Have you also looked at $DFEN?
And when I look at the performance of the two ETFs you compared, I know which one I wouldn't take...
And when I look at the performance of the two ETFs you compared, I know which one I wouldn't take...
••
2Sem.
@Johann_van_der_Smut Yes, we have. There's honestly not that much real armor in the ETF. More tech etc.
In the comments we talk about the $DFEN... https://getqu.in/ky5xnt/
In the comments we talk about the $DFEN... https://getqu.in/ky5xnt/
••
••
2Sem.
As the $ARMG was only launched in September 2024, it is certainly not possible to make a real forecast in terms of performance. The comparison was more about the stocks that are actually invested in. As @Mister_ultra has already rightly mentioned, a defense ETF should also invest in this and focus less on technology in order to acquire performance. I have chosen $ASWC for myself, as I want to invest in European armaments.
•
11
•@Bidax Well, they also run under defense, and that includes cyber defense, etc. In 2024, people will no longer defend themselves with conventional weapons alone. But well, you seem to want to invest purely in hardware manufacturers - that's ok. But why is that so important to you? And according to your logic, Renk shouldn't be in any defense ETF either, should it?
I hadn't noticed that $ARMG has only been around since September. I'll have a look at it
I hadn't noticed that $ARMG has only been around since September. I'll have a look at it
•
11
•
@Johann_van_der_Smut If you are only interested in performance, you can of course simply take a NASDAQ ETF.
But if you want to consciously invest in armor, you should look at the content and not just the name or the packaging.
Cybersecurity is of course now also part of defense, but you have to draw a line somewhere. Weapons, jets and, above all, drones certainly also contain state-of-the-art semiconductors.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to see TSMC or AMD in a defense ETF.
I therefore have a relatively clear view. If it says defense, then it should also include defense. And not companies that are suppliers or, for example, advise the Pentagon (Booz Allen Hamilton).
A great share, but in my eyes a consulting firm and not an armaments company.
For me, defense is Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop, Rheinmetall, BAE,...
Renk and the like are slowly becoming difficult. Or even an Airbus, Boeing,...
But if you want to consciously invest in armor, you should look at the content and not just the name or the packaging.
Cybersecurity is of course now also part of defense, but you have to draw a line somewhere. Weapons, jets and, above all, drones certainly also contain state-of-the-art semiconductors.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to see TSMC or AMD in a defense ETF.
I therefore have a relatively clear view. If it says defense, then it should also include defense. And not companies that are suppliers or, for example, advise the Pentagon (Booz Allen Hamilton).
A great share, but in my eyes a consulting firm and not an armaments company.
For me, defense is Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop, Rheinmetall, BAE,...
Renk and the like are slowly becoming difficult. Or even an Airbus, Boeing,...
••
Well, both of your definitions of armaments simply don't match those of the ETF issuers...
And these things are not called "defense ETFs" but "defense"...
What do you do now? Buy individual shares? Your own ETF?
And these things are not called "defense ETFs" but "defense"...
What do you do now? Buy individual shares? Your own ETF?
••
@Johann_van_der_Smut You're right about that. The only question is what most people think of when they think of armor.
My guess is that most people think of jets, weapons, tanks and the like when they think of armaments and probably want to cover these with an ETF.
In my opinion, ETFs therefore mislead some investors who only pay attention to the name.
Since I personally cover most of my investments with individual stocks, I opted directly for Lockheed and Northrop, the number 1 and 3 largest defense companies in my portfolio.
I also have two cybersecurity companies in my portfolio, Palo Alto Networks and Crowdstrike. However, not from a defense perspective, but rather with a view to civilian cyber attacks (cloud, AI, hacking of companies,...)
My guess is that most people think of jets, weapons, tanks and the like when they think of armaments and probably want to cover these with an ETF.
In my opinion, ETFs therefore mislead some investors who only pay attention to the name.
Since I personally cover most of my investments with individual stocks, I opted directly for Lockheed and Northrop, the number 1 and 3 largest defense companies in my portfolio.
I also have two cybersecurity companies in my portfolio, Palo Alto Networks and Crowdstrike. However, not from a defense perspective, but rather with a view to civilian cyber attacks (cloud, AI, hacking of companies,...)
•
11
•1Sem.
@Johann_van_der_Smut If I could, I would build the portfolio I think is right for me from the individual stocks. Since I can't do that, I have opted for $ASWC and will continue to follow it. You have chosen $DFEN for yourself. Top. So everyone has what they want ✌️
••