Will your companies still exist in the empire of real values in 30+ years?
•
1313
•
@Alpalaka Interesting point! But let's think this through to its logical conclusion. You ask whether these companies will still exist in 30 years' time? I ask back: will there still be a need for security, energy and food in 30 years' time?
Here's the reality check for you:
1. systemic relevance beats hype: tech companies come and go (remember Nokia or Yahoo?). But my companies are the hardware of civilization.
- Lockheed & Rheinmetall: As long as there are nations, there is defense. If these companies go to zero, we have a global collapse - then your ETF is worthless too.
- NextEra & Enbridge: Do you think we'll stop using electricity? On the contrary: AI and e-mobility are eating up huge amounts of it. These companies own the grid. Whoever owns the grid owns the future.
2. historical survivability: PepsiCo and Allianz have survived world wars, currency reforms and dozens of crashes. They have proven that they can adapt. A company that has increased its dividend every year for 50+ years has crisis management skills that start-ups can only dream of.
3. physical assets vs. bits & bytes: Your S&P 500 is full of software bets. My companies own pipelines, power plants, factories and land. These are real tangible assets. Even in the event of hyperinflation or a complete system reset, the value of the infrastructure remains intact.
My conclusion: I am not betting on the next 'next big thing', but on the basic needs of humanity. People will always eat, drink, be insured and defend themselves.
Good luck with your strategy - I'll stick with the companies that keep the world running! 😉
Here's the reality check for you:
1. systemic relevance beats hype: tech companies come and go (remember Nokia or Yahoo?). But my companies are the hardware of civilization.
- Lockheed & Rheinmetall: As long as there are nations, there is defense. If these companies go to zero, we have a global collapse - then your ETF is worthless too.
- NextEra & Enbridge: Do you think we'll stop using electricity? On the contrary: AI and e-mobility are eating up huge amounts of it. These companies own the grid. Whoever owns the grid owns the future.
2. historical survivability: PepsiCo and Allianz have survived world wars, currency reforms and dozens of crashes. They have proven that they can adapt. A company that has increased its dividend every year for 50+ years has crisis management skills that start-ups can only dream of.
3. physical assets vs. bits & bytes: Your S&P 500 is full of software bets. My companies own pipelines, power plants, factories and land. These are real tangible assets. Even in the event of hyperinflation or a complete system reset, the value of the infrastructure remains intact.
My conclusion: I am not betting on the next 'next big thing', but on the basic needs of humanity. People will always eat, drink, be insured and defend themselves.
Good luck with your strategy - I'll stick with the companies that keep the world running! 😉
•
44
•
@OlafTheSnowman No con from me per se: but have you ever backtested your strategy and seen how you would have done over the last 50 years?
Personally, I have generated a good return for myself. 16.2% p.a. since 2016.
This beats my benchmark FTSE All World quite clearly. However, my performance is significantly worse than that of the Nasdaq 100, which - with a consistent savings plan - achieves 18.1% p.a.
It is very difficult to beat tech in the long term (!). Simply because there is always completely different potential there than with an insurance provider, food producer or defense equipment supplier.
Personally, I have generated a good return for myself. 16.2% p.a. since 2016.
This beats my benchmark FTSE All World quite clearly. However, my performance is significantly worse than that of the Nasdaq 100, which - with a consistent savings plan - achieves 18.1% p.a.
It is very difficult to beat tech in the long term (!). Simply because there is always completely different potential there than with an insurance provider, food producer or defense equipment supplier.
••
@KevinE Strong performance, Kevin! You have to make 16.2% p.a. first. 🤝
But here's the misunderstanding: I don't want to 'beat' anyone. For me, investing is not a race against the Nasdaq, but the building of a fortress.
Why am I not optimizing for pure tech growth?
1. psychology vs. math: a backtest is of no use to me if I lose my nerve in the next 40% drawdown in tech. My defense stocks, food producers and dividend payers are my anchors. They ensure that I always stay invested.
2. cash flow now, not in 30 years: I prefer actionability today (through dividends and DeFi) to a theoretical maximum return in the distant future.
3. overall context: This is only part of my setup. With my cash reserve and other asset classes (crypto/DeFi), I have enough 'turbo' in the system. The equity portfolio doesn't have to save the world, it has to deliver.
In the end, the winner is not the one with the highest Excel number, but the one who reaches their goal without giving up in between. 😉
But here's the misunderstanding: I don't want to 'beat' anyone. For me, investing is not a race against the Nasdaq, but the building of a fortress.
Why am I not optimizing for pure tech growth?
1. psychology vs. math: a backtest is of no use to me if I lose my nerve in the next 40% drawdown in tech. My defense stocks, food producers and dividend payers are my anchors. They ensure that I always stay invested.
2. cash flow now, not in 30 years: I prefer actionability today (through dividends and DeFi) to a theoretical maximum return in the distant future.
3. overall context: This is only part of my setup. With my cash reserve and other asset classes (crypto/DeFi), I have enough 'turbo' in the system. The equity portfolio doesn't have to save the world, it has to deliver.
In the end, the winner is not the one with the highest Excel number, but the one who reaches their goal without giving up in between. 😉
••