/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>49978733
normalfags believe that buying tiny pieces of the full spectrum protects them in the case that any individual fails.

>>49978795
It lacks critical thinking and makes total sense. Direct indexing is becoming more popular and you're starting to see more want to get away from blanket funds that just hold everything under the sun

>Why do people buy index funds over individual fractional shares?

To reduce risk in accordance with modern portfolio theory. People broadly prefer lower risk to higher risk. Risk management is an essential activity of a profitable investor to maximise returns by minimising risk of ruin.

Index funds index investments which have, to an degree, uncorrelated risk. While the index funds are a correlating factor, it's one you can't totally avoid by buying an individual stock in the index, since you would still be exposed to the risk of the index collapsing.

>>49978733
Why would anyone buy crab stocks most of which are overvalued

The SIMPLE answer is that this is a relatively new concept. You couldn't buy fractional shares most places until the last few years. I believe the longer answer is you don't own the share

>>49978851
Fair enough, MPT seeks to reduce risk and maximize efficiency but currency fluctuations and local laws make owning a Total International Fund risky, for instance. I’d rather own a stock like LVMUY or Ferrari directly

Compare the top stocks from 1989 to 2022 and you would do better just holding S&P500 than picking stocks that you would 100% missed.

>>49978733
ever heard of diversification nigger?
t. $300k in VGS and VBLD

>>49978733
Because of "muh diversification" which isnt really a bad thing but its a slow and steady wins a race type of thing. If youre a retarded 100x moonboi zoomer then its obviously not for you, but its a good way to diversify into aside from your typical high risk high return assets.

>>49979235
Interesting stat

>>49979250
So you’re in one asset allocation and think you’re diversified?

>>49979265
Fair enough but no one gets rich investing in index funds

Sector specific and thematic etfs are useful for riding a short term trend without needing to do a lot of research

>>49979386

Index funds aren’t for getting rich they are to protect your capital once you are rich

>>49979235
Yeah,
>just buy apple in 1995
isn't in anyway useful investing advice

I looked at Vangyards website, they claim their ETFs were returning ~10% per year... do you think you can do better than that?

>>49979670
They can't in the long term they are just trying to justify giving more than 30 seconds thought about it. Sad part is the more you think the worse you'll do. Boglechad here, the only tilt I have is to AVUV, everything other than that is in VT spread across my 401k, IRA, and taxable.

because people are too fucking lame to manage their own shit they are too lazy and have always been told to be a good goy and just buy the index the fucking brainwashing is from birth every single boomer is in some kike driven index fund supporting these nigger companies supporting companies paying employees trash wages is why society is trash and fucked

>>49979386
> but no one gets rich investing in index funds
They do over the long run. Most investors are long term investors not 22 year olds buying Tesla.

VTI or VOO?

>>49979835
VTI is better than VOO, but VT is the next step

>>49978733
why would i buy Apple when I can buy TQQQ

VT is the ultimate chad move. You get exposure to every stock market is the world(mkt cap weighted), no need for rebalancing and less commissions and transaction fees.
t. Holds 1600 shares of VT.

Play with options, invest earnings in VT, repeat.

Politics aside, does anyone else think retail investing is getting too popular? Like, I see a lot of normies discussing this shit on /biz/, irl, and on r*bbit. Does this bode well for PFOF brokers? Do you see any tangible risk in PFOF potentially getting regulated away? Part of me thinks this is making markets structurally unsound for long term investing, with HFT and PFOF basically keeping the music going, retail investors feel more like they're casualty in this scheme.

>>49979773
>They can't in the long-term
I meant, ~10% returns per year, over a 10 year period. That's definitely long-term. Face it man, indexes are where it's at.

>>49979929
yurocuck here
im forced to buy MSCI world or some ishares S&P 500 cuck index becaus we dont get to have vanguard in yuroland :(

Because over time the “top tier” reliable companies change. Rather than paying strict close attention for 50 years you buy the index and get 95% of the return for 1% the effort.

>>49978733
Because no one knows what the top companies are going to be. By holding them all, you are guaranteed to also own those outliers. Because the index is weighted, it automatically adjusts to the better performers. Furthermore the likelihood of an index going to zero is, itself, virtually zero. If that were to happen you'd surely have other MAJOR issues to concern yourself with. All in all, owning the index is the ultimate long term trend following strategy.

