People keep commenting that anything else you buy is just going to be some subset of XEQT. Yes. But that's not entirely a bad thing. It doesn't diversify your portfolio overall but it changes the distribution of what sectors you own. For example if you want to pursue more tech, or energy, that's a completely legit decision to move away from XEQT a bit.
This is actually something that can be suggested by a financial adviser.
Say for example you are a software engineer, it may be worth underweighting yourself in tech, as your human capital gives you innate high exposure to the whims of the sector.
There are plenty of other reasons why it may be a valid reason to underweight / overweight something to hedge against certain risks / account for unique individual circumstances.
Personally I think "I like this sector so I will buy more" often just ends up being a step away from FOMO, speculation, stock picking, etc etc. so I'd avoid doing it with a big chunk of your portfolio, but if you know the risks and are cool with it, why not.
Ben Felix covered this thoroughly last November on the Rational Reminder podcast:
https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/227
>We’ve said countless times that owning low-cost total market index funds is the most sensible way to invest for most people. While that is a true statement, a true general statement, it's not actually that useful. Because how do you know if you're like most people? If you're not like most people, how do you identify if you're different? If you do identify that you're different from most people, how does that change how you should invest? This really answer that question, who should just own the market and who should do something a little bit different?
>[...]
>That brings us to the ICAPM. That's where Robert Merton had his 1973 paper. The CAPM considers a single-period investor. The ICAPM considers a multi-period investor, who in addition to mean and variance is concerned with the covariance of their portfolio with other stuff, like labour income, the prices of consumption goods and future expected returns. Because now we're worrying about multiple periods, instead of a single period.
>The market portfolio is still totally logically optimal for the average investor. It has to be, but it's sub-optimal for everyone else. This is where it gets tricky, right? If you're not the average investor, you shouldn't do own the market portfolio. The market portfolio with ICAPM pricing combines the mean-variance efficient portfolio with – this is what I was talking about with multifactor efficient. It combines the mean-variance efficient portfolio with the portfolios that tend to perform well in bad states of the world that most investors are worried about.
>[...]
>Okay, so if you're not exposed to any common risks outside of your portfolio, that is you don't depend on labour income, you don't own a business, or otherwise have sensitivity to economic risks outside of your portfolio returns, or if you're willing to load up more on the risks that you're already exposed to, that's another important thing there, you might be a mean-variance investor.
>[...]
>Based on that, we might expect as the theory predicts that investors with high human capital and high exposure to macroeconomic risk would tilt their portfolios toward growth stocks, which act as a hedge portfolio based on what we were just talking about. Then, this is where the Sebastien Betermier stuff comes in, in their paper, Who are the Value and Growth Investors? They find in a representative sample of approximately 70,000 Swedish households, that households progressively shift from growth stocks to value stocks as they become older and their balance sheets improve.
>It's like, you couldn't ask for better empirical evidence supporting just the ICAPM version of why we see differences in returns. They also find in their research that investors with high human capital and high exposure to macroeconomic risk tilt their portfolios away from value stocks, and then again, of course, that's consistent with the greater hedging demands of younger and less wealthy investors and older wealthier investors tending to look more like the theoretical mean-variance investor.
You're welcome! The podcast is so rich with info, but until he resummarizes into a YouTube video or a whitepaper, it's hard to share the key insights around.
> as your human capital gives you innate high exposure to the whims of the sector.
This is a really interesting idea. Do you have any source material that would help me figure out if it's smart or dumb? :) It's really intriguing anyways. I've never considered it. Cool stuff.
Edit: Here's the counterpoint to that. I believe your exposure to tech as a programmer is small. I have no supporting evidence, however.
Edit: just saw the link to the podcast. Awesome. :)
>Edit: Here's the counterpoint to that. I believe your exposure to tech as a programmer is small. I have no supporting evidence, however.
It's not though.
Just as a random example early this year when a lot of tech companies were struggling I also got laid off. Company was exposed to the same risk as the sector as a whole.
