First of all, I share your view on big Tech 1 to 1. nevertheless, small problems: 1. the strong underperformance was strongly observed with too highly priced companies (P/E >50), like today with $TSLA and $PYPL. Nevertheless, many companies of that time also performed very well, like $MCD $KO $ABI. 2. "The stocks were often described as "one-decision", as they were viewed as extremely stable, even over long periods of time." The goal was not necessarily to achieve the highest possible performance, but to compensate for inflation by covering a product range that also represents the inflation basket.
So what you have to realize is that the decision to invest in ultra-large cap is safer, but as a consequence brings less return, just as you make the trade-off with government bonds as well. I can buy Ukrainian government bonds and have regular large fluctuations, or I don't want a heart attack and buy Swiss/German etc over a perpetual maturity. I hope that wasn't too political. The problem is that not enough people understand: safe ≠ high return; safe = low volatility (in sectors like consumption) safe = "too big to fail" (Apple won't go bankrupt tomorrow, but there isn't much room for expansion either).
So what you have to realize is that the decision to invest in ultra-large cap is safer, but as a consequence brings less return, just as you make the trade-off with government bonds as well. I can buy Ukrainian government bonds and have regular large fluctuations, or I don't want a heart attack and buy Swiss/German etc over a perpetual maturity. I hope that wasn't too political. The problem is that not enough people understand: safe ≠ high return; safe = low volatility (in sectors like consumption) safe = "too big to fail" (Apple won't go bankrupt tomorrow, but there isn't much room for expansion either).
•
22
•
@Magellan for me, however, it hardly fits together to accept less return, but still individual companies, thus automatically higher risk... then an allworld, which means significantly less risk but at least similar expected return, should be much more attractive. Or in other words; much more risk for minimal more return, in the market environment (with interest rates etc.)?
••
@leveragegrinding Many people want to include individual shares, but with a low level of risk.
••
@Lorena hm? why lower risk if a large part of the ETF already consists of them and the two points from my contribution also apply?
••
@leveragegrinding because it is about experience and learning
•
11
•@Lorena yes thennnnnn I want my 2tsd€ but again that have cost me the experience 👀
••
@leveragegrinding just be more like me
••
@leveragegrinding
Related to the first comment: That's why so many here and also for example financial flow recommend to just put everything into an all world, because less risk and doesn't need to be actively managed and you don't need to be an expert. For 90% of retail this is the perfect...
Related to the first comment: That's why so many here and also for example financial flow recommend to just put everything into an all world, because less risk and doesn't need to be actively managed and you don't need to be an expert. For 90% of retail this is the perfect...
•
11
•