Regarding the index being good to "stay rich" instead of "getting rich", I would argue that by giving you the best chance of longevity, it necessarily gives you the most time in the market. And time is the exponent in the compounding formula that does the heavy lifting.

>>49978733
because theres a whole lot of science that shows empirically stock picking is exceedingly difficult, and that popular dividend stock that everyones ever heard of DOES NOT outperform the market and that X stock is not as safe as you think it is. its easy to look back in hindsight and think "if you bought apple in 2002 you would have a 1000 bagger". so why didnt you do that? would you have held all the way through the downturns? show me the next 1000 bagger of today, i will wait.

stock pickers CONSISTENTLY fail to beat the market, and act like they know more than passive chads to buy VTI never trade, never look at their portfolio and outperform 97% of people. maybe youve made some good trades, but guess what? thats actually bad for you in the long run, your luck will run out, and you will be underperform significantly eventually, everyone always does.

tldr do some price discovery for free for me faggot

>>49978733
>Why would you buy VTI and hold 2800 parasitic companies
To pay them their management fee of course.

>>49980051
>do some price discovery for free for me faggot
Kekerino

Bogle was such a Chad too.

>>49980069
Why dont you go look up the expense ratio of VTI for me activecuck, I'll wait here. Oh, you do know what an expense ratio is.... don't you??

>>49978907
Because crabbing stocks that pay dividends are better than shit coins that go to 0 or bit "dollar """digital gold""" killer" coin that pays nothing and loses 15% in a day after going -33% in a week after going down 50% over 6 months.>>49979250

>>49979986
Are you dumb?
You have the vanguard all world on scalable. It’s my only eth as a kraut

>>49978733
Because people have been told it's safe. In reality index investing is based on NGU theory and 'TIME IN THE MARKET BEATS TIMING THE MARKET' theory, so that people who don't do these things have someone to dump their bags on

ETFs were smart when few % of ppl used them while all rest tried to pick stocks, nowadays people just mindlessly throw there money while algos do whatever the fuck. How is this not another bubble, maybe not crypto style but nifty50 style?

>>49980153
then don't buy shitcoins or bit dollar?
you normalfags act like picking serious projects is difficult, whereas the ridiculousness of most crypto scams make the few legitimate choices extremely obvious to anyone with a brain

>>49978733
because stocks go up when more people buy them than sell them.

>do you want to hold the worlds most popular etf or some random company hoping it'll go viral

first always wins because normies, pensions, funds are constantly shoveling money in

stocks are about buying what other people are buying. not buying good earnings.

>>49981600
>stocks are about buying what other people are buying. not buying good earnings.

If that's true then why biztards lost their money on gayhorse and other scams?

jesus fuck me how is there so much resistance to index funds when there's so much evidence and studies showing that they are the best option for building when for the average nigga


>>49981560
because the funds don't trade daily or react to news. They are only influenced by the addition or removal of cash rather than the trading of individual securities meaning they won't actually have any effect on stock valuations. Stock prices are set by all the active traders and active funds.

Another reason there is not a bubble is because not 99.99% of people are one exact fund. A lot will have some sort of skewness. Let's take a few funds. Global all cap, All-world, ESG, factor funds. All these will allow for some skew in the price. so even if everyone did go into some passive investment it still wouldn't result in a bubble.

Do some research, I suggest Ben Felix or Pensioncraft, two relatively big evidence based investment channels.

>>49978733
When you buy individual stocks you place a bet on a die with thousands of sides that buy pressure will exceed selling pressure in favor of your pick in the long run. With index funds you place a bet that buy pressure will exceed sell pressure on the whole market in the long term. In terms of probability the former is trying to get a lottery ticket. The latter is counting on the total aggregate money flowing in year after year.

As for dividend stocks there is no empirical reason to favor them. Dividends are a tax drag on company earnings which cuts into your long term returns. Look into factor investing and learn what evidence actually points to for long term performance.

Been buying $12 a day for over a year in vtsax. Approx $250 into 401k a week.

It is the way.

In ira I buy upro, msft nvda, shwb, hd.