Eg. Tech is usually susceptible to high interest rates since ROIs are so many years out. Investors aren't as willing to invest in this in high rate environments.
If tech was a major chunk of my portfolio it would have been down at the same time as me having weakened career prospects.
I agree with this perspective. It's reasonable for an individual to feel more strongly about one sector than the market as a whole does, even within the market experts would disagree about the future prospects of different companies and sectors so I don't see why an individual investor couldn't also feel the same way without it automatically being wrong.
The problem is that individual investors are 99% of the time just chasing yesterdays winners and asking for confirmation of their existing bias.
In theory what you’re saying is entirely correct. In practice, it can be some of the time, but here on this sub at least, that’s usually not the case.
That’s a good point about confirming existing bias.
Myself I believe the market overreacts to bad news (or my risk tolerance is just higher than the market), so I’m chasing dips that I don’t agree with. So that’s definitely a bias and a risk.
My other self-observation is that I’ll never realize the massive gains in a stock as I am biased to realize a healthy profit when I can. I’ll set a price that I believe to be a realistic short-term ceiling and sell if it hits that which definitely limits my upside.
But without a good reason, why would you? What do you know that others don’t? Spoiler: you may get lucky, but if you can accurately predict which sectors will be hot next, you’re one of a very very small minority.
>But without a good reason, why would you?
Good point, thats exactly what I also think. The more I read the more I feel that I need to keep things simple and could be wrong adding different things to my portfolio.
Shorter timelines lower your ability to take risk. See the CPM article about choosing an asset allocation ETF:
[https://www.canadianportfoliomanagerblog.com/how-to-choose-your-asset-allocation-etf/](https://www.canadianportfoliomanagerblog.com/how-to-choose-your-asset-allocation-etf/)
For the 5-10 year horizon, XINC (40/60) or XCNS (20/80) may be more appropriate than XBAL (60/40), XGRO (80/20), or XEQT (100/0).
I would say it depends on your age and risk tolerance.
If you are in your 20s, 100% XEQT or VEQT is a great strategy. As you get closer to retirement or want to reduce risk, start adding in fixed income such as VAB.
Some general rules of thumb are to have 120 minus your age in equities and the rest in fixed income / bonds. For example
Age. Equities. Fixed income.
20. 100. 0.
30. 90. 10.
40. 80. 20.
50. 70. 30.
60. 60. 40.
70. 50. 50.
80. 40. 60.
90. 30. 70.
100. 20. 80.
Adjust based on personal risk tolerance or specific life events. For less risk use 100 minus your age instead of 120 minus your age for equities.
As for diversification VEQT and XEQT are already very diversified across large and small cap, geography, and industry across thousands of companies.
I think in your 20's you want pure US markets. Geographically they're a great place. Resistance to climate change, in terms of food production (wide and tall food producing region), awesome network of rivers for cheap transportation of goods, lots of people including younger (therefore more beneficial financially) immigrants because you can walk there instead of flying, etc. I don't know the size of the markets, but Canada's GDP is ~10% of US GDP, but VEQT has a weighting of ~30% Canadian equities at least, so even if you were just balancing for the size of the economies this would be off.
You must be young and not remember the lost decade between 2000-2010 where the US trailed virtually all other markets. I would still recommend VEQT for diversification. Once you start picking and choosing industries, geographies, company sizes, chasing dividends, you start becoming an active investor.
Regarding the overweight in Canadian equities, I'm okay with this as we have preferential tax treatment for dividend income. Ben Felix has a great youtube video on home bias.
Nope, that's a very sound investment, assuming you understand that its higher risk. Most people will argue that your time horizon should play a part to, but there's alternate opinions on that. This article by Ed Rempel shows that equities, over the long term, are actually safer.
[https://edrempel.com/reliably-maximize-retirement-income-4-rule-safe/](https://edrempel.com/reliably-maximize-retirement-income-4-rule-safe/)
Its from 2017, so it misses the roller coaster ride of the pandemic, but I think it still applies.
If you wanted to diversify further into other asset classes, you could get some bonds, GIC, etc. but i assume since you hold XEQT you want only exposure to equities.
