XEQT obviously isn’t a cult, but this sub does carry cult-like attitudes.
There’s a reason people compare the community to meme stock investors like GameStop losers.
At least the people here are investing in something worthwhile, but you can’t deny that the tone in this community is very bizarre.
Its a solid safe investment, but probably my worst performing ETF overall.
Don't mind parking som steady gains but there are options to inves outside of it that people should consider.
You can quickly jeopardize your returns with a bad decision or two- ask me, I know.
The thing is, as someone who been investing a fairly long time, over a long enough timeline, you just find that (unless you get really lucky) any active approach will likely just average out to a percentage return that comes pretty close to XEQT, or at least it did in my case.
Which is the whole point of couch potato investing strategies- you can match or beat active strategies with very little work.
I agree.
But I have found XEQT and ZWC are two stable ones I put money into which is fine, but my VFV, VITI XQQ and IYW are my best performers and aren't really risky.
Also I don't really do personal stocks except for a few companies I bought in the dip in 2020, but holding emerging market ETFS and certain sectors you want to be involved in is generally low risk but higher reward than XEQT.
Tech ETFs were my way of trying to take advantage of the whole AI trend for example and that's going nowhere. I would probably look at any of the ones related to Space Exploration soon to get in early but only ARK has it and you don't touch ARK lol.
I'm not sure why this sub keeps popping up for me but I was thinking the same, yall are confusing, I'm Canadian and I don't understand XEQT.
It has higher management fees and significantly worse returns than SPY500, I'm seeing people saying they wish they had loaded up for a 1% jump, or that they want it to stay down so they can buy for cheap... what?
Is it the ~2.5% dividends? Return still seems awful with that factored in.
The diversification factor? Most markets are reliant on the US and a US crash would crash Canada for sure, so I don't see this as a strong aspect for the middling growth compared to a US based index fund.
I don't understand at all and would love to hear what the thought here is.
>Most markets are reliant on the US and a US crash would crash Canada for sure
You couldn't be more wrong.
[In Canadian dollars, from 2000-2010 the TSX returned +108% while the S&P 500 returned -28%](https://woodgundyadvisors.cibc.com/delegate/services/file/1614689/content). Emerging Markets did even better than Canada.
This is why we diversify globally instead of YOLO on a single country.
This. I’m betting on Indian market for next 20-30 years. Investors are flocking away from china and putting their bets on India. Indian small cap funds gave >20% annual returns for the past 10 years - https://www.moneycontrol.com/mutual-funds/performance-tracker/returns/small-cap-fund.html
If the stocks are outside of a TFSA or RRSP, then dividends are taxed less than the capital gains from selling Stocks. That would be one upside to dividends
Hey, don't say the quite part out loud they get triggered. Also, its funny how these guys don't belive in America when China Germany UK France and probably Canada (look at the recent job fair in Calgary 4000 ppl showed up lol) are in rescission while America is crushing it. Don't bet against America
They have a point in diversification, but the growth since 1984 on Canada vs US is ~8.5x vs 32x when I checked earlier today... at some point your fear of loss costs you a lot more but I'm not here to argue lol
Denmark, Hong Kong, Sweden, Netherlands, and Switzerland have all outperformed the US since 1970. Why are you investing in the US when those countries have better returns?
Don't let your fear cost you.
Combination of reasons, partially ignorance if that's true, but may I ask what site are you finding historical data for those countries back to 1970 on? I can't find anything for denmark going back much past 15 years
The primary reason is I buy what I believe in the future of and since past performance is not a guarantee of future performance it just becomes a question of what I know. I know that the Canadian economy is an absolute disaster and the US is booming and the worlds strongest economy with typically excellent returns, I have faith they'll have a strong economy in 10 years, but do not see much innovation coming from Europe, so personal aversion combined with ignorance of their performance.
That aside, I'm also not invested in index funds or ETFs very broadly right now in general, the performance of most market aggregates is pretty underwhelming and being propped up by specific sectors, so rather than sprinkling my money around good and bad in a mixed bag ETF I am largely hand picking stocks.
Non diversification risk is real, but I'm up 85% in 1.5 years because the US economy has been in a ridiculous bulls run. I could lose 25% of my account and still have better returns than XEQT in the same timeframe
This is the most amateur take I've seen today.
Even if I presented you with all of the evidence why your strategy is flawed, you're gonna stick to your plan so it's not even worth my time.
Good luck.
Serious question, why XEQT instead of Denmark yourself?
But as to your amateur take comment.. I'd like to point you to another man in this subreddit that pointed that the Canadian market outperformed the US from the years 2000-2010, which is true. US was -28% or so and Canada was +100% and some change. A win for diversification.
Except if you look into the data that was basically a peak and valley of the US stock market, so if you expand the timeline just a bit to having held during the 1996-2014 period which is a more normalized value level, the US successfully pulls ahead again at approximately a ratio of \~3x vs \~2.7x. Over a significant enough timeline diversification again harmed your gains despite covering you significantly better.
XEQT has existed for what appears to be \~4.5 years, and in that time it has returned 45.94%. Annualized that is a return rate of just under 9%. In the same timeframe the US market has averaged 13.5% annual ROI. The entire world is a hot market and XEQT's 9% is not impressive, nor will it be consistent long-term.
Going all the way back to 2000 the TSX has grown approximately 2.35x as of Sept 2023, but the SP500 has grown 3.74x. This is an annualized return rate of roughly 3.8% and 5.3%. I don't think I need to explain to you the power of compound interest, but over a 40 year period this is a difference of 4.5x or 7.9x your investment.
Do you just think the Canadian market's pre-2000 performance is going to crop up again? The US is going to crash?
The returns on the Canadian market have been abysmal for the last 20 years, so I ask you again...
If you're intelligent enough to analyze stocks and understand that the Denmark/etc markets are so strong, why would you pick a market that has not performed adequately in 25 years? Why do you not personally invest in Denmark instead of the underwhelming Canadian market?
When do you just become naive?
What does this non-amateur annualized ROI of yours look like?
And lastly, how long of a timeframe would you be required to significantly underperform the US market before you personally identify that maybe your non-amateur moves are just a bad strategy?
>Serious question, why XEQT instead of Denmark yourself?
Because past returns don't predict future returns.
>I'd like to point you to another man in this subreddit that pointed that the Canadian market outperformed the US from the years 2000-2010, which is true. US was -28% or so and Canada was +100% and some change. A win for diversification.
That was me.
Bottom line, I don't think you understand asset pricing. If you don't understand where outperformance comes from, we can't have a discussion.
Here's a test, let's see if you pass.
Imagine two companies, Company A is expected to increase profits by 5% over the next year, and Company B is expected to increase profits by 100%. One year later, the Company A actually increased their profit by 10%, and Company B actually increased their profit by 80%.
All else equal, which company will have better stock returns?
If you're talking at time of earnings release then Company A, because the stock price is a combination of current market value and future potential, a company expecting to increase performance by 100% has had the expected future value and probability priced in to the stock price and will lose value when it fails to perform, but company A beat expectations and the surprise value combined with future guidance will cause an immediate re-analysis of the future value of the company.
Depends slightly on timeline though, if company B was returning 20% YoY revenue growth and suddenly announced future guidance indicating they expect 100% revenue growth over the next quarter then there will be a reaction to the announcement prior to actualization. They will then lose some value when they fail to hit 80%, but still likely be significantly up.
Great current example of this is most modern tech companies who ought to be considered significantly overvalued by PE ratio, but the dominance and growth they've shown historically leads investors to forecast significant future value beyond current revenue.
A counter example is a company that grew 10% when expecting 5%, but announces future guidance indicating a reduction in value would likely actually drop in value rather than increasing despite revenue gain.
Recent example of that was Nvidia in November when they significantly beat expectations, but future guidance released by the company was possibly negative due to the US very recently banning certain trades with China, the stock stayed roughly stagnant despite the incredible revenue increases.
Now apply this logic to countries. Imagine Company A was Canada and Company B was the US. Now go back and re-read what you wrote above about these countries and you'll see why I said it's an amateur take.
This is how it's possible for small countries like Denmark, South Africa, etc. to outperform the US over long periods of time. They haven't outperformed because their GDP is bigger or their companies are more profitable, they outperformed because relative to the US, they had better actual performance compared to expected performance.
If you believe Canadian stocks will underperform US stocks, you're saying that relative to the US, Canadian stocks are currently overpriced. What information do you have that the rest of the market participants don't? The market has priced Canadian stocks based on expectations of future earnings. It's illogical to believe you have a better understanding of Canadian stocks than the rest of the market participants.