While you could create a portfolio yourself and try to diversify it. Vanguard doesn't just passively buy and hold shares like most retail investors do. They actively monitor the stocks in the index and will remove them occasionally (due to bad fundamentals or too high risk). Most normies don't have a clue how to things like that.

People who are completely clueless and are not morons won't pick their own stocks, they let others do it. Only losers like you do.

>>49978733
i put 300k into ETFs for low-risk return, and 300k into trading crypto for high risk, high return.
i have no interest in spending time evaluating stocks - I'll spend that time on crypto. ETFs are my 'set it and forget it' baseline retirement plan

>>49979945
This has been a long time concern, dumb money being invested in the market leads to a dotcom styled situations where people look for buzzwords without any idea of how to read a value line statement

>>49979929
>play with options
Do you sell VT covered calls? Because it’s dogshit. You can get maybe $10 a month out of it.

>>49978733
Automatic rebalancing.
If you direct index, rebalancing is a taxable event.

>building a top shelf portfolio of dividend champions like Pepsi, JPMorgan, Target and Apple?
Picking winners is a lot easier with hindsight.
Plenty of successful businesses have eaten shit when market conditions changed.

>>49979929
>VT
I'm usually for the S&P500 but I'm a little worried that America and it's stockmarket won't grow in the future.
maybe I hould go for VT instead.

Stocks usually go up on average but lots of them go down to zero or end up like yahoo and Kodak. The fact that you browse retail investments communities put you in a place where you're more likely to find other retail investors able to outperform the market.

>>49983676
VT is the smart play, don't worry.

>>49981735
>They are only influenced by the addition or removal of cash rather than the trading of individual securities meaning they won't actually have any effect on stock valuations.

Is this true? I was under the impression that if more people buy the ETF, the price of the ETF will increase.

>>49983732
Is it really though? The performance is very lackluster compared to VTI. Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance, but it does give a good indicator. What other countries outside of America are economic machines? South America? Europe? Asia? I don't see any ex-USA region doing well in the future. In addition, US large caps are multinational, so something like VTI is already a global etf; furthermore, if American equities tank, international ones will also tank, the correlation is very strong.

>>49983218
Fair enough if you invest aggressively on the other side

>>49983918
If it's a global fund that includes most if not all stocks then if everyone goes up by the same % because it's all distributed by market cap weight then yes the price will go up but it will be the same proportion as the others meaning it won't affect a change in individual securities weighting

>>49984014
>global fund
What about for something like VTI/VOO?

>>49978733

You index when you realize that you're not some brilliant day trader and can get absolutely fucked picking individual stocks because you have no idea what you're doing. It's realistic humility.

>>49984066
>You index
Which index though? SPX? Total Market? Total World? Nasdaq-100?

>>49980097
>0.03%
That’s down bad fr no cap

>>49984080

Dependent on your timeframe and goals. All the prospectus information is readily available.

>>49984065
The index will just drag up the constiuents. If a lot of people by VOO then the S&P500 looks like it's doing well which I believe is what's happened over the last few stimmy cheques.

as neither contain small caps, it means that skilled active managers have more free lunch on those stocks as only investors who have an index that includes small caps would be pushing up their price.

It's possible that the most popular funds that are mostly large and mid cap stocks are increasing the divide between small stocks but that won't affect overall returns. The only bubble to be worried about is large amounts of people who can't afford to put money in the market put money in the market and have to withdraw when the euphoria wears off. This is where we are now imo.

>>49981735
>because the funds don't trade daily or react to news. They are only influenced by the addition or removal of cash rather than the trading of individual securities meaning they won't actually have any effect on stock valuations.
Retard. Securities are created and redeemed within a fund by institutional actors swapping shares of the etf for the underlying basket of stocks. They’re typically doing this to pursue the arbitrage opportunity that occurs when there’s a discrepancy in the price.

>>49978733
Buying individual stocks fucks you over with commission fees, instead of just doing one trade and paying commission for that.
And no, buying on commission-free exchanges is not a solution. You don't want generational money stored on a market-maker website that can rugpull anytime. That's why you do it through banks, or Vanguard and 401k in case you're a burger

>>49978733
I personally don't do it because the brokers I have acces to are not zero cost. It's like 7.5 euro minimum to place an order. If I had 10.000 eurodollars and wanted to buy a collection of stocks to mimick the s&p500 I would pay over a a grand to do it.