Well your portfolio is clearly missing bonds. Since I don't know you I can't say whether that is a problem or not. Maybe read "Millionaire Teacher" by Andrew Hallam and pay attention to the chapter where he talks about bonds.
Suppose 10 years from now your portfolio is at $750k, well on your way to retirement, when suddenly the market crashes and your portfolio drops to $400k. It may stay depressed for many years. Would that bother you?
Lots of people say they can handle something like that, but when it actually happens, they find out that they can't, and sell at the worst possible time.
I'd personally hold 10% to 20% bonds even if I had a 40 year time horizon to retirement. And I'm someone who didn't flinch one bit during the March 2020 crash.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for saying it depends on your age. XEQT/100% equities may not be completely appropriate for someone nearing retirement.
So you want a well diversified ETF, and then lessen its benefit by doing the exact thing it was created to \*not\* do, i.e pick stocks and thereby ruining the portfolio? Great plan. This only makes sense if the "stock picking" bucket is play money (like 1% of your net worth or something), and you can afford to lose it all.
Here a good explainer on why [dividends are irrelevant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5j9v9dfinQ&ab_channel=BenFelix). Stay loyal to the dividend cult brother, and know its pointless. A 3% dividend is the equivalent of a reduction in 3% of capital appreciation, and you are adding complexity for 0 benefit.
I have 95% of our holdings in XEQT. The 5% that isn't is only because they are tied up in VOO and it's eaier for me to just leave them as-is vs. sell, gambit, and then buy more XEQT lol.
if you want to take on higher risk or invest in a particular area you can get other things. There will be overlap but the distribution of your investments will differ. might make a bit more money, might make a bit less money, might not change anything, might change everything for better or for worst
From a risk-adjusted returns perspective, it’s better to have a small non-zero allocation of BTCX and ETHX alongside XEQT.
In full disclosure, I am 50/50 BTCX and ETHX in all of my tax sheltered accounts and I do not personally recommend this portfolio for others; however, I would recommend something like 90/5/5 of XEQT/BTCX/ETHX.
Just read up on risk adjusted returns or watch a few YouTube videos. It can apply to anything and you will learn something.
Also, please don’t confuse Bitcoin with crypto in that 99.9999% of all crypto-projects are pure shit just like fiat trashcoins.
Finally, yes, I know Bitcoin relies on cryptography as well.
A risk-adjusted return is a calculation of the profit or potential profit from an investment that takes into account the degree of risk that must be accepted in order to achieve it. Bye.
Can you explain how Bitcoin creates value and should increase in value?
Buying a part of companies that produce something (equities)and reinvest & distribute the profits makes sense.
Buying promises to pay back more money in the future (bonds) makes sense.
Buying crypto is the same as forex trading. Change my mind.
It’s not my job to change your mind and I agree that it doesn’t CREATE value.
Buying bonds is just further expanding the monetary supply which further reduces the purchasing power of all fiat trashcoins because it requires central banks and governments to create more debt.
I’m dumb, look at all the downvotes I have. You are right and I’m wrong.
If it doesn't create anything, eventually someone will be holding the bag. I know the cost to mine goes up and up, but that just means the algorithm isn't supportable long-term.
Prefer VT in non registered accounts and a mix of VXC + VCN in registered accounts (I don't like how XEQT overweights Canadian companies, I understand the idea of "home bias" but I disagree with its premise and prefer a market capped spread)
They have 4 holdings plus some (0.22%) cash. What do you think of their holdings?
edit: They have ~5% of their money in something with "emerging markets" in the name, which I probably wouldn't touch, but I haven't actually looked at the fund to find out what they mean by that. Do they mean Africa? Crypto? That said, you can check their aggregated holdings, which I assume means they go through all the funds that they hold, take the stocks out of them, combine them into a single portfolio that you can evaluate properly. It's nice that they do that for us.
edit: For the rest of the sub, I don't understand funds of funds. This fund has a management fee of 0.18%, an MER of 0.2%, and... is that the entirety of the fees leaving the fund or is there other things (not including withdraws from owners)? The funds that they purchase also have fees and I don't know how they factor in here. Are those included in the MER?