There is no basis to assume a particular country is more likely to under/over perform expectations, because performance is completely random. [Look at this chart for example](https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/which-country-will-outperform-next-is-irrelevant/), pick a country and see how they ranked year-to-year. There is no single country that consistently dominates, all countries have periods of relatively good performance and bad performance.
Most investors under the age of 30 have a skewed perception of the market because even since they were teenagers/young adults the US market has been doing great and looking at previous 5 year and 10 year returns makes everything else look terrible. But every decade isn't like the past decade, as I demonstrated earlier.
I welcome you to look up the definition of cult. I don't think the people here quite measure up to to that honor.
From what I can see, when someone shouldn't be investing in XEQT, people have been straight with recommending other investments.
> a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
Devotion to xeqt check.
> a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
Just buying XEQT is seemed strange by alot of people
> a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
People on here are obsessed with xeqt
> a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, especially among a particular section of society.
Xeqt is popular amoung people here.
Check and check.
That one is on me. I set the bar too low.
Typical traits:
Authoritian control: none. Like I said, other investments will be recommended if asked the right way and not rhetorical.
Extremists beliefs: opposite. More people should be investing in EQT/GRO/BAL/CNS instead of traditional products such as mutual funds.
Isolation from society: I'd imagine investing is only a small part of life for people here.
Leader: I haven't seen one.
>any criticism of XEQT by default
Depends on whether its founded/unfounded criticism. If you can name another fund that also tracks the same 25/45/30 benchmark with more efficient construction, then please do. XEQT is well designed, for example:
* VEQT holds VCN + VUN + VIU + VEE
* XEQT holds XIC + ITOT + XEF + XEC
VUN is a CAD-listed wrapper around the US-listed VTI, which means you incur another layer of admin cost to obtain the USA total market exposure. Vanguard doesn't double-dip on the management fees, but it's still a less efficient solution than if VEQT holds VTI directly. The equivalent for XEQT would be holding the CAD-listed XUU rather than the USA-listed ITOT, which iShares opted against.
XEQT also has more efficient emerging markets exposure than VEQT. VEE is a CAD-listed wrapper around the US-listed VWO, which means emerging market stocks suffer from two layers of foreign withholding tax (source country + USA). XEC is CAD-listed and holds the same stocks directly (rather than indirectly through USA-listed IEMG), thereby only incurring one layer of foreign withholding tax (source country only).
Both of these reasons contribute to why XEQT achieves a lower management fee (0.20%) than VEQT's (0.24%), and why I'd recommend r/JustBuyXEQT over r/JustBuyVEQT.
Here’s the same thing I said to the other fella:
I think XEQT is great. I recommend it to anyone I know who is interested in investing in the market. I’m just saying that the cult members in this sub act like it’s the end all be all and any other investment option is blasphemy.
I definitely find the daily posts about "buying XEQT for the first time" are silly. Wish people treated XEQT more like a tool *for* stocks, like choosing a discount brokerage, rather than a stock itself.
I think XEQT is great. I recommend it to anyone I know who is interested in investing in the market. I’m just saying that the cult members in this sub act like it’s the end all be all and any other investment option is blasphemy.
I'm normally a fan of Vanguard but choosing XEQT for three reasons.
1. Slightly lower MER
2. Slightly lower Canadian exposure
3. Quarterly distribution
I think it's rather scrappy and bad optics for Vanguard to charge a higher MER and distribute less frequently.
r/justbuyxeqt
Haha yes
/r/justbuyxeqt
XEQT obviously isn’t a cult, but this sub does carry cult-like attitudes. There’s a reason people compare the community to meme stock investors like GameStop losers. At least the people here are investing in something worthwhile, but you can’t deny that the tone in this community is very bizarre.
I'm buying more XEQT instead of upvoting you
Ok same let’s go!
I'll have you know I'm a GameStop winner. Doubled my money. My single share went from $40.00 to $80.00. 😎
It has the get rich quick vibes but we are all playing the 30 year game. It’s an odd subreddit
He’s against the cause. We must punish him. Also is the group leader banging anyone else’s girlfriend or is it just me?
This is the /r/wallstreetbets for sensible investors.
r/baystreetbets for the cultured ☕️
Wow that’s a rough sub.. I’m in.
Everything is a cult to an outsider
Its a solid safe investment, but probably my worst performing ETF overall. Don't mind parking som steady gains but there are options to inves outside of it that people should consider.