Buying 10.000 worth of the index on the other hand would run me maybe 50 bucks

because passive index likely do better than 98% of trades, including professional ones.

nigger

>the amount of indexbros in this bread
Yet all that gets discussed in this shithole is cryptoshyte. Could have never guessed.

I'm not reading all the replies.
Stock returns are skewed; Most stocks deliver terrible returns, few stocks deliver unbelievable returns. If you could identify the winners before hand you could buy them and beat the market but that has been shown to be impossible in practice and that's why indexing works. You get the 2900 shit companies but you also get the massive winners that lift the entire portfolio so you end up beating stock pickers in the long run.

>>49984552

You're acting like you can't take profits in crypto and put it into other assets.

Half my wealth in index etfs

half in random bullshit

simple as

>>49984552
>>49984609
this, cryptos is for scalping then putting your trading gains into passive funds or metals.

happy to see not everyone on the board is underage.

>>49984198
>as neither contain small caps, it means that skilled active managers have more free lunch on those stocks as only investors who have an index that includes small caps would be pushing up their price.
I'm a brainlet, does this mean I should avoid ETFs that have small caps

>>49984609
>you can't take profits in crypto
How is that any different from stock picking? The number of options is growing exponentially, a not insignificant number of them have and/or will go to zero and there is significantly less historic information to assess risk and returns.

>>49984672

Indexes aren't stock picking though.

>>49980153
2.3 percent dividend yield means nothing unless you are investing millions.

>60 percent crypto
>35 percent cash
>5 percent stocks
I think I'm doing it wrong

>>49979797
Underrated

>>49979797
>being this mad
Underperforming, not even once.

>>49978733
becuase most people will pick the wrong stock. They might pick some stupid stock they heard about on youtube TTCF and it goes down 90%

or they might pick one of the biggest company's such as TSLA which is in a massive bubble and will go down 70%

or they pick the #1 largest stock such as GE and it goes sideways for 10 years while the SPY goes up 200%. ie under perform da market

REEEEEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>49984621
> this, cryptos is for scalping then putting your trading gains into passive funds or metals.

nah you scalp altcoins and put the gains into bitcoin

>>49984886
>goes down 90% since october
oh no no no, lmao what a fucking retard.

old boomer shining rocks is the only shit that doesn't go down under economic collapses.

feel free to debunk history, retard.

>>49984862
>TTCF
Comedy gold. That one youtuber keeps shilling for them even as it's going to zero.

>>49984919
he sells courses for $20,000 on how to invest in stocks. then tells them to buy TTCF dude is gonna get sued

>>49984862
I just watched this guy. He's retarded.

>>49983965
the US market is the one that has gone up consistently over the past many decades
the problem is selection bias
it's certainly true that in the past US has done much better
but just a question of whether you think that's likely to continue or not

>>49984644
no it means small caps are more likely to outperform because it's easier to manipulate their price with trades

>>49984918
Not exactly the case friend. In an economic crash, people rush for the fucking exit and sell everything. Look at 2008. But it set an ATH later.

Boomer rocks have lower to go if a recession is in the books.

>>49985019
>retard thinks nominal value is real value

>>49978733

got both, shares and an dividend ETF.
Mostly the ETF is my passive stream of my portfolio which reballances itself when the index changes or one company doesnt pay a dividend anymore.

>>49984945
>sells courses for $20,000
Lmao what

Makes sense i guess. With those terrible stock picks he's definitely not making any money. And this for an investment "guru" jesus christ.

>>49985031
Don't be a stupid nigger. The shit you're on about now is just assuming a global financial collapse. But so long as the currency functions in dollars, dollar value matters. And I am telling you HISTORICALLY if there is an economic downturn, gold and silver go down before they go up.

Back to /pmg/ scum

>>49985119
>dude my life experience is unique
cope.

feel free to debunk thousands of years of ecnomic collapses.

>but I will survive
cope.

read a history book.