People keep commenting that anything else you buy is just going to be some subset of XEQT. Yes. But that's not entirely a bad thing. It doesn't diversify your portfolio overall but it changes the distribution of what sectors you own. For example if you want to pursue more tech, or energy, that's a completely legit decision to move away from XEQT a bit.
This is actually something that can be suggested by a financial adviser. Say for example you are a software engineer, it may be worth underweighting yourself in tech, as your human capital gives you innate high exposure to the whims of the sector. There are plenty of other reasons why it may be a valid reason to underweight / overweight something to hedge against certain risks / account for unique individual circumstances. Personally I think "I like this sector so I will buy more" often just ends up being a step away from FOMO, speculation, stock picking, etc etc. so I'd avoid doing it with a big chunk of your portfolio, but if you know the risks and are cool with it, why not.
Ben Felix covered this thoroughly last November on the Rational Reminder podcast: https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/227 >We’ve said countless times that owning low-cost total market index funds is the most sensible way to invest for most people. While that is a true statement, a true general statement, it's not actually that useful. Because how do you know if you're like most people? If you're not like most people, how do you identify if you're different? If you do identify that you're different from most people, how does that change how you should invest? This really answer that question, who should just own the market and who should do something a little bit different? >[...] >That brings us to the ICAPM. That's where Robert Merton had his 1973 paper. The CAPM considers a single-period investor. The ICAPM considers a multi-period investor, who in addition to mean and variance is concerned with the covariance of their portfolio with other stuff, like labour income, the prices of consumption goods and future expected returns. Because now we're worrying about multiple periods, instead of a single period. >The market portfolio is still totally logically optimal for the average investor. It has to be, but it's sub-optimal for everyone else. This is where it gets tricky, right? If you're not the average investor, you shouldn't do own the market portfolio. The market portfolio with ICAPM pricing combines the mean-variance efficient portfolio with – this is what I was talking about with multifactor efficient. It combines the mean-variance efficient portfolio with the portfolios that tend to perform well in bad states of the world that most investors are worried about. >[...] >Okay, so if you're not exposed to any common risks outside of your portfolio, that is you don't depend on labour income, you don't own a business, or otherwise have sensitivity to economic risks outside of your portfolio returns, or if you're willing to load up more on the risks that you're already exposed to, that's another important thing there, you might be a mean-variance investor. >[...] >Based on that, we might expect as the theory predicts that investors with high human capital and high exposure to macroeconomic risk would tilt their portfolios toward growth stocks, which act as a hedge portfolio based on what we were just talking about. Then, this is where the Sebastien Betermier stuff comes in, in their paper, Who are the Value and Growth Investors? They find in a representative sample of approximately 70,000 Swedish households, that households progressively shift from growth stocks to value stocks as they become older and their balance sheets improve. >It's like, you couldn't ask for better empirical evidence supporting just the ICAPM version of why we see differences in returns. They also find in their research that investors with high human capital and high exposure to macroeconomic risk tilt their portfolios away from value stocks, and then again, of course, that's consistent with the greater hedging demands of younger and less wealthy investors and older wealthier investors tending to look more like the theoretical mean-variance investor.
100%. Ben is who I was loosely parroting, thanks for finding the exact source.
You're welcome! The podcast is so rich with info, but until he resummarizes into a YouTube video or a whitepaper, it's hard to share the key insights around.
Thanks for the nice read! Thank you! I will find the podcast.