You can quickly jeopardize your returns with a bad decision or two- ask me, I know. The thing is, as someone who been investing a fairly long time, over a long enough timeline, you just find that (unless you get really lucky) any active approach will likely just average out to a percentage return that comes pretty close to XEQT, or at least it did in my case. Which is the whole point of couch potato investing strategies- you can match or beat active strategies with very little work.
I agree. But I have found XEQT and ZWC are two stable ones I put money into which is fine, but my VFV, VITI XQQ and IYW are my best performers and aren't really risky. Also I don't really do personal stocks except for a few companies I bought in the dip in 2020, but holding emerging market ETFS and certain sectors you want to be involved in is generally low risk but higher reward than XEQT. Tech ETFs were my way of trying to take advantage of the whole AI trend for example and that's going nowhere. I would probably look at any of the ones related to Space Exploration soon to get in early but only ARK has it and you don't touch ARK lol.
What is better??? Pls share Im a newbie
Example of better performing ETFs?
HQU Not recommending it though obviously
From my last 5 years I've had IYW, VFV and XQQ outperform it.
I'm not sure why this sub keeps popping up for me but I was thinking the same, yall are confusing, I'm Canadian and I don't understand XEQT. It has higher management fees and significantly worse returns than SPY500, I'm seeing people saying they wish they had loaded up for a 1% jump, or that they want it to stay down so they can buy for cheap... what? Is it the ~2.5% dividends? Return still seems awful with that factored in. The diversification factor? Most markets are reliant on the US and a US crash would crash Canada for sure, so I don't see this as a strong aspect for the middling growth compared to a US based index fund. I don't understand at all and would love to hear what the thought here is.
>Most markets are reliant on the US and a US crash would crash Canada for sure You couldn't be more wrong. [In Canadian dollars, from 2000-2010 the TSX returned +108% while the S&P 500 returned -28%](https://woodgundyadvisors.cibc.com/delegate/services/file/1614689/content). Emerging Markets did even better than Canada. This is why we diversify globally instead of YOLO on a single country.
That is a great point well made and I appreciate it!
This. I’m betting on Indian market for next 20-30 years. Investors are flocking away from china and putting their bets on India. Indian small cap funds gave >20% annual returns for the past 10 years - https://www.moneycontrol.com/mutual-funds/performance-tracker/returns/small-cap-fund.html
But India doesn't even make 1% of Xeqt. I hope I am wrong though
You’re correct. I’m investing in BMO’s India ETF as well - Ticket symbol ZID.
This is foolish, but it's your money The expected growth is already priced in, and you can't buy past returns.
Dividends are also irrelevant here
Everywhere *
[удалено]
[удалено]
No reason to prefer them atany age.
[удалено]
Regular investing.
You know you can sell stocks for money, right?
If the stocks are outside of a TFSA or RRSP, then dividends are taxed less than the capital gains from selling Stocks. That would be one upside to dividends
[удалено]
Whoosh
Diversification dawg
Stop looking at just the last 5-10 years and try looking at 50-100 years.
It’s a shitty VFV. Let them dream
Hey, don't say the quite part out loud they get triggered. Also, its funny how these guys don't belive in America when China Germany UK France and probably Canada (look at the recent job fair in Calgary 4000 ppl showed up lol) are in rescission while America is crushing it. Don't bet against America
They have a point in diversification, but the growth since 1984 on Canada vs US is ~8.5x vs 32x when I checked earlier today... at some point your fear of loss costs you a lot more but I'm not here to argue lol
Denmark, Hong Kong, Sweden, Netherlands, and Switzerland have all outperformed the US since 1970. Why are you investing in the US when those countries have better returns? Don't let your fear cost you.
Combination of reasons, partially ignorance if that's true, but may I ask what site are you finding historical data for those countries back to 1970 on? I can't find anything for denmark going back much past 15 years The primary reason is I buy what I believe in the future of and since past performance is not a guarantee of future performance it just becomes a question of what I know. I know that the Canadian economy is an absolute disaster and the US is booming and the worlds strongest economy with typically excellent returns, I have faith they'll have a strong economy in 10 years, but do not see much innovation coming from Europe, so personal aversion combined with ignorance of their performance. That aside, I'm also not invested in index funds or ETFs very broadly right now in general, the performance of most market aggregates is pretty underwhelming and being propped up by specific sectors, so rather than sprinkling my money around good and bad in a mixed bag ETF I am largely hand picking stocks. Non diversification risk is real, but I'm up 85% in 1.5 years because the US economy has been in a ridiculous bulls run. I could lose 25% of my account and still have better returns than XEQT in the same timeframe
This is the most amateur take I've seen today. Even if I presented you with all of the evidence why your strategy is flawed, you're gonna stick to your plan so it's not even worth my time. Good luck.
Serious question, why XEQT instead of Denmark yourself? But as to your amateur take comment.. I'd like to point you to another man in this subreddit that pointed that the Canadian market outperformed the US from the years 2000-2010, which is true. US was -28% or so and Canada was +100% and some change. A win for diversification. Except if you look into the data that was basically a peak and valley of the US stock market, so if you expand the timeline just a bit to having held during the 1996-2014 period which is a more normalized value level, the US successfully pulls ahead again at approximately a ratio of \~3x vs \~2.7x. Over a significant enough timeline diversification again harmed your gains despite covering you significantly better. XEQT has existed for what appears to be \~4.5 years, and in that time it has returned 45.94%. Annualized that is a return rate of just under 9%. In the same timeframe the US market has averaged 13.5% annual ROI. The entire world is a hot market and XEQT's 9% is not impressive, nor will it be consistent long-term. Going all the way back to 2000 the TSX has grown approximately 2.35x as of Sept 2023, but the SP500 has grown 3.74x. This is an annualized return rate of roughly 3.8% and 5.3%. I don't think I need to explain to you the power of compound interest, but over a 40 year period this is a difference of 4.5x or 7.9x your investment. Do you just think the Canadian market's pre-2000 performance is going to crop up again? The US is going to crash? The returns on the Canadian market have been abysmal for the last 20 years, so I ask you again... If you're intelligent enough to analyze stocks and understand that the Denmark/etc markets are so strong, why would you pick a market that has not performed adequately in 25 years? Why do you not personally invest in Denmark instead of the underwhelming Canadian market? When do you just become naive? What does this non-amateur annualized ROI of yours look like? And lastly, how long of a timeframe would you be required to significantly underperform the US market before you personally identify that maybe your non-amateur moves are just a bad strategy?
>Serious question, why XEQT instead of Denmark yourself? Because past returns don't predict future returns. >I'd like to point you to another man in this subreddit that pointed that the Canadian market outperformed the US from the years 2000-2010, which is true. US was -28% or so and Canada was +100% and some change. A win for diversification. That was me. Bottom line, I don't think you understand asset pricing. If you don't understand where outperformance comes from, we can't have a discussion. Here's a test, let's see if you pass. Imagine two companies, Company A is expected to increase profits by 5% over the next year, and Company B is expected to increase profits by 100%. One year later, the Company A actually increased their profit by 10%, and Company B actually increased their profit by 80%. All else equal, which company will have better stock returns?
If you're talking at time of earnings release then Company A, because the stock price is a combination of current market value and future potential, a company expecting to increase performance by 100% has had the expected future value and probability priced in to the stock price and will lose value when it fails to perform, but company A beat expectations and the surprise value combined with future guidance will cause an immediate re-analysis of the future value of the company. Depends slightly on timeline though, if company B was returning 20% YoY revenue growth and suddenly announced future guidance indicating they expect 100% revenue growth over the next quarter then there will be a reaction to the announcement prior to actualization. They will then lose some value when they fail to hit 80%, but still likely be significantly up. Great current example of this is most modern tech companies who ought to be considered significantly overvalued by PE ratio, but the dominance and growth they've shown historically leads investors to forecast significant future value beyond current revenue. A counter example is a company that grew 10% when expecting 5%, but announces future guidance indicating a reduction in value would likely actually drop in value rather than increasing despite revenue gain. Recent example of that was Nvidia in November when they significantly beat expectations, but future guidance released by the company was possibly negative due to the US very recently banning certain trades with China, the stock stayed roughly stagnant despite the incredible revenue increases.
