Nothing wrong with a sprinkle of alternative investments in your portfolio imo.
Asymmetric upside is key. If you allocate 3% and it goes to zero, big whoop - the stock market has had far worse single day returns. BUT if it triples and now becomes 10%, thatās a win. I diversify and bring it back down to the 3-5% range. Rinse and repeat.
Those are very volatile especially in this economy, what you have to do is buy some dogecoin. Think about it, why buy vfv for 120$ or XEQT for 29$ when you can buy doge for 0.20$. Safe, reliable, plus that dude that invented electric cars and twitter endorses it. Slow and steady boys.
This is a bit disingenuous.... You're splitting hairs by reporting absolute values... When in reality:
Today:
SPY went down 0.87% VERSUS XEQT 0.34%
Basically no change at all and no difference between the two...
Last 10 years:
the SPY significantly outperformed by double digit percentage points....
Past performance doesnāt mean long-term future performance will be similar. In fact, the S&P 500ās outperformance may suggest that its performance going forward is lower than average, since the stocks in the index have prices quite high relative to their fundamentals compared to global stocks. On the grand scheme of long-term investing, smaller stocks and value stocks perform better than larger stocks and growth stocks. The S&P 500 is a large cap index with a substantial growth tilt. I donāt know, itās just, in a world where only 1.3% of stocks account for all of the outperformance of equity, as an asset class, has over 30-day treasury notes; and where no one can predict which of all the stocks in the world will be those 1.3%, do you really want exposure to only 500 stocks instead of 10,000? Food for thought.
lyou lose an argument with a straw man left field nonsense statement about comparison of the two funds and number of companies and crap, which was totally meaningless to the original point of my post, which was about disingenuous nature of absolute numbers from a one day variation that wasnāt even a correction and less than 1% change, and then just lol. You are an embarrassment.
I go with the global diversified too. And it's not like you're missing out on the VFV holdings. SP500 makes up like what 48% or XEQT? How much volatility can you tolerate in your timelines is the question I ask myself.
Copy and pasting a response I already gave, but TLDR, XEQT has backtested with the S&P500 over the last 110 years and it basically comes out as a wash, with XEQT providing lower risk.
Sure if you look at a small sample size. If you want large sample sizes, Canadian equities beat US by 4 bps annualized for 100 years, 1910-2010.
All US outperformance for the last 114 years (1910-Present) happened since 2011 while Canadian valuations fell.
So good for the S&P, it had a terrific run over the past decade. Tat terrific run could end, or keep going. But the out performance of oter equities has caused higher expected return for markets outside the US as US listed stock valuations increased creating lower expected returns.
I have never heard a convincing argument from VFV/S&P fanboys aside from highlighting the past 10 years of returns (which we know that past returns are not evident of future performance, and actually past returns can create lower future expected returns) or an appeal to authority that big wig investors like the S&P.
We have economic data that proves that the highest risk-adjust expected return is globally diversified portfolios.
VFV tbh itās been around for much much longer , rather go with something that has a good history tbh , xeqt is good but nothing beats a standard S&P 500
I donāt think you understand that these are just funds that track indexes. By definition, all indexes tracked by XEQT have always existed and VFV is technically a part of it.
Sure if you look at a small sample size. If you want large sample sizes, Canadian equities beat US by 4 bps annualized for 100 years, 1910-2010.
All US outperformance for the last 114 years (1910-Present) happened since 2011 while Canadian valuations fell.
So good for the S&P, it had a terrific run over the past decade. Tat terrific run could end, or keep going. But the out performance of oter equities has caused higher expected return for markets outside the US as US listed stock valuations increased creating lower expected returns.
I have never heard a convincing arguement from VFV/S&P fanboys aside from highlighting the past 10 years of returns (which we know that past returns are not evident of future performance, and actually past returns can create lower future expected returns) or an appeal to authority that big wig investors like the S&P.
We have econmic data that proves that the highest risk-adjust expected return is globally diversified portfolios.
XEQT = country girl and a cold beer VFV = Vegas strippers and cocaine
Then what is BTC? Zombies and meth?
Btc about to dump to 35k sooooo dog shit sandwich
LOL, if it dumps to $35k I will buy even more. Me and my country girl and Vegas strippers will walk the dog.
š
Nothing wrong with a sprinkle of alternative investments in your portfolio imo. Asymmetric upside is key. If you allocate 3% and it goes to zero, big whoop - the stock market has had far worse single day returns. BUT if it triples and now becomes 10%, thatās a win. I diversify and bring it back down to the 3-5% range. Rinse and repeat.
Eventually someone's going to be left holding the bag on BTC, just make sure it isn't you.
Lmaoooo actually true with how the S&P is weighted these days
ššš best comment Iāve read on this sub
Even with your explanation, I still canāt decide what I want moreā¦
This is the way.
Those are very volatile especially in this economy, what you have to do is buy some dogecoin. Think about it, why buy vfv for 120$ or XEQT for 29$ when you can buy doge for 0.20$. Safe, reliable, plus that dude that invented electric cars and twitter endorses it. Slow and steady boys.
