@getquinsupport: Paying professional users of getquin subscriptions have had the option to have portfolio analyses performed—most recently, up to 15 per month.
In principle, this is a good thing, but when it comes to evaluating ETFs, there’s still plenty of room for improvement!
For example: the $GERD (-0,21 %) is probably miles away from being “insufficiently diversified.”
On the contrary, this passively managed fund is more diversified than the MSCI World Index and, due to its investment strategy, is also less dependent on individual countries, such as the U.S.
However, getquin’s automated system responds by stating that the “diversification is poor” (5 out of 25 points). Of course, this is true if the assessment is based solely on the number of different investment products (stocks, funds, crypto, money market accounts, etc.).
But the fact that a portfolio containing only this one fund is labeled as poorly diversified, while another portfolio containing three different stocks plus a sector ETF scores better—that’s simply not right.
The AI needs to be improved in this regard!
If I compare such an ETF to a portfolio consisting solely of stocks, then the diversification of that ETF should be factored into the evaluation alongside the pure stock portfolio.