>>49985135
Holy shit back to /pmg/ this instant. You niggers need to stop leaking. I'm telling you that historically in all market crashes we've had, investors sell whatever they have and you can notice a dip in gold before people realize they are being dumb and the fundamentals kick in. I am SUPPORTING your argument on buying gold. Seriously, get the fuck back to your containment thread. You're not well equipped enough to have this conversation.

>>49985173
gold is a store value, not an investment.

holy shit, you're a retard.

>>49979797
Agreed anon, well said

>>49985196
Who fucking CARES. You're the one who is getting absolutely ass blasted over me pointing out how gold behaves in economic recessions and depressions. You bitch about not knowing "history" except "no not THAT history, I mean the one where the world collapses and we turn back into a bartering mad max society" or some shit.

Seriously, you faggots have a containment thread. >>>/biz/pmg is where you can larp about the world ending all you want. As I have said, you are not equipped to have this conversation.

>>49985238
better than a bank saving account, cope.

S&P500 Equal Weight is the best long term hold if you look at a 20 year + timeframe and no one can convince me otherwise
Add in ~20% Nasdaq 100 to also have exposure to tech and momentum and you are good to go

>>49985250
Yeah congrats nigger, you won the argument I never made.

>>49985264
Why prefer equal weighting over market weighting if you’re buying index funds?

>>49985270
>nooo, you can't take some of your gold later into an speculative asset
>wtf

>>49985264
I'm currently a mix of VTI, VXUS, and SOXX for added tech sector exposure. I don't know why I bother with VXUS I just keep waiting for some black swan event where the US market does like poopoo and the rest of the market does fine because that's what boomer fund managers told me but it feels like a fucking waste.

I think as you mentioned, that fits in line more with more profits since I think more companies are likely to be successful as a whole but i also feel like there can be a LOT of turds. Didn't GE get kicked out of S&P?

>>49984730
1000 * 1.023 = 1023
1023 * 1.023 = 1046.53
1046.53 * 1.023 = 1070.60
1070.60 * 1.023 = 1095.22

2.3% gets you to about +10% in just four compounding events, this is meaningful immediately in your life even if you are starting with $10,000 because you are offsetting the costs of that life.
the degree of retardation you are exhibiting is called "high time preference." people who have millions look out over five years, ten years, with ease. they know they are not going to be able to deploy all of their capital more effectively. so for example, if you have $10m to invest, and you are an active investor, you will know how much you are capable of researching and deploying successfully for a "respectable" target rate of return with that amount. it may only be $1m if you are a slow reader and thinker. what to do with the other $9m?
the answer is obvious if you understand that money not reinvested is an opportunity cost and you measure it. if you have one good idea and put $1m in it and you estimate everything else as taking an equal or longer time to get to the next good idea, you can safely put away a chunk of your money for five years at "low" figures such as 2.3% because you simply won't get around to that money yet. each year you'll slap $1m more into something that might pull off 6%, or 12% APY, and so at the end of five years... you still have half your money in cash? that's fucking retarded you left a 10%+ nominal total return on the table because you turned your nose up at a 2.3% bond or something.
if you do have $10,000 and you don't already think like this be prepared to lose half of it within 2-3 years, get depressed, quit pretending you are an investor, and never speculate again. you will be on a 401k for the rest of your life.
if you know right now you are not smart enough, congratulations, you can get fully invested into that 401k NOW and you will never suffer this retarded bullshit.

>>49985334
because right now 10 companies make up almost 30 % of the s&p with apple being almost 7 % of that

I dont want to bet that apple will be the same dominant company it is 20 years from now

also research shows that over the long term equal weight outperforms market weight even tho equal has higher costs

>>49985346
>nooo you can't denote gold in dollars it's muh store of value don't speculate on the chart
Anon I don't know what the FUCK you're so pissed off about. You should be pleased as punch about what I wrote and instead you're getting upset. Please seek medical help. I'm begging you. You will be a richer man for buying gold, and you will get a chance to buy gold at cheap prices in a recession. Something that is HISTORICALLY supported. Your response to this
>REEEEE THAT'S JUST YOUR EXPERIENCE BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN SOCIETIES COLLAPSE LIKE ROME BET YOU FEEL SILLY NOW GUESS THAT MEANS I WON THE ARGUMENT
What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>49985406
I hope you haven't read shit like the 255 year old cycle, the 10 and 100 year cycles that indicates a systemic collapse this decade.

right?

