7Mes
Active strategies have the peculiarity that many sometimes work well and sometimes less well. In the long term and on average, this strategy is unlikely to outperform the passive S&P500 according to TER.
This is a real problem with active strategies: the potential outperformance is eaten up by the higher costs. At the end of the day, active ETFs can certainly be used, but you should not expect a clear advantage over passive ones.
This is a real problem with active strategies: the potential outperformance is eaten up by the higher costs. At the end of the day, active ETFs can certainly be used, but you should not expect a clear advantage over passive ones.
•
44
•
7Mes
@Epi Thank you for your assessment. The TER for the active ETF discussed here is 0.65%.
••
7Mes
@Epi if such a study "flies to you" - please send it to me
••
@FIRE55 There are dozens of studies about this on the internet. So far, only a handful of people have managed to outperform the S&P over the long term. The average person and the average fund manager have never managed to beat the S&P 500 after deducting costs. The chart always looks good, but the costs eat up everything in the long term, which of course is not taken into account in the chart
••
7Mes
@ole-4063 This study by Fund Analysis is certainly interesting:
Handelsblatt: Almost 17 percent return possible: These funds beat indices such as the MSCI World - https://hbapp.handelsblatt.com/cmsid/29399550.html
Handelsblatt: Almost 17 percent return possible: These funds beat indices such as the MSCI World - https://hbapp.handelsblatt.com/cmsid/29399550.html
••
@FIRE55 unfortunately I don't have a Handelsblatt account 😅 but the beginning was exciting, but it has been proven that after deducting the costs and all the bells and whistles, less is left over the long term than if you simply save a simple ETF with 0.1% costs. Some of the studies I have read have looked over 100 years into the past and after 15 to 20 years 100% of the funds, regardless of when you take 1940-1960 or any other period, were beaten by the S&P 500 after 15-20 years at the latest, without exception, the costs are simply too high and the overperformance, if the active ETF really manages to achieve it at all, then this higher performance is always destroyed by excessive costs. Wolf of invest is a very exciting book where Jordan Bedford, a former Wall Street guy, tells how Wall Street wants to make investors believe exactly that so that people invest in something like this so that they can pocket the fees.
•
11
•
@ole-4063 The thing is that there are countless active funds. If a few of them have been more successful after 20 years of overweighting something, then that's all well and good, but nothing special at first. For the last 20 years, all I had to do was bet on Google. I would be more cautious in the next 20 years
•
11
•