🍿🥤
I agree with you on many things, but as always, "exceptions prove the rule here"
<security:n/a:IE000MMRLY96>
$CEPI
Above all, just like $WINC, they provide very good additional cash flow (10.20 and even more percent return, 30% tax-free) for additional scope or further investments, which in turn can lead to growth.
So you can't say that across the board.
I agree with you on many things, but as always, "exceptions prove the rule here"
<security:n/a:IE000MMRLY96>
$CEPI
Above all, just like $WINC, they provide very good additional cash flow (10.20 and even more percent return, 30% tax-free) for additional scope or further investments, which in turn can lead to growth.
So you can't say that across the board.
•
33
•
@SAUgut777 why, of course you can generalize things if the properties are the same.
In this case, these products have the same downside as their underlying, but the upside is capped.
As long as the market goes sideways or goes up very slowly, these products are great. But any kind of vola kills your return because the sold calls negate the mean reversion effect of the shares.
In other words, these products don't recover so well after crashes.
So it's almost always better to hold a comparable ETF and just sell shares when you need money.
In this case, these products have the same downside as their underlying, but the upside is capped.
As long as the market goes sideways or goes up very slowly, these products are great. But any kind of vola kills your return because the sold calls negate the mean reversion effect of the shares.
In other words, these products don't recover so well after crashes.
So it's almost always better to hold a comparable ETF and just sell shares when you need money.
•
22
•@TotallyLost mööööp....false ☝🏻
Then explain why the <security:n/a:IE000MMRLY96>, for example, has fully recovered from its April drop (~ -18%) and has been generating clean returns + dividends since then...is exactly the opposite of your blanket statement 😅
Then explain why the <security:n/a:IE000MMRLY96>, for example, has fully recovered from its April drop (~ -18%) and has been generating clean returns + dividends since then...is exactly the opposite of your blanket statement 😅
••
@SAUgut777 because it is an actively managed product and the stocks it contains have outperformed the Nasdaq.
So you can't benchmark it cleanly.
But when I look at the highest weighted stocks, it looks like a mixture of:
$XDWT and $XDWT.
And they have both performed significantly better.
https://extraetf.com/de/etf-comparison?products=IE000MMRLY96-etf,IE00BM67HT60-etf,IE000I8KRLL9-etf
I would also be GAAAAAAANY careful with historical performance for products that are less than a year old. 😅
So you can't benchmark it cleanly.
But when I look at the highest weighted stocks, it looks like a mixture of:
$XDWT and $XDWT.
And they have both performed significantly better.
https://extraetf.com/de/etf-comparison?products=IE000MMRLY96-etf,IE00BM67HT60-etf,IE000I8KRLL9-etf
I would also be GAAAAAAANY careful with historical performance for products that are less than a year old. 😅
•
11
•@TotallyLost ah, suddenly it's an actively managed product that contains stocks that outperform the Nasdaq....interesting, before it was still the 0815 product 🤷🏻♂️👍🏻 ...I like statements like that😂
And a few key figures on the benchmark:
Despite a ~ -17% drop in April, the ETF has achieved a YTD of ~+7% + monthly dividend (~23-24% dividend yield). Clearly not a long history, but a clean performance so far.
Oh and the ONLY one talking about historical performance here is you 🤣
The fact is, it's been running smoothly so far, both after a drop and in a rising market.
And the nice thing about the composition is that it's not just stubbornly relying on MAG7 as usual 🤫
So all in all, your sweeping statement from earlier is actually completely for the Axxxx 🤷🏻♂️
And a few key figures on the benchmark:
Despite a ~ -17% drop in April, the ETF has achieved a YTD of ~+7% + monthly dividend (~23-24% dividend yield). Clearly not a long history, but a clean performance so far.
Oh and the ONLY one talking about historical performance here is you 🤣
The fact is, it's been running smoothly so far, both after a drop and in a rising market.
And the nice thing about the composition is that it's not just stubbornly relying on MAG7 as usual 🤫
So all in all, your sweeping statement from earlier is actually completely for the Axxxx 🤷🏻♂️
•
11
•@SAUgut777 The fact is, if you put the same stocks in a fund and didn't sell calls on them, the performance would be better.
You're not going to deny that, are you?
You're not going to deny that, are you?
••
@SAUgut777 One question. Have you ever compared how a portfolio would perform that had the same big tech stocks as the <security:n/a:IE000MMRLY96>? e.g. YTD? I mean 1/4 of the ETF is Palantir (YTD +121%) Oracle (YTD +49%), Coinbase (YTD +25%) and Broadcom (YTD +36%) . 🤷🏻♂️
••
@TotallyLost hahaha I wrote my comment without reading yours. We had the same thought. 🤣
•
11
•@TotallyLost In a way, yes, because you always forget the monthly cash flow when calculating performance.
Or to put it another way, how much do ~7% p.a. + ~23-24% dividend yield p.a. add up to in total performance for you?
In addition, I don't have to sell stocks that are not performing well and 30% of the dividend is still tax-free.
This in turn is invested in other stocks and thus produces another plus...so where is your performance calculation now?
Or to put it another way, how much do ~7% p.a. + ~23-24% dividend yield p.a. add up to in total performance for you?
In addition, I don't have to sell stocks that are not performing well and 30% of the dividend is still tax-free.
This in turn is invested in other stocks and thus produces another plus...so where is your performance calculation now?
•
11
•@TechNav I don't know if you both need reading glasses, but maybe you should study the composition of the ETF....
...is relatively equally positioned (were all around 5% at the beginning), only that some positions have performed better than others...and where exactly is your problem with that 🤷🏻♂️😂
Other ETFs consist mainly only of MAG7 🤫
I would have had to pump in a lot of money to buy this composition, so I have it, participate in it, generate good cash flow + a bit of price growth for new positions or expansion and at the same time refute your thesis put forward at the beginning of the discussion 🤣👍🏻
...is relatively equally positioned (were all around 5% at the beginning), only that some positions have performed better than others...and where exactly is your problem with that 🤷🏻♂️😂
Other ETFs consist mainly only of MAG7 🤫
I would have had to pump in a lot of money to buy this composition, so I have it, participate in it, generate good cash flow + a bit of price growth for new positions or expansion and at the same time refute your thesis put forward at the beginning of the discussion 🤣👍🏻
••
@SAUgut777 The charts I sent from ExtraETF are total return.
They include the distribution.
I have not forgotten them.
Do you know whether the ETF has rebalanced often since its launch?
If not, you could calculate the average return of the top 10 position and compare it with that of the fund.
The difference should then roughly correspond to the lost return.
Or how else is this supposed to work?
How do you want to sell calls and have the upside at the same time? This is only possible if the calls are not redeemed, i.e. are far out of the money.
But if they were, the option premium (which you wrongly call a dividend) would also be negligible.
They include the distribution.
I have not forgotten them.
Do you know whether the ETF has rebalanced often since its launch?
If not, you could calculate the average return of the top 10 position and compare it with that of the fund.
The difference should then roughly correspond to the lost return.
Or how else is this supposed to work?
How do you want to sell calls and have the upside at the same time? This is only possible if the calls are not redeemed, i.e. are far out of the money.
But if they were, the option premium (which you wrongly call a dividend) would also be negligible.
•
11
•