12/13/2023 0 Comments Nasdaq max drawdown![]() ![]() Now the listing requirements have been more or less harmonized.ĭoes it make sense to base a index on where a company was listed 20 years ago? Sure, differences remain from that sort 30 years ago but it is diminishing. NYSE wanted to get into the action during the boom, NASDAQ had to raise their standards during the bust. The problem is that 20 years ago there was the dot.com boom and bust. So NASDAQ embraced this fact and heavily solicited high risk start up to list early on the NASDAQ even if their financials didn't show a profit. If you were listed on NASDAQ it was a badge of dishonor stating that you really did not have a fully functional company. NASDAQ was literally the 3rd rate market, with the worst listing requirements. NYSE had high listing requirements and was dominated by large stable companies. I will answer by saying that the NASDAQ 100 is a poorly construed index. NASDAQ 100 (which is what I assume you are saying) is 100 large cap non-financial companies that list on the NASDAQ. ![]() S&P are large caps that trade either on the NYSE or the NASDAQ. Unless that is, you don't really look at the numbers and instead want to just believe "it seems" that one index may consistently and significantly outperform another. Your QQQ would have underperformed the market for 16 years (-).Īsk your self honestly if you would have continued to stick with a strategy that CONSISTENTLY underperformed the market for 16 years? Doubtful. So the entire outperformance of QQQ relative to the total market since 1999 was only attributable to THE LAST THREE YEARS ( to present). in fact, while the QQQ did outperform from it started UNDERPERFORMING, consistently from until. Look at the time periods when the QQQs did NOT consistently and significantly outperform. Looking at total stock market index fund (in blue below), QQQ (in orange below) and S&P500 (in green below) back to, earliest date the QQQ go back to on morningstar, the S&P500 did perform worse than the other two (overall).īut here's what you really want to look at. ![]() can you show data that shows the nasdaq has "consistently and significantly outperformed"? That's not what I'm seeing. don't own the S&P500, own the total stock market index fund.Ģ. If by that you mean that "smart" people would not hold an S&P 500 index fund, then that is certainly not true.ġ. I have no idea what you mean by the S&P 500 becoming outdated. To try to play an investment game with this while measuring the results in terms that one may have missed out is futile and self-destructive. ![]() Reliably realizing a difference in expected return if it even exists is really, really difficult. Meanwhile the returns that are actually realized in different periods of time will favor one set and then the other. If you pick different sets of stocks there will be sets with different expected returns. Help me/us out please with facts/experience/etc. I’m sure others feel they are missing out. I feel like I’m burying my head in the sand as to try not think that times are different and that maybe sp500 is somehow becoming more outdated like from what I’ve read by some about the Dow. Aside from the dot com bust it seems that Nasdaq has consistently and significantly outperformed sp500. Will start out by saying all my equities are in SP500. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |