Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
This applies to both the long-term outperformance of the US and the outperformance of the technology sector. Who is telling you that the QQQ will continue to perform like this?
This applies to both the long-term outperformance of the US and the outperformance of the technology sector. Who is telling you that the QQQ will continue to perform like this?
••
10Lun
@RealMichaelScott No one - but that's the best way to put money in a savings account....
The fact is, you have to make an assumption. And in the case of a good, solid company that is one of the top players in its segment, there is more to suggest that it will continue to perform well than not.
The fact is, you have to make an assumption. And in the case of a good, solid company that is one of the top players in its segment, there is more to suggest that it will continue to perform well than not.
••
@Alexxela Yes, but the QQQ is not a company, it is basically a sector bet.
The savings book is of course a deliberate exaggeration on your part. You asked open questions and I made valid points.
The savings book is of course a deliberate exaggeration on your part. You asked open questions and I made valid points.
••
10Lun
@RealMichaelScott Of course QQQ is not a company, but what I said applies to the companies included in QQQ.
No, the savings book thing was not an exaggeration on my part - because if you look at the performance over 30 years, which is a considerable period of time and therefore smoothes out a lot of things, and then come up with the argument "past performance is not an indicator of future performance", then there is nothing left. Of course, future performance is uncertain, but that applies to QQQ as well as Coca Cola and all companies/indices/funds.
So what should you use as a guide to select which companies/investments if the average of the last 30 years is not meaningful enough? And if you don't expect steady growth in the long term - because that's how it has been over the last 30 years - then you should keep your hands off the stock market completely...
No, the savings book thing was not an exaggeration on my part - because if you look at the performance over 30 years, which is a considerable period of time and therefore smoothes out a lot of things, and then come up with the argument "past performance is not an indicator of future performance", then there is nothing left. Of course, future performance is uncertain, but that applies to QQQ as well as Coca Cola and all companies/indices/funds.
So what should you use as a guide to select which companies/investments if the average of the last 30 years is not meaningful enough? And if you don't expect steady growth in the long term - because that's how it has been over the last 30 years - then you should keep your hands off the stock market completely...
••
@Alexxela Nonsense. I am not saying anything in general against companies that are included in it, on the contrary, I am invested in some companies myself.
Comparing the MSCI World with a savings book is wrong in every respect. Of course it's hard to argue against the performance of the last 30 years, but the fact remains: just because the last 30 years were good doesn't mean that the next ones will be just as good. This applies to every company, every sector and every index.
What else can I use as an indicator? The figures from the companies. Period.
Comparing the MSCI World with a savings book is wrong in every respect. Of course it's hard to argue against the performance of the last 30 years, but the fact remains: just because the last 30 years were good doesn't mean that the next ones will be just as good. This applies to every company, every sector and every index.
What else can I use as an indicator? The figures from the companies. Period.
••
10Lun
@RealMichaelScott The companies' figures are also oriented towards the past and, according to your argument, would not be an indicator of future performance...
I didn't compare the MSCI World with the savings book, but if you don't want any uncertainty, then you should take the savings book.
Because even in the case of the MSCI World, no one can guarantee that things will continue as they have been ...
I didn't compare the MSCI World with the savings book, but if you don't want any uncertainty, then you should take the savings book.
Because even in the case of the MSCI World, no one can guarantee that things will continue as they have been ...
••