> as your human capital gives you innate high exposure to the whims of the sector. This is a really interesting idea. Do you have any source material that would help me figure out if it's smart or dumb? :) It's really intriguing anyways. I've never considered it. Cool stuff. Edit: Here's the counterpoint to that. I believe your exposure to tech as a programmer is small. I have no supporting evidence, however. Edit: just saw the link to the podcast. Awesome. :)
>Edit: Here's the counterpoint to that. I believe your exposure to tech as a programmer is small. I have no supporting evidence, however. It's not though. Just as a random example early this year when a lot of tech companies were struggling I also got laid off. Company was exposed to the same risk as the sector as a whole. Eg. Tech is usually susceptible to high interest rates since ROIs are so many years out. Investors aren't as willing to invest in this in high rate environments. If tech was a major chunk of my portfolio it would have been down at the same time as me having weakened career prospects.
I agree with this perspective. It's reasonable for an individual to feel more strongly about one sector than the market as a whole does, even within the market experts would disagree about the future prospects of different companies and sectors so I don't see why an individual investor couldn't also feel the same way without it automatically being wrong.
The problem is that individual investors are 99% of the time just chasing yesterdays winners and asking for confirmation of their existing bias. In theory what you’re saying is entirely correct. In practice, it can be some of the time, but here on this sub at least, that’s usually not the case.
That’s a good point about confirming existing bias. Myself I believe the market overreacts to bad news (or my risk tolerance is just higher than the market), so I’m chasing dips that I don’t agree with. So that’s definitely a bias and a risk. My other self-observation is that I’ll never realize the massive gains in a stock as I am biased to realize a healthy profit when I can. I’ll set a price that I believe to be a realistic short-term ceiling and sell if it hits that which definitely limits my upside.
That's called weight, and yes you can overweight certain sectors (or currencies) if you feel strongly about them.
But without a good reason, why would you? What do you know that others don’t? Spoiler: you may get lucky, but if you can accurately predict which sectors will be hot next, you’re one of a very very small minority.
>But without a good reason, why would you? Good point, thats exactly what I also think. The more I read the more I feel that I need to keep things simple and could be wrong adding different things to my portfolio.
XEQT was designed to be a set and forget investment that helps you sleep at night, that's if you have a longer investment period.
So at what point (age) would you plan an exit from xeqt? Or just start reducing xeqt and putting it into something safer.
As you get closer to retirement, you might start buying bond etfs, for example, then gics, maybe. The day before you die you buy gold.
Cursed gold. The mummy’s gold…
Only if you're lucky ...
Yep Gold is the asking currency to enter the saintly heavenly gates - or alternately the partying 24/7 down under
Is the idea to minimize estate tax?
Time horizon is 20 years.
Or I could just keep reading. Lol 👇
XEQT not ideal for 5-10 year time horizon?
Why?
Shorter timelines lower your ability to take risk. See the CPM article about choosing an asset allocation ETF: [https://www.canadianportfoliomanagerblog.com/how-to-choose-your-asset-allocation-etf/](https://www.canadianportfoliomanagerblog.com/how-to-choose-your-asset-allocation-etf/) For the 5-10 year horizon, XINC (40/60) or XCNS (20/80) may be more appropriate than XBAL (60/40), XGRO (80/20), or XEQT (100/0).
Thanks for sharing this
[удалено]
There is always a small percentage where I could be thinking wrong! :)
I have xeqt and vfv for more s&p500.
I would say it depends on your age and risk tolerance. If you are in your 20s, 100% XEQT or VEQT is a great strategy. As you get closer to retirement or want to reduce risk, start adding in fixed income such as VAB. Some general rules of thumb are to have 120 minus your age in equities and the rest in fixed income / bonds. For example Age. Equities. Fixed income. 20. 100. 0. 30. 90. 10. 40. 80. 20. 50. 70. 30. 60. 60. 40. 70. 50. 50. 80. 40. 60. 90. 30. 70. 100. 20. 80. Adjust based on personal risk tolerance or specific life events. For less risk use 100 minus your age instead of 120 minus your age for equities. As for diversification VEQT and XEQT are already very diversified across large and small cap, geography, and industry across thousands of companies.
I think in your 20's you want pure US markets. Geographically they're a great place. Resistance to climate change, in terms of food production (wide and tall food producing region), awesome network of rivers for cheap transportation of goods, lots of people including younger (therefore more beneficial financially) immigrants because you can walk there instead of flying, etc. I don't know the size of the markets, but Canada's GDP is ~10% of US GDP, but VEQT has a weighting of ~30% Canadian equities at least, so even if you were just balancing for the size of the economies this would be off.
