2Yr·

What do you think of Gerd Kommer's opinion to increasingly rely on smart beta ETFs such as a value factor in a global ETF portfolio?



3
11 Comments

profile image
I'm more with core satelite and picking out individual good companies. Is of course more difficult
2
profile image
Agree @svenleowe, a core ETF and cover individual sectors via targeted stocks; harder but more efficient in the long run.
2
profile image
Intel's largest position, where is @KapriolenSonne?
But seriously, what do you expect from this? Just back on the subject of fewer ETFs means more ETFs
To me, this thing looks like a classic case of self-fulfilling prophecy as an ETF...
Show answer
profile image
You're better off with a small cap.
View all 4 further answers
profile image
Find the factor premiums very attractive, a 500 € savings plan on the MSCI World Momentum from 1997 to today is currently at 624,000 € (even nen tick better than S&P500), the MSCI World would have brought only 470,000 €. The worst factor was Value, so you would have only 443.000 €, but this factor also ran many years better than the normal World and only since Corona was overtaken by the world. Source, backtest.curvo.eu. My active ETF portfolio consists of 40% Momentum, 30% Value and 30% Emerging Markets.
Kommer stands for long-term investing, i.e. for at least 20 years. Then one can also take factor ETFs into the portfolio, because in this long time any of the 5 scientifically proven main factors will strike at some point. The crux is: A certain factor can strike soon or only in 20 years. So if you use factors, you have to keep it up for decades, even when rebalancing, otherwise it is just a short term bet and speculation on certain factors. Especially if you only use 1-2 factor ETFs, you have to be prepared for years of deeper drawdowns in the meantime, deeper than with a standard world portfolio. Many then panic that they have bet on the wrong strategy and change it. You can't go more wrong than that...
Join the conversation