Gruntz wrote:
So it's different this time?
Nein, du dummkopf!
Gruntz wrote:
So it's different this time?
Nein, du dummkopf!
Ok. So passive is the way to go.
Fees are a huge reason for passive investing's superiority. The difference over several decades of investing can be into the six figure range.
A greater threat to investor returns is the over weight to richly valued stocks in passive indexing. For example in the NASDAQ 100 the top five stocks of AAPL, GOOG, MSFT, FB, and AMZN represent over 41% of the inex weighting.
Oogeling Bogel wrote:
A greater threat to investor returns is the over weight to richly valued stocks in passive indexing. For example in the NASDAQ 100 the top five stocks of AAPL, GOOG, MSFT, FB, and AMZN represent over 41% of the inex weighting.
Actually that's been a boon to investors. Then again, most passive funds are not heavily invested in all of those.
Is that so. Then, how come those same five stocks represent 12% of the 500 stock S&P 500? SPY is the most widely held and traded index fund.
stewart wrote:
Everyone knows timing the market is for suckers. You sound like a real ignoramous.
not completely true
simple timing solutions like the 5/10/20 strategy or the 200 day moving average strategy can beat the market if done correctly.
Oogeling Bogel wrote:
Is that so. Then, how come those same five stocks represent 12% of the 500 stock S&P 500? SPY is the most widely held and traded index fund.
12% is a lot less than 41%. Also that's just one fund. You'll notice I wrote MOST funds.
iShares S&P 500 Growth Index 23% weighting in the five stocks.
That's two and still not overweight.
Four of the five stocks (no AMZN) make up 42% of the XLK Technology Index, which by the way garners some the greatest daily volume.
I don't think you really understand what overweight is until those same stocks move in the other direction.
Interestingly the five subject stocks make up 6.25% of the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI).
Oogeling Bogel wrote:
A greater threat to investor returns is the over weight to richly valued stocks in passive indexing. For example in the NASDAQ 100 the top five stocks of AAPL, GOOG, MSFT, FB, and AMZN represent over 41% of the inex weighting.
Volume ETF leader for Q2 2017 was QQQ.
So we're up to three? When do we get to 'most'?
Oogeling Bogel wrote:
A greater threat to investor returns is the over weight to richly valued stocks in passive indexing. For example in the NASDAQ 100 the top five stocks of AAPL, GOOG, MSFT, FB, and AMZN represent over 41% of the inex weighting.
They're the top 5 stocks for a reason. Who wouldn't want them as a significant part of their portfolio?
Hello, McFly?! wrote:
Oogeling Bogel wrote:A greater threat to investor returns is the over weight to richly valued stocks in passive indexing. For example in the NASDAQ 100 the top five stocks of AAPL, GOOG, MSFT, FB, and AMZN represent over 41% of the inex weighting.
They're the top 5 stocks for a reason. Who wouldn't want them as a significant part of their portfolio?
You will soon be the proud owner of the nothing burger portfolio.
Burger? WTF.
Earnings continue to soar.
Mc Nothing Burger wrote:
You will soon be the proud owner of the nothing burger portfolio.
It's that old "Misery Loves Company"
He continues to push that doomsday scenario hoping people will listen. It's sour grapes for miscalling market performance for years and missing out.
...or ride your passive index investments down 60% and have the nothing burger portfolio, with a glass of mellonade of course....
People making this claim today have some merit.
But you my friend, called it way too early (years). I wouldn't be surprised if you don't suggest to your followers to get out after a big drop, just so you can tell them, "See, I told you most investors get out out the bottom".