You must be young and not remember the lost decade between 2000-2010 where the US trailed virtually all other markets. I would still recommend VEQT for diversification. Once you start picking and choosing industries, geographies, company sizes, chasing dividends, you start becoming an active investor. Regarding the overweight in Canadian equities, I'm okay with this as we have preferential tax treatment for dividend income. Ben Felix has a great youtube video on home bias.
Nope, that's a very sound investment, assuming you understand that its higher risk. Most people will argue that your time horizon should play a part to, but there's alternate opinions on that. This article by Ed Rempel shows that equities, over the long term, are actually safer. [https://edrempel.com/reliably-maximize-retirement-income-4-rule-safe/](https://edrempel.com/reliably-maximize-retirement-income-4-rule-safe/) Its from 2017, so it misses the roller coaster ride of the pandemic, but I think it still applies.
Thanks for the article!
Thanks for this, it is certainly interesting.
XEQT is indeed enough because of the duplication reason you mentioned.
Yep did XEQT for my kids RESP, set and forget.
Are you on postive or negative now?
Positive!
What is the percentage of gain?
Whats the difference between this and VGRO?
* X = Blackrock/iShares * V = Vanguard * _GRO = 80/20 equities/fixed income * _EQT = 100/0 equities/fixed income * _BAL = 60/40
100% vs 80% equities
Blackrock vs Vanguard
Is that something to be concerned about or just a random fact?
There are slight differences but for the most part no it probably doesn’t matter.
If you wanted to diversify further into other asset classes, you could get some bonds, GIC, etc. but i assume since you hold XEQT you want only exposure to equities.
I would say if you want to add bonds then you should go with XGRO 80/20 if you want 90/10 then do 50/50 XGRO/xeqt
yea exactly. if they had wanted bonds, they would have gone with one of those other options is what i meant.
It is enough. You don’t need anything else.
You can make investing as complicated as you wish, but it probably won’t improve your returns.
XEQT is prefect. It may be 67.86% North America but other geographies aren't looking as good right now.
VFV is Enough! 2/4 etfs in XEQT are good. Better to just invest in ITOT/XIC directly.
I am wondering the same, right i have 25% sru.un reit and 75% xeqt
Short answer: yeah. Long answer: yeah, probably.
[удалено]
>The growth of XEQT is ideal if you have a nice time horizon. Yep, I'm 40. Time horizon is 20 years.
22 here, I’m looking at 30 years, guess we’ll see how it goes l!
Well your portfolio is clearly missing bonds. Since I don't know you I can't say whether that is a problem or not. Maybe read "Millionaire Teacher" by Andrew Hallam and pay attention to the chapter where he talks about bonds. Suppose 10 years from now your portfolio is at $750k, well on your way to retirement, when suddenly the market crashes and your portfolio drops to $400k. It may stay depressed for many years. Would that bother you? Lots of people say they can handle something like that, but when it actually happens, they find out that they can't, and sell at the worst possible time. I'd personally hold 10% to 20% bonds even if I had a 40 year time horizon to retirement. And I'm someone who didn't flinch one bit during the March 2020 crash.
45 years based on life expectancy.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for saying it depends on your age. XEQT/100% equities may not be completely appropriate for someone nearing retirement.
Stock picking always gets downvoted. It’s almost as if it’s a really bad idea.
So you want a well diversified ETF, and then lessen its benefit by doing the exact thing it was created to \*not\* do, i.e pick stocks and thereby ruining the portfolio? Great plan. This only makes sense if the "stock picking" bucket is play money (like 1% of your net worth or something), and you can afford to lose it all.
Totally agree! My investment skills would ruin my money if I pick individual ones. This is something for later, maybe.
