heavy" (I'm not), what minimum percentage of tech stocks would qualify for that as far as you are concerned?

1) I'm not a criminal.

2) I'm not a liar.

3) I didn't get kicked out of Congress.

4) I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that).

5) I've never worn makeup or a dress...again, not that there's anything wrong with that.

For US stock-only portfolios: 30%

For global stock-only portfolios: 25%

Nice catch, assuming you are correct.

The chart i used only went back 10 years, so I limited it to that, figuring it made my point without all the breadth of duration your analysis provides.

Thumbs up.

There’s another one. You and Donald Trump, never told a lie as an adult. It’s only a lie if you neither believe, pretend nor want it to be true.

There’s no way you will back yourself out of this Flagpole without sharing your pretend 2023 portfolio breakdown.

I think you would have to admit that the S&P 500 is itself tech. heavy. That is why they distinguish between S&P 500 capitalization weighted index and S&P 500 equal weighted.

The Cap Weighted index is as follows:

By contrast, the Technology portion in the Equal Weighted index is only 13.1%

That is a huge difference: 13.1 % vs. 28.9%

So, I would say that the SNP Cap. Weighted index is tech. heavy. Of course it is! That is the whole point of discussions we have had on this thread for years now.

So, if Flagpole's thread merely matches the S&P 500 Capitulization Weighted Index, his portfolio would likewise be considered technology heavy.

And then a metric of even 20% or 25 of tech. would technically be overweight technology.

In fact, I bet his portfolio is in excess of 30%, but even a portfolio that just matched the S&P Cap weighted would be sufficient to call it tech. heavy.

Exactly!

I had the same question about the Communication sector and whether to include it in technology. I think a fair interpretation could be made to include it since most communication services companies provide internet capabilities as part of their services (like streaming media capabilities over their communication cables/fiber optic lines).

The numbers i noted above do not include Comm. sector, btw.

Flagpole, If I can cut to the chase, I think the unknowing error you are making is the same one that the majority of people would make, and most investors, for that matter. It is simply this: they don't fully understand what is in their mutual funds, and most growth oriented mutual funds are tech heavy. And in fact, even the S&P 500 is tech. heavy.

A couple of days ago I randomly picked one of the funds mentioned in regard to this discussion, looked it up, and it was something like 38% tech., and even more if you include communication sector. That is just an example. They all tend to be that way. And again, the SNP 500 index itself is tech. heavy.

I don't think you are alone in this presumption.

Excuse me if I am misrepresenting your understanding of your holdings in their entirety.

“A couple of days ago I randomly picked one of the funds mentioned in regard to this discussion, looked it up, and it was something like 38% tech., and even more if you include communication sector. That is just an example. They all tend to be that way. And again, the SNP 500 index itself is tech. heavy.”

A significant factor for mutual fund managers is benchmark against the index. So, underweight the index into 2023, then chasing the index into year end. I would assume there was some of that. That and window dressing your holdings with Mag Seven to look smart.

Eliminating the bond funds from his mutual fund list in 12/2010;

ARTMX
Artisan Mid Cap Investor

FCNTX
Fidelity Contrafund

FSCRX
Fidelity Small Cap Discovery

VSCIX
Vanguard Small Cap Index I

VEXMX
Vanguard Extended Market Index Investor

VWNDX
Vanguard Windsor Investor Shares

FDGFX
Fidelity Dividend Growth

FDIVX
Fidelity Diversified International

At the end of 2023, Tech and Communications would be 26.3% ( 21.47% and 4.83% ) of this portfolio vs. 38.38% for S&P 500 and 36.7% for total US stock market. All of these funds outperformed DIA except VWNDX in 2023.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=5oy6efSzynWBNBTeCgvHhB

I believe FP is comparing his portfolio with cash flows but not the DJIA, thus apples to oranges.

The time-weighted rate of return (TWRR) is a measure of the compound
rate of growth in a portfolio. This is calculated from the holding
period returns (e.g. monthly returns), and TWRR will thus not be
impacted by cashflows. If there are no external cashflows, TWRR will
equal CAGR.
The money-weighted rate of return (MWRR) is the internal rate of
return (IRR) taking into account cashflows. This is the discount rate at
which the present value of cash inflows equals the present value of
cash outflows.

Notice, if one started an equal weight portfolio of his funds in 2000, his funds would outperform DIA, SPY and VTSMX on TWRR, but not MWRR.

OK. I meet neither criteria.

He's not correct. Over 30 years they are identical 9.9% (which I admit I'm a tad surprised about). Over their existences, the Dow loses to the NASDAQ and the S&P 500.

My not lying aside (I do never lie), why do you think my 2023 portfolio is "pretend?"

Again, I lost to both the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ in 2023. Considering how great 2023 was for the market in general, what I gained in 2023 wasn't that great. Anyone who WAS tech heavy in 2023 would have done a lot better than me. What about my ~23% gain in 2023 seems to unbelievable to you? Maybe you are just trolling here, but you should know that I'm not mad at all...just puzzled.

Nope. Try again.

Nope!

A portfolio that mirrored SP500 performance in 2023 would be too volatile to have beaten the DOW in 36 of the past 32 years. Unless you have some hidden meaning for “beat the DOW” that you’re keeping to yourself. Perhaps you mean cumulative performance since you started investing. That I could believe. Having beat it in each of those individual years is not believable under any circumstance.

This bears repeating, bolded part above ^^^^. That is my major contention with his claim, as well. Investors have good years they have bad years. But to beat an indices most every year is almost impossible. Some years you lose (to the index), but the best investors look to come out ahead in the long run. But to beat it the index something akin to 95% of the individual years is not practical.

Additionally, I bet anything that Flagpole is including his routine, periodic contributions during the course of the year as part of his performance when he does his calculation, as gente speculated is happening as well (see his post above), when he said "I believe FP is comparing his portfolio with cash flows but not the DJIA, thus apples to oranges."

You obviously are not capable of understanding anything or taking in any information whatsoever. I have clearly said so many times that today's holdings of mine are NOT the same as they have been since I started investing in 1989. So, it matters NOT what today's portfolio is made up of...it only matters what it was made up of in those other years. I wasn't given a portfolio in 1989 and then have held it since. I have moved stuff around, added new funds, changed the amount I put in, changed where that stuff went. I did a lot of that kind of changing early on, and, as I have said here before, I got lucky with some of that changing. At some point, my value was so great that it made absolutely zero sense to continue to do that (and really it made little sense as it was), so I just kept adding funds and tried to get as diversified as possible.

Also, I submit to you that NO ONE, not even me, has beaten the Dow in "36 of the past 32 years" (YOU wrote that). I don't like to cut people off because they are too stupid as it's not their fault, but you are too stupid for me to continue to discuss mutual funds with. I've really only done it with a couple of posters ever...Sally a couple of times (and he does remain the dumbest person I've ever encountered), and The Adult In The Room. I've stopped responding to people because they were too boring, but only the two mentioned (until now) for being too stupid. It's not a permanent ban. I may decide to give you another shot down the road as STUPID doesn't always last forever...stupid is as stupid does after all.

You are so stupid that methinks you are very likely the same poster as Sally. I could be wrong about that, but that would make sense. It's pretty rare to find two of you such big dummies in the same place outside of a Trump rally.