No se ha encontrado

11Lun

@Epi all valid arguments... but: you have to look at the big picture.
1. I think the .com bubble was a one-off effect (of course something similar could happen again, but there are exceptions) and also
2. everyone talks about the big crash of the .com bubble - but they forget that $NDX increased almost sevenfold between 1998 and 2000. That means two things again:
a. normally you would have taken profits that were higher than world and would still be up , even after -80% ( 1x7 - 7x80%) and
b. If an index like Nasdaq increases almost sevenfold in 2 years, the alarm bells should ring and at least a part should be sold/kept an eye on. At the latest when it goes downhill, you should take the step and sell.

But I realize that in hindsight everything seems simpler and easier said than done ... but I just want to say that objectively speaking, things are put into perspective

•

Epi@Epi

11Lun

@Alexxela You are focusing your argument on the dotcom bubble.
You don't know whether something like that will happen again. Sometimes I see parallels to today: over 10x since the last low, this time a little longer, similar euphoria despite interest rate hikes this time AI, many new soldiers of fortune, this time via ETF. Etc.

The time period is always decisive when looking back. If you go back to just before a boom, the result is of course different to just after the boom. Objectively, as you say, there is nothing to it at first.

To work this out, there are certain key figures, e.g. max DD or time till recovery. If you apply these to the entire period of QQQ's existence and compare them with VT, the result is what I said above.

But basically I agree with you. With time and nerves, QQQ is the better alternative.

••

11Lun

Yes, if the stock market were that easy...
You just have to ask yourself whether you can withstand the draw downs in the nasdaq.
If not, the world is the answer.

•

11Lun

@Der_Dividenden_Monteur There are drawdowns for all stocks. Apart from the DotCom bubble, the other drawdowns were not significantly worse than those of the world

••

11Lun

@Alexxela bullshit

•

11Lun

@Der_Dividenden_Monteur unfortunately I can't add screenshots to the answers... but if you open the links and scroll down you will see "Drawdown periods" and you can select "Table" and see the individual drawdowns ....

••

11Lun

@Alexxela the nasdaq fell from 16600 points to 10600 in 2022, now don't tell me that the draw down was easier to endure than with a world etf

••

11Lun

@Der_Dividenden_Monteur
QQQ Jan 2022 - Dec 2022 -32%
VT Jan 2022 - Sep 2022 -25%

I didn't say the drawdown on QQQ was easier to endure... just that it wasn't significantly higher than VT ... I'd rather accept a roughly higher drawdown now and then if x times the return is delivered in the long run...

••

Sparfuchs@Reinecke

11Lun

@Alexxela have 160k in there with such a drawdown, let's see if you keep your nerve when suddenly 60k are gone.

•

Usuario eliminado

11Lun

Comentario eliminado

11Lun

@Alexxela That's just theory.
Nevertheless, my statement still stands:
Can you cope with a drawdown of 6000 points?

••

11Lun

@Der_Dividenden_Monteur it's not about the points but about the percentages... with -32% I can do just as well/badly as with the -25% of the world

•

Ver todas las 2 respuestas adicionales

11Lun

@Dividenden-Stamm I would have done well with it in the 80s... the problem came in 2000....

••

Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024

11Lun

https://www.boerse-online.de//nachrichten/aktien/entdeckt-der-beste-etf-der-welt-und-darum-koennen-sie-sich-zukuenftig-auf-noch-mehr-wachstum-freuen-20348594.html

•

Felix@Investor_in_Jogginghose

11Lun

Edit: this was meant as a reply to @Dividenden-Stamms message with the €10,000

Everyone understands what he wants... I was talking about regular purchases and long term... for 10.000€ to suddenly dissolve in sec. even on a very bad day with -10% a portfolio of 100.000€ would be necessary... i.e.
1) you are at the beginning and have invested everything at once - which you should not do and was also ruled out by me...
2) Portfolio has grown over several years to the value, then you are no longer new to the stock market...
3) you are new to the stock market and have invested everything because the €100,000 is not a lot of money for you, then this should also be manageable and you can then buy more...

And we're talking about the most valuable 100 tech companies, not altcoins...

•

Jan@JJS

11Lun

@Alexxela Re 1: Why shouldn't you do that? They don't say "time in the market beats timing the market" for nothing

Re 2: You can invest money for years and the markets only develop positively and then from one day to the next there's a bang and you find yourself in a situation that you can't cope with.

To the last sentence: that is exactly the reason for an all-world! There are only 100 companies in the NASDAQ and they are all from the USA, all other companies in the world are ignored.

••

Pezi@Pezi

11Lun

Then just do it and be done with it...

•

Krush82@Krush82

11Lun

I'm already relatively risk-averse, I'm very invested in tech and the US. But I also opted for the world etf ETF, not because I think the qqq is the devil's bargain, but because I don't have the confidence to bear the max DD, or rather that I wouldn't have the time to recover the losses by the time I retire if the worst came to the worst

•

kenan@shatter

11Lun

the last 30 years maybe not the next 30 years

••

MrMister@MrMister

11Lun

The best ETF for many years is the Ishares Nasdaq 100.

••

11Lun

I wonder how the nasdaq100 would have performed over 30 years if it had had the rules of the s&p500 in terms of earnings history etc. Then it probably wouldn't have escalated so much in the .com bubble. Basically, the Nasdaq100 has the same rules as the World, it just happens to be betting on the right sector.

••

Felix@Investor_in_Jogginghose

11Lun

@Investor_in_Jogginghose What rules did the Nasdaq not have compared to the s&p 500? Is it different now?

••

11Lun

@Alexxela In the S&P, companies must have made profits for 4 quarters before inclusion. As far as I know, this is not the case with the Nasdaq. I can still remember that Tesla was not in the index for a long time because of this.
I think the Nasdaq100 is bluntly following Mcap.
Of course, this can be both a blessing and a curse.

•

11Lun

@Investor_in_Jogginghose thanks for the explanations 👍
That's a good question ...

••

11Lun

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?

••

11Lun

@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.

••

11Lun

@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.

••

11Lun

@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...

••

11Lun

@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.

••

11Lun

@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 ...

••

11Lun

No matter how often you compare the MSCI World with a savings book, it doesn't get any more correct.

Figures are per se based on the past, but they are closer than the performance of 20 years ago 🤓

••

Usuario eliminado

11Lun

Comentario eliminado