1Mês
Wow exciting logic! You've dug even deeper than I have and the factor logic also goes in a similar direction. I would of course be particularly interested in your feedback on my portfolio logic, maybe you'll get some inspiration or a different perspective on your own: https://getqu.in/CMyBjK/
••
1Mês
@DrummerMC Very cool. Very close to my construct. Whereby the feedback and probably also the SPDR analysis obviously speak more in favor of your portfolio. To be honest, I would be very interested to know what the SPDR professional thinks of mine. I'm very busy this week, but I'll be very happy to look at your work in detail at the weekend and give you feedback with my amateur knowledge ☺️
@Iwamoto and @TomTurboInvest haven't even seen mine. I would actually be very interested in their opinions.
PS: @SchlaubiSchlumpf also follows factor investing
@Iwamoto and @TomTurboInvest haven't even seen mine. I would actually be very interested in their opinions.
PS: @SchlaubiSchlumpf also follows factor investing
•
11
•1Mês
@Bidax Mega, thank you for the quick feedback! Super happy I will also dig deeper into the terms you mentioned in your post. One big difference (if I understood correctly) between our portfolios is that I try to limit the US exposure (/the US lump that you inevitably get with the market cap weighted logic) indirectly via yield ETFs, while you rather actively manage your country allocation, right? In any case, you're covering a blind spot in my portfolio logic that I'm still toying with integrating, namely mid-caps.
•
11
•1Mês
@DrummerMC In principle, I have built a core of 30%, which consists of the various factors. But more or less equally weighted ~ 4.35%. This is simply the "basis". I then used Excel to visualize the country weighting of the core. Then I entered the regions (USA, Europe and EM). Goal. Each block should have large, mid and small. Europe and EM got the quality dividend share with the L&G products and more or less also the mid caps. Then I played around with the percentages in the respective region until the TER (weighted) was as low as possible and the market capitalization breakdown and the regional weighting (self-built Excel tool) were where I wanted them to be.
Large ~ 50
Mid ~ 30
Small ~ 20
The rest as explained in my article.
That's it. That's all there is to it. It's nice that you see my idea in such a positive light.
And: I wanted to be able to control the regions. Up or down. That's not so easy if I only work with World Momentum, World Value or World Quality.
After a crappy day and a "garbage" valuation, you're happy about so many positive things. I also find your portfolio very exciting, but I really have to get into it first to be able to say anything really well-founded. Sorry about that. Unfortunately, it will take a while. I hope to get to it on Saturday/Sunday
(Hi Marcus 😉) @DrummerMC )
Large ~ 50
Mid ~ 30
Small ~ 20
The rest as explained in my article.
That's it. That's all there is to it. It's nice that you see my idea in such a positive light.
And: I wanted to be able to control the regions. Up or down. That's not so easy if I only work with World Momentum, World Value or World Quality.
After a crappy day and a "garbage" valuation, you're happy about so many positive things. I also find your portfolio very exciting, but I really have to get into it first to be able to say anything really well-founded. Sorry about that. Unfortunately, it will take a while. I hope to get to it on Saturday/Sunday
(Hi Marcus 😉) @DrummerMC )
••
1Mês
@Bidax Exciting! All these factors are established in financial research and offer outperformance in the long term as long as you resist the temptation to overweight those that have outperformed recently (see momentum). In this respect, it definitely makes sense! How did you arrive at the World/EM split? I started from the usual 70/30 without much questioning and scaled it down so that the dividend block fits in and the USA is sufficiently depressed. Via BI I came across a masterclass series with two heads of a family office, who then advised me to set the US exposure to around 50% instead of 40%, which is why the dividend block now only accounts for 20% of the equity portion of the portfolio. I would also be interested to know how you came up with the allocation between large/mid/small caps. Simply so that it replicates the global economy in terms of market capitalization and complements the top 70% in the MSCI world? Or did you have a different selection logic?
••
1Mês
@DrummerMC The weighting World / EU / EM simply came about because the USA will simply not get more than 50%. That's because I think the brothers will realize what's coming their way. EU and EM have a lot of potential and UK, CA and JP are independent blocks for me. I looked at them according to GDP and market capitalization and simply decided - without giving it much thought - 20% EM and 20% EU. The rest JP.