>>49985351
i think keeping vxus is fine since you know if the US is going to be as dominant on a longer timeframe as it has been in the last 20 years

same with emerging markets and stuff
might be that it sucked in the last years but no one knows what the future will look like

>>49985433
You're trying to win an argument i never made. I'm not talking about systemic collapses. I'm telling you about economic crashes and downturns
>>49985019
>Not exactly the case friend. In an economic crash, people rush for the fucking exit and sell everything. Look at 2008. But it set an ATH later.
>ECONOMIC CRASH

Now if you wanna bust my nuts about this being vague and THAT'S why you're so pissed of I'm sorry (but I'm also sorry because that feels like the easy way out for you so I don't buy it). But even then it's not like the world will wake up and go "oh I guess society crumbled, gold is valuable now!" people will sell EVERYTHING to make ends meet and get food. Be it for a week, a month, whatever. This happened during the great depression as well, but the free market couldn't correct it due to government intervention by making gold illegal and raising the price floor

Get a fucking grip.

>>49985545
we're reaching likely a 50 year old global debt bubble and multiple bubbles at once soon.

>>49985496
Yeah I try to remember that past doesn't predict present and I'm really only losing out on maybe an extra percent or so a year to buy a hedge against a real black swan type event. I've heard some chatter that people think foreign treasuries will outperform US treasuries in the next few years because of a loss of faith in the dollar, but we'll see how that goes. I find it hard to believe

>>49985567
Yeah i'm fucking done with this shit. back to /pmg/ you can't read. You won the argument i never made, congrats.

>>49985584
bro, is not about meme arguments, but we're going towards a cliff.

>>49979773
>>49979929
how can VT be a chad move if it doesn't include BRICS?

it's 60% US stocks and the rest is euro trash so how in the world is it it a world stock index?

you could conceivably tell a story where the US market slows down and all the growth happens in China, India, SEA. VT doesn't cover this.

where to get BRICS exposure for a TRUE 'world stock index'?

>>49979945
Meh, most people don't have much money left to invest after taxes and expenses come into the equation.

>>49985693

Just buy something that tracks MSCI ACWII then you get the developed markets ("world") and the emerging markets (China, Brazil, India etc).

>>49985381
I read this response and enjoyed it. I will say, I have about 30k sitting around, and the prospect of sitting it in a 2% dividend stock just feels like small potatoes. I would have to DRIP for 30 years for it to amount to anything.

>>49985387
>I dont want to bet that apple will be the same dominant company it is 20 years from now

The index rotates its constituents based on performance you illiterate nigger. You are only perpetually exposed to aapl or any other by buying the stock outright.

weighing in because you're shitting up the thread.

>>49985584
You lost this argument and are butt blasted. Please seal your anus with a squat plug and stop posting.

>>49985596
The other guy wasn't talking about systemic collapse and multiple bubbles popping, just a recession. He clearly hasn't read about the cycle of empires and his only historical frame of reference is the last 50 years, with bias towards the last 20.

>>49985743
they hold no BRICS...

why do call themselves WORLD markets?

>>49985875
>Another taker
Seriously? This much /pmg/ asshurt because I pointed out that gold does poorly in a crash at first as people exit all markets? I made no long term predictions on gold at all. Nothing about societal collapse. "I lost this argument"
PLEASE for all that is holy tell me what argument I lost. Where did I EVER say No I don't agree society is about to crash?
>>>/biz/pmg
>>>/biz/pmg
>>>/biz/pmg
go there and fucking stay there if this is your level of discourse. I'm begging you guys to stay in your containment thread. At least /gme/ niggers and /xrp/ niggers stay in their own thread, but because pmg posters feel justified in helping their fellow man, they leak all over this board like a useless tranny cock.

