I think it is good and understandable to include individual SECTORS (such as tech) separately in the portfolio and to give them a relative overweight, which is also justified from a long-term perspective.
Specifically with tech, the question arises as to why combine tech with 100% USA? From a long-term perspective, doesn't it make more sense to choose a tech world ETF?
-> If it is also planned to include the Nasdaq for accentuation anyway, then the question of whether tech world ETF or tech US ETF is even more important.
Specializing below the level of sectors (i.e. individual themes such as AI, defence, semiconductors) can only ever have a rather short-term perspective and is therefore more like a bet and requires appropriate knowledge and accompanying observation plus reaction if necessary.
Greetings
🥪
Specifically with tech, the question arises as to why combine tech with 100% USA? From a long-term perspective, doesn't it make more sense to choose a tech world ETF?
-> If it is also planned to include the Nasdaq for accentuation anyway, then the question of whether tech world ETF or tech US ETF is even more important.
Specializing below the level of sectors (i.e. individual themes such as AI, defence, semiconductors) can only ever have a rather short-term perspective and is therefore more like a bet and requires appropriate knowledge and accompanying observation plus reaction if necessary.
Greetings
🥪
••
@BockaufDividenden
I then noticed that we want to map almost identical elements
(apart from Defence and Semiconductors, I am mapping the identical elements):
All World
-> but I use 5 different ones because this combination fits better with the other 3 ETFs, see below.
Tech & Nasdaq
-> deliberate accentuation (but with Tech World ETF)
S&P 500
-> I also have this in my portfolio, but because of the combination with my 5-strong all-world combination plus tech accentuation, I have not chosen a standard version with weighting by market share, but an ETF with a value approach and sector rotation strategy.
I then noticed that we want to map almost identical elements
(apart from Defence and Semiconductors, I am mapping the identical elements):
All World
-> but I use 5 different ones because this combination fits better with the other 3 ETFs, see below.
Tech & Nasdaq
-> deliberate accentuation (but with Tech World ETF)
S&P 500
-> I also have this in my portfolio, but because of the combination with my 5-strong all-world combination plus tech accentuation, I have not chosen a standard version with weighting by market share, but an ETF with a value approach and sector rotation strategy.
•
11
•
@Stullen-Portfolio Hey thanks for your comment!
I also took a look at your IT Tech ETF $XDWT (I think it's okay, I would probably exchange it)
But I would probably leave the $ASWC and $VanEck Semiconductor in, they are of course special sector ETFs
For the All-World I would probably take $FWRG and leave out the S&P500 due to the NASDAQ $EQQQ
I also took a look at your IT Tech ETF $XDWT (I think it's okay, I would probably exchange it)
But I would probably leave the $ASWC and $VanEck Semiconductor in, they are of course special sector ETFs
For the All-World I would probably take $FWRG and leave out the S&P500 due to the NASDAQ $EQQQ
••
@Stullen-Portfolio Your selection of ETFs is certainly exciting, but not quite my thing ;) I mainly have my dividend portfolio for now, so yours are a bit too specialized for me! Even if the performance is right!
••