I also read in a great report - I think it was Morningstar - that SC performs better in the long term. So here too: 50% LC to capture enough potential of the big companies and the rest split up again. As SC are more volatile, I didn't dare to use 25/25 and therefore have 30/20.
Here too. Nothing special behind it
I also read in a great report - I think it was Morningstar - that SC performs better in the long term. So here too: 50% LC to capture enough potential of the big companies and the rest split up again. As SC are more volatile, I didn't dare to use 25/25 and therefore have 30/20.
Here too. Nothing special behind it
•
11
•
@DrummerMC My gut feeling is that it doesn't always make sense to dig deeper. Someone (I think it was Gerd Kommer) once said that factor investing has to work even if you deviate from a model in your strategy. (For example, not taking a factor into account). So I wouldn't worry too much as long as you are reasonably balanced. The important thing is that factor investing includes additional risks. Namely, that the factors can also perform worse than the market.
What I personally would do differently, if you are interested in my opinion, is the following:
1) get out of dividend etfs. At least as soon as the dividends are outside the tax-free allowance. Otherwise, dividend etfs are often more or less value/quality. Maybe look for analyses of the etfs. Morningstar should at least indicate the value weighting. The dividend etfs could thus ensure a considerable value overweight. You would have to take a closer look.
2) I am not a fan of bonds. But I am strongly influenced by the "Rational Reminder" podcast by Ben Felix and Dan Bortolotti, who like to emphasize that, according to studies, 100% equity often performs statistically better in retirement than if bonds are included.
What I think is cool is that you consciously come out and justify minimum volatility. I have it in at the moment. But no quality. But I'm thinking of swapping them, as the minimum volatility is torpedoing my desired momentum overweight.
I can understand the desire to underweight the USA. I think you could also do it differently. For example, through a higher weighting of EM, an EU factor fund or a higher weighting of MSCI Value, which has a relatively low weighting of the USA.
What I personally would do differently, if you are interested in my opinion, is the following:
1) get out of dividend etfs. At least as soon as the dividends are outside the tax-free allowance. Otherwise, dividend etfs are often more or less value/quality. Maybe look for analyses of the etfs. Morningstar should at least indicate the value weighting. The dividend etfs could thus ensure a considerable value overweight. You would have to take a closer look.
2) I am not a fan of bonds. But I am strongly influenced by the "Rational Reminder" podcast by Ben Felix and Dan Bortolotti, who like to emphasize that, according to studies, 100% equity often performs statistically better in retirement than if bonds are included.
What I think is cool is that you consciously come out and justify minimum volatility. I have it in at the moment. But no quality. But I'm thinking of swapping them, as the minimum volatility is torpedoing my desired momentum overweight.
I can understand the desire to underweight the USA. I think you could also do it differently. For example, through a higher weighting of EM, an EU factor fund or a higher weighting of MSCI Value, which has a relatively low weighting of the USA.
••
@SchlaubiSchlumpf Addendum: Increasing World Momentum and Value by 5% each and throwing out the normal world could, for example, already reduce your USA load a little.
••
1Mês
@Bidax Your "good feeling" is pretty much exactly what the family office managers told me, so all good ;) Yes, the small cap logic also makes sense to me. I found it impossible to find only mid-cap ETFs that cover the other factors. That's why I'll take a closer look at the ETFs in your selection at the weekend. However, I do have a few quality gates. E.g. physical/sample replication, min. 3 years old, min. 100 million in size. Let's see how many are left. What do you think?
••
1Mês
@SchlaubiSchlumpf You're right. The $TDIV in particular brings a lot of finances with it. But it's sooo nice ☺️. Seriously. I'm very interested in your opinion, because at some point you get stuck in a tunnel. Bonds are still my Achilles heel. I have zero knowledge of it and I don't want it because I actually want a return. That's why I'm building up my hedge with $EWG2 and $UBUD.
•
11
•1Mês
@DrummerMC I didn't give a damn 😂 so more than 100 million and so on. physically was only important. I want to see what's in there.
•
11
•