>>49985934
>at first

>>49980153
>Because crabbing stocks that pay dividends are better than shit coins that go to 0 or bit "dollar """digital gold""" killer" coin
True but most index stocks do not pay dividends do not have good pe or sales and are poor stocks, for example and little commented on, GME got a massive boost when it became large enough b y capitalisation to be included in vanguards retail index fund. (Don't tell the GME tards but this is in fact why Vanguard holds GME and why GME has the price it does, if it falls in cap and drops off the retail indexes it's price will drop to zero in 24 hours). Not saying all indexed shares are bad but there are always unfortunate choices, AT&T was in the dividend aristocrats until largely due to its own shitness and the fact it had jon oliver advertising it using 'comedy' it collapsed and was thrown out of the dividend aristocrat indexes and that caused a further fall etc...
To answer your question OP, fees, to but in and out of let's say 200 units will have cost. So does an ETF if that is down under 0.4% then it may be cheaper to have the ETF. Your average decent (not shit like robin hood for idiots).
>>49981560
Algos, not sure you understand them or ETFs, suggest you go look at the holdings of ETFs and try and understand them a bit better. A bad ETF is a bad ETF a bad stock is a bad stock. Neither ETFs or stocks exist to protect the supid.

>>49985988
Yes, that's the argument I've made. it's supported. Then gold gets massively bought up as common sense catches up and it hits an ATH.
>well I'M NOT SELLING MY GOLD
you don't have to stupid nigger. If you're better prepared for any collapse, economic or societal, you won't have to. Christ, I knew you faggots were dumb as rocks but this really takes the cake.

>>49985795
>The index rotates its constituents based on performance you illiterate nigger
Wrong capitalisation <>performance
You could have an enormous capitalisation and be loss making or a just a bad company like apple bought by a LOT of idiots

>>49986015
No one should not hold gold at the level of 10% and no one should ever own more than 10%. people who have more than 10% cold in a long term portfolio should be held down and raped with lube, but by several people and objects and people who do not have 10% of their portfolio in gold should be held down and raped by several people and objects. A wide range of 1:1 audited gold backed securities are available.

>>49986015

>>49986016
>bought by a LOT of idiots
Which leads to... performance, genius.

>>49986016
>or a just a bad company like apple

Hello I am a homosexual,
Now that we have that out of the way I have an idea for a company, we are going to be like a TV company, sort of like netflicks and we will make our own films and series. yeah I know, sounds shit but wait. Our company is also going to make a mobile phone but we are going to charge far far far more for the same stuff than any other mobile phone maker. We may also make a very very overpriced laptop. O yeah...o yeah also the really overpriced mobile? It is going to be made in little pieces dispersed all over sound east asia, some of it in communist controlled china. What do you mean that sounds shit? Well yeah but there is the thing, out TV station is going be very very very overpriced as well and only the people with the very overpriced mobiles and ;laptops will really bother watching it. Did I mention In was homosexual. Many people actually buy and hold stock in a company like this, its called apple and homosexual is Tim Cook

>>49986100
>>49986100
>>bought by a LOT of idiots
>Which leads to... performance, genius.

No it does not lead to performance. Large market cap does not equal performance in any way. See Lehman's. You know very littlke about finance and should read my posts and learn while I can be bothered to make them to educate you.

>>49986056
ok well thanks for dropping by /pmg/, enjoy your fan fictions

>>49986047
I agree, you should always have some exposure to physical gold no matter what. I just keep a decent thumb on it all since I've been selling covered calls on GLD and SLV since 2020 and it's been insanely lucrative for me anyways. I just hate how much of the metal discourse on this board has been taken over by the worst doomer faggots imaginable.

>>49986175
Silver is not gold. I saidf n o one should own more than 10% gold and no one should nopt own 10% gold. Silver has nothing to do with that. Neither does buying physical assets with is ludicrous and retarded unless you collect coins as a hobby. Neither ticker GLD or ticker SLV have been lucrative compared to alternate investments since 2009.

An investment portfolio is at a minimum there days at least 100 thousand US/Euro(no retarded shit like yen or British kings farts or yuan, or funny smelling rupee etc)
By the way, if you don't; own your own home and are not educated and debt free with medical care available, you should not be investing at all, but thank you for your money

>>49986170
MC=No shares*share price

Share price is basically performance.

You need to take a good look in the mirror and get a grip you retarderino.

>>49986260
Nah, I think buying physical assets is a good thing to have. I don't agree with the "everything is gonna collapse" narrative, but we're certainly trending towards interesting times. GLD/SLV themselves aren't lucrative, but I'm just sying I've been selling CCs on them and I've made a very healthy profit off it.