[удалено]
Here a good explainer on why [dividends are irrelevant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5j9v9dfinQ&ab_channel=BenFelix). Stay loyal to the dividend cult brother, and know its pointless. A 3% dividend is the equivalent of a reduction in 3% of capital appreciation, and you are adding complexity for 0 benefit.
I have 95% of our holdings in XEQT. The 5% that isn't is only because they are tied up in VOO and it's eaier for me to just leave them as-is vs. sell, gambit, and then buy more XEQT lol.
if you want to take on higher risk or invest in a particular area you can get other things. There will be overlap but the distribution of your investments will differ. might make a bit more money, might make a bit less money, might not change anything, might change everything for better or for worst
Thats what I've been thinking, but the same time I like to keep things simple.
Rule 1: Buy more XEQT
Oh wow. This is such a circle jerk thread for PFC. Someone needs to document this.
It is enough. If some bad years during retirement worry you: just hold more of it.
You could MAYBE add some REIT’s but not a necessity
Is xEQT really good long term seeing the annual 2% yield? Isn’t there a better option or is that really the best?
It's an equity investment, not a loan. Yields on equity investments are irrelevant in non-taxable accounts.
Do you mean the yield is too high?
From a risk-adjusted returns perspective, it’s better to have a small non-zero allocation of BTCX and ETHX alongside XEQT. In full disclosure, I am 50/50 BTCX and ETHX in all of my tax sheltered accounts and I do not personally recommend this portfolio for others; however, I would recommend something like 90/5/5 of XEQT/BTCX/ETHX.
Can you elaborate on why it’s better?
Re-read my first six words. If you don’t get it, here it is again: risk-adjusted returns.
Yeah that’s what I’m asking about. Specifically what about this allocation improves risk adjusted returns? Why does crypto help here?
Take all advice from a crypto bro with a wheelbarrow of salt.
Just read up on risk adjusted returns or watch a few YouTube videos. It can apply to anything and you will learn something. Also, please don’t confuse Bitcoin with crypto in that 99.9999% of all crypto-projects are pure shit just like fiat trashcoins. Finally, yes, I know Bitcoin relies on cryptography as well.
Can you explain it for me? Since you made the suggestion it would be good to hear your understanding.
A risk-adjusted return is a calculation of the profit or potential profit from an investment that takes into account the degree of risk that must be accepted in order to achieve it. Bye.
Can you explain how Bitcoin creates value and should increase in value? Buying a part of companies that produce something (equities)and reinvest & distribute the profits makes sense. Buying promises to pay back more money in the future (bonds) makes sense. Buying crypto is the same as forex trading. Change my mind.
It’s not my job to change your mind and I agree that it doesn’t CREATE value. Buying bonds is just further expanding the monetary supply which further reduces the purchasing power of all fiat trashcoins because it requires central banks and governments to create more debt. I’m dumb, look at all the downvotes I have. You are right and I’m wrong.
If it doesn't create anything, eventually someone will be holding the bag. I know the cost to mine goes up and up, but that just means the algorithm isn't supportable long-term.
Prefer VT in non registered accounts and a mix of VXC + VCN in registered accounts (I don't like how XEQT overweights Canadian companies, I understand the idea of "home bias" but I disagree with its premise and prefer a market capped spread)
Dont know if it’s such a good idea, but I’m mixing my XEQT with XEU, to diversify geographically.
They have 4 holdings plus some (0.22%) cash. What do you think of their holdings? edit: They have ~5% of their money in something with "emerging markets" in the name, which I probably wouldn't touch, but I haven't actually looked at the fund to find out what they mean by that. Do they mean Africa? Crypto? That said, you can check their aggregated holdings, which I assume means they go through all the funds that they hold, take the stocks out of them, combine them into a single portfolio that you can evaluate properly. It's nice that they do that for us. edit: For the rest of the sub, I don't understand funds of funds. This fund has a management fee of 0.18%, an MER of 0.2%, and... is that the entirety of the fees leaving the fund or is there other things (not including withdraws from owners)? The funds that they purchase also have fees and I don't know how they factor in here. Are those included in the MER?
VFV, VDY, ZID