Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cruian t1_iuikuzb wrote

>If you were going to buy a stock/index for a niece or nephew to hold all through childhood, what would be a good choice?

100% VT (2 letters).

>Currently do, 40% VTI, 30% VUG, 30% QQQ because they don’t obviously have to sell for an extremely long time

Value, not growth, has the better expected long term returns. As does small, not large.

The idea behind QQQ makes absolutely zero sense to me, why do you think that:

  • Financials will underperform everything else?

  • "Which of the US exchanges a stock trades on" is a key component of expected future outperformance?

>I’m bettering on growth and technology over there many many many years to come.

Please read these on why that night be a bad idea:

Performance chasing is a bad idea:

• https://www.vanguard.com.hk/documents/quantifying-the-impact-en.pdf (PDF)

• https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2020/12/a-short-history-of-chasing-the-best-performing-funds/

• https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/articles/why-chasing-stock-winners-is-a-losing-tactic-for-investors

• https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/ikc6n0/so_you_want_to_buy_us_large_cap_tech_growth/

Tech revolutions:

• https://www.pwlcapital.com/investing-technological-revolutions/

• https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/123

• https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/156

• https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/183

Adding "tech" to a portfolio might be a bad idea: https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/tech-allocations-in-your-investment-portfolio/

Why are you ignoring the entirety of ex-US?

2

trilliumsummer t1_iuimcg7 wrote

What has me scratching my head is I went to Invesco's site to see what their top stocks are (pretty much the same as S&P) - and they have a graph with comparable funds. QQQ almost exactly mirrors S&P 500, but at a slightly lower price and maybe a slight delay. Like why buy QQQ instead of S&P? It's er is 0.2% so not high, but you can get the S&P for a lower er which would widen the gap. I'm perplexed, unless there's just that many people that don't want to invest in banks.

1

Cruian t1_iuimnv6 wrote

>but at a slightly lower price

Share price is completely irrelevant.

>I'm perplexed, unless there's just that many people that don't want to invest in banks.

I think a lot of it is performance chasing.

3

trilliumsummer t1_iuinvv0 wrote

​

>Share price is completely irrelevant.

I didn't mean share price - I meant with the whole what would $10k be if you invested it in these funds 10 years ago thing and said price. I meant growth.

1