>>49986291
>Share price is basically performance.
No share price is not basically performance, neither is market capitalisation, see poorly run companies having greater capitalisation purely because they are components of indexes due to capitalisation. Again you understand very very little. If you believe in EMH so very very much then you should appreciate that when there are flaws, that is where truly vast amounts of money can be made. Apple is a disastrous company, it and the inclusion of for example GME in retail indexes are a measure of market inefficiency not efficiency. By the way, it is not hard to make money if you can think.

fees

if i need to sell/buy half my portfolio for rebalancing ill pay more in transaction costs than the vangaurd fees

>>49978733
The tards that set up my 401k available funds are mouth breathing morons.

>>49986669
What do you got?
We will help you choose anon.

>>49986346
Your whole theory is that you shouldn't invest in "bad" companies. I'm quite happy being invested in companies that meet the criteria of the s&p selection criteria. Furthermore, couldn't care less if a company is "bad" to you and performs like aapl. Get it through your head: it's not the company that drives its value, it's the *perception* of that company.

>>49985918

It's not the right index. this is the holdings of MSCI ACWI

Can't believe no one actually pointed to the factual answer. It's because people who thought they were smarter than the market already tried this shit half a century ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifty_Fifty
but you, of course, are smarter than all those idiots, right?

>>49978733
are you really so disingenuous (or retarded) that you couldnt possibltly fathom one reason why someone would create or invest in these funds?

why do zoomers think its cool or edgy to act wilfully stupid?

>>49986734

sure, but if you had a filter that would take the 10 worst future preforming companies out of the s and p you would do much better return wise. It hurts to miss aapl but if you buy 100 losers to catch the next aapl then the returns are wrecked

>>49987067
>Most of the Nifty Fifty have since recovered and are solid performers

>>49987067
yes because I have 4000 stocks from different countries you can even take that to 7000 if you invest in a small cap index

>>49987067
>>49987187
even the global 100 hasn't been doing too bad considering it's much more concentrated

The vast majority of fund managers with teams of PMs, analysts, quants etc can't beat the market but every bizreali can. Sure.

>>49987239

Noone can reveal their methodology either.
>just buy good stocks bro
sure pal, very precise strategy.

>>49987187
>4000 stox

>>49987271

That research is based on the assumption that returns are normally distributed. Empirically they aren't so the formulas used to generate that image doesn't work.

>>49987181
convenient that you left out the second half of the sentence
>...although a few are now defunct or otherwise worthless.
in fact, they're so worthless that if you equally weighted a portfolio of the nifty 50 vs the S&P 500 fund you would have done significantly worse

>>49987187
the question was
>Why would you buy VTI and hold 2800 parasitic companies over building a top shelf portfolio of dividend champions
this is why

>>49987211
1% annualized worse than plain old vtsax over the past 20 years

>>49987570
total return is 11.92% though because most of them pay high dividends

>>49979386
> Fair enough but no one gets rich investing in index funds

This is why you’re ngmi. Passive index funds return about 10% annually, and then you have dividends on top of that. Looking at a total return closer to 12-13%

DCA half your paycheck into an index fund and you will be walthy in the long run. Greetings from Reddit! Thank you for the gold kind sir.

>>49987181
You are dead wrong. The underperformance of the bottom 100 is more than made up by the overperformance of the top 10. You simply cannot afford to miss the big winners. To achieve that, you hold a basket that includes the dogs as well. All you're saying is watered down versions of stock picking. Just surrender to the index dude. Your future self will thank you for it.

>>49986734
My whole theory is profit and margin. Your theory is something something millennials perception something rules change because bullshit something

>>49978733

Because sometimes individual stocks can financially rape you. Especially if the government gets involved.

>>49988887
There are all sorts of ETFs, dividend aristocrats is one example, or emerging markets (yuch) etc etc but the worst of them are the index ones precisely because they generate such shit returns as they contain a lot of zombie companies which can and will implode. These are pretty much anything jack welsches underlings infected

13% of stocks make up 50% of the gains

>>49988182
>DCA half your paycheck into an index fund
Or more precisely, DCA ($20,500/salary) % of your paycheck into an index fund