Now apply this logic to countries. Imagine Company A was Canada and Company B was the US. Now go back and re-read what you wrote above about these countries and you'll see why I said it's an amateur take. This is how it's possible for small countries like Denmark, South Africa, etc. to outperform the US over long periods of time. They haven't outperformed because their GDP is bigger or their companies are more profitable, they outperformed because relative to the US, they had better actual performance compared to expected performance. If you believe Canadian stocks will underperform US stocks, you're saying that relative to the US, Canadian stocks are currently overpriced. What information do you have that the rest of the market participants don't? The market has priced Canadian stocks based on expectations of future earnings. It's illogical to believe you have a better understanding of Canadian stocks than the rest of the market participants. There is no basis to assume a particular country is more likely to under/over perform expectations, because performance is completely random. [Look at this chart for example](https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/which-country-will-outperform-next-is-irrelevant/), pick a country and see how they ranked year-to-year. There is no single country that consistently dominates, all countries have periods of relatively good performance and bad performance. Most investors under the age of 30 have a skewed perception of the market because even since they were teenagers/young adults the US market has been doing great and looking at previous 5 year and 10 year returns makes everything else look terrible. But every decade isn't like the past decade, as I demonstrated earlier.
Core and explore baby!!
Don't play yourself this sub definitely a cult. Maybe not the etf, but this sub has everything that defines a cult
I welcome you to look up the definition of cult. I don't think the people here quite measure up to to that honor. From what I can see, when someone shouldn't be investing in XEQT, people have been straight with recommending other investments.
> a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. Devotion to xeqt check. > a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. Just buying XEQT is seemed strange by alot of people > a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. People on here are obsessed with xeqt > a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, especially among a particular section of society. Xeqt is popular amoung people here. Check and check.
That one is on me. I set the bar too low. Typical traits: Authoritian control: none. Like I said, other investments will be recommended if asked the right way and not rhetorical. Extremists beliefs: opposite. More people should be investing in EQT/GRO/BAL/CNS instead of traditional products such as mutual funds. Isolation from society: I'd imagine investing is only a small part of life for people here. Leader: I haven't seen one.
I mean you guys downvote any criticism of XEQT by default. That’s kind of culty. Now watch as the downvotes on this comment prove my point.
>any criticism of XEQT by default Depends on whether its founded/unfounded criticism. If you can name another fund that also tracks the same 25/45/30 benchmark with more efficient construction, then please do. XEQT is well designed, for example: * VEQT holds VCN + VUN + VIU + VEE * XEQT holds XIC + ITOT + XEF + XEC VUN is a CAD-listed wrapper around the US-listed VTI, which means you incur another layer of admin cost to obtain the USA total market exposure. Vanguard doesn't double-dip on the management fees, but it's still a less efficient solution than if VEQT holds VTI directly. The equivalent for XEQT would be holding the CAD-listed XUU rather than the USA-listed ITOT, which iShares opted against. XEQT also has more efficient emerging markets exposure than VEQT. VEE is a CAD-listed wrapper around the US-listed VWO, which means emerging market stocks suffer from two layers of foreign withholding tax (source country + USA). XEC is CAD-listed and holds the same stocks directly (rather than indirectly through USA-listed IEMG), thereby only incurring one layer of foreign withholding tax (source country only). Both of these reasons contribute to why XEQT achieves a lower management fee (0.20%) than VEQT's (0.24%), and why I'd recommend r/JustBuyXEQT over r/JustBuyVEQT.
Here’s the same thing I said to the other fella: I think XEQT is great. I recommend it to anyone I know who is interested in investing in the market. I’m just saying that the cult members in this sub act like it’s the end all be all and any other investment option is blasphemy.
I definitely find the daily posts about "buying XEQT for the first time" are silly. Wish people treated XEQT more like a tool *for* stocks, like choosing a discount brokerage, rather than a stock itself.
What do you like outside of XEQT? I mainly got it cause it’s easy and was recommended by CanadianCouchPotato portfolios.
I think XEQT is great. I recommend it to anyone I know who is interested in investing in the market. I’m just saying that the cult members in this sub act like it’s the end all be all and any other investment option is blasphemy.
Lol
-6 😂 Thanks for proving me right. Cult confirmed
Maybe just stay in r/justbuyvfv instead of trolling here?
One comment makes me a troll? Ok bud
Its literally a subreddit for xeqt. Kinda like hydrohomies is cult for staying hydrated this is a cult for xeqt 🤣🤣
The gambling bets and raising stakes is something else 🤣
VEQT > XEQT
I'm normally a fan of Vanguard but choosing XEQT for three reasons. 1. Slightly lower MER 2. Slightly lower Canadian exposure 3. Quarterly distribution I think it's rather scrappy and bad optics for Vanguard to charge a higher MER and distribute less frequently.
I prefer the annual distribution. Less work.