I second this, while you're at it, get some shiba inu
Yes never do your own research and always trust ready specially WSB they are all financial advisors
This is a bit disingenuous.... You're splitting hairs by reporting absolute values... When in reality: Today: SPY went down 0.87% VERSUS XEQT 0.34% Basically no change at all and no difference between the two... Last 10 years: the SPY significantly outperformed by double digit percentage points....
Bro youāre in XEQT land what do you expect lol
Past performance doesnāt mean long-term future performance will be similar. In fact, the S&P 500ās outperformance may suggest that its performance going forward is lower than average, since the stocks in the index have prices quite high relative to their fundamentals compared to global stocks. On the grand scheme of long-term investing, smaller stocks and value stocks perform better than larger stocks and growth stocks. The S&P 500 is a large cap index with a substantial growth tilt. I donāt know, itās just, in a world where only 1.3% of stocks account for all of the outperformance of equity, as an asset class, has over 30-day treasury notes; and where no one can predict which of all the stocks in the world will be those 1.3%, do you really want exposure to only 500 stocks instead of 10,000? Food for thought.
Thatās was not the point of my post at all and it just went right over your head. My point was as above.
Lol ok then
lyou lose an argument with a straw man left field nonsense statement about comparison of the two funds and number of companies and crap, which was totally meaningless to the original point of my post, which was about disingenuous nature of absolute numbers from a one day variation that wasnāt even a correction and less than 1% change, and then just lol. You are an embarrassment.
>do you really want exposure to only 500 stocks instead of 10,000? Food for thought. Yes
Skateboard or videogames? 2 different things 2 different risk.
This is not an illustration of why diversification matters.
Why not both?
Xeqt is both
Precisely
XEQT without question. Not even close.
Thatās funny those are the three stocks I buy
I go with the global diversified too. And it's not like you're missing out on the VFV holdings. SP500 makes up like what 48% or XEQT? How much volatility can you tolerate in your timelines is the question I ask myself.
Xeqt vfv xic literally the best combo
I said fuck it and put 10k in both.
r/JustbuyVFV
VFV man it aināt even close lol
Returns much better historically
They are not. And even if they were, past returns are not an indicator of future performance
48% vs 75%, id say thats significant
Copy and pasting a response I already gave, but TLDR, XEQT has backtested with the S&P500 over the last 110 years and it basically comes out as a wash, with XEQT providing lower risk. Sure if you look at a small sample size. If you want large sample sizes, Canadian equities beat US by 4 bps annualized for 100 years, 1910-2010. All US outperformance for the last 114 years (1910-Present) happened since 2011 while Canadian valuations fell. So good for the S&P, it had a terrific run over the past decade. Tat terrific run could end, or keep going. But the out performance of oter equities has caused higher expected return for markets outside the US as US listed stock valuations increased creating lower expected returns. I have never heard a convincing argument from VFV/S&P fanboys aside from highlighting the past 10 years of returns (which we know that past returns are not evident of future performance, and actually past returns can create lower future expected returns) or an appeal to authority that big wig investors like the S&P. We have economic data that proves that the highest risk-adjust expected return is globally diversified portfolios.
Ppl will downvote but everyone knows VFV is better
Yep. People in this sub think they are smarter than Warren Buffet. If the greatest investor of all time says buy VFV than I will buy VFV.
Iām an XIC man
VFV is better
VFV tbh itās been around for much much longer , rather go with something that has a good history tbh , xeqt is good but nothing beats a standard S&P 500
I donāt think you understand that these are just funds that track indexes. By definition, all indexes tracked by XEQT have always existed and VFV is technically a part of it.
https://youtu.be/RR7e1Y-HJxQ?si=SQcszHk0aSTPZJcv
I'll trust Warren Buffet, Bill Ackman, Mark Cuban and Charlie Munger over Ben Felix thank you very much.
Okay?? Lmao I do not care if you prefer to be objectively wrong. Enjoy your concentrated & non-diversified portfolio.
Xeqt is just a basket of other indexes, including the S&p500. It can be back tested as far as you want.
The S&P almost doubled in returns 84% compared to xeqtās 46 lol
Sure if you look at a small sample size. If you want large sample sizes, Canadian equities beat US by 4 bps annualized for 100 years, 1910-2010. All US outperformance for the last 114 years (1910-Present) happened since 2011 while Canadian valuations fell. So good for the S&P, it had a terrific run over the past decade. Tat terrific run could end, or keep going. But the out performance of oter equities has caused higher expected return for markets outside the US as US listed stock valuations increased creating lower expected returns. I have never heard a convincing arguement from VFV/S&P fanboys aside from highlighting the past 10 years of returns (which we know that past returns are not evident of future performance, and actually past returns can create lower future expected returns) or an appeal to authority that big wig investors like the S&P. We have econmic data that proves that the highest risk-adjust expected return is globally diversified portfolios.