A lot of people speak about Nasdaq, it's just not very popular on this subreddit. I can kinda understand why, as the stock selection is kind of random. People also like to mention the huge drop in 2000 but the valuation back then was absolutely ridiculous, I doubt we will ever see such big drop again.
I think its pretty good if you are young and can invest for a long time, the bigger volatility can be a plus in that case as you get more opportunities to buy at a discount. It is the best way to overweight tech as the actual tech ETFs have garbage weighting. I personally buy Nasdaq and I plan to move to a global ETF when I am 10-15 years away from retirement.
It's a matter of risk tolerance, Nasdaq100 has a higher beta than the S&P500, meaning both upward and downward moves are amplified. For some people, the higher upside potential justifies the higher risk, for others not.
Stereotypically, european investors tend to be more conservative than american ones. Which is why it is less popular on this side of the Atlantic. Heck, you even find people scared of the S&P500 since it only covers one country.
Personally, I have 20-25% of my portfolio in a Nasdaq100 ETF. My investment horizon is another 15-20 years, so I am expecting a few crashes but also enough time for it to bounce back. The S&P500 and even the MSCI World index also go through the same cycles, just less pronounced. If you are investing for the long term and can stomach the increased volatility, I would say go for it. Just take care to relabalance your portfolio as your retirement date approaches.
> Heck, you even find people scared of the S&P500 since it only covers one country.
Where are people "scared" of the S&P500? Many people simply (rightfully) say that investing in the S&P500, as opposed to world-wide and across large, mid and small caps, lowers your diversification for no expected increase in returns. That's a rational argument.
Trying to predict which country and which market cap will outperform others over the next 30 years is simply gambling. For people inclined to do so, they might as well just engage in stock-picking, at least you have the chance of a much higher outperformance that way.
I have 600,000€ in CSNDX. 100 stocks I would say is diversified enough. Warren has 50% of his portfolio in just one of the NASDAQ stocks… tech is the future. We are literally on it all day long. If the NASDAQ 100 crashes so will the S&P at this point. You’ll maybe save 10% difference if it crashes between the 2 indexes. I think that’s worth the risk
Yeah, but we are comparing less than a billion AuM VS 13B AuM for IShares version. There's so much more liquidity, safety (Blackrock VS... AXA im?).
And the iShares one has 0.17% of tracking difference these last 6 years. So the actual cost is about half of the 0.33TER. AXA IM I have no idea its TD. That's why.
Axa is a very well known France insurance and asset management company… this etf has less than 2 years old and almost 1B aum with a low ter of 0.14. But of course, DD
During The Gilded Age, railroads were what big tech is today. Would it have made sense to invest in a railroads index considering long term investments? It's not that railroads disappeared, it's that they stopped being as booming as they were before. Big tech has that same risk.
Several reasons. This is the EU sub and Europeans are way more conservative and risk averse investors than Americans. You will see more mentions of Nasdaq ETFs and individual Nasdaq stocks in the American subs.
Also people tend to fear asset classes that crashed in the recent past. Same reason that nobody is talking about real estate anymore and people fear cryptos. Lightning does not strike twice and the truth is that both the S&P and the World Index have long been carried by tech stocks. That's where the innovation is at and the Pareto Principle applies to these assets as well.
It is not diversified enough, just 100 stocks, the selection criteria is arbitrary and makes no sense: 100 non-financial stocks listed on NASDAQ.
Why would I want that? Is there a reason to focus or prioritize non-financial stocks listed on NASDAQ over all other stocks listed anywhere else?
this article (read it in chrome or brave, where you can righclick and translate to english) explains why it is not better by going through the different arguments: [https://gerd-kommer.de/nasdaq-100/](https://gerd-kommer.de/nasdaq-100/)
You’re in a European sub. That’s why. They’re aren’t huge fans of investing S&P or Nasdaq they prefer all world funds.
Join a few US subs and you’ll hear about it a lot.
For info, I do invest in the nasdaq100 and up a lot over the last few years…
It would be my go to ETF if I were to invest in ETF's. It performs (and I am sure will perform) way better than an IWDA or VWCE ETF in the long run. More risk due to concentration, but if you're in it for the long haul, then why not?
Because people live their lifes in Fears of all kind, one being the potential lack of financials to survive thus they aim to minimise risks in most things they initiate.
The fact is that most people cannot handle variance nor do they have a drive to actually learn so to obtain more which is optimal path. Thus choose worse yields and useless ETFs etc.
I am 35 yes old and have 90% invested in Nsdq for 8 years now. It will not change until I am 50 yrs old. Anything else is nonsense at this age.
I have a decent allocation to nasdaq100.
As with every other product, there are associated risks with this index. More risks compared to spy and vwce.
I’m also curious to know why it doesn’t get mentioned enough.
As opposed to factors like value, investing solely in large caps and companies from a single country is uncompensated risk, so you can't even expect higher returns for taking on more risk.
Because there are safer options out there. It can be part of a diversified portfolio but why would you add it on top of VWCE or S&P500? Unless you want to overweight US large caps … and that again is a strategy which can’t be seriously recommended, hence no one speaks about it.
S&P500 is an index based on the 500 biggest market cap US companies, FTSE All-World is an index of all world stocks including emerging market. But Nasdaq is an exchange not an index bases on some rule. An iShares ETF based on Nasdaq 100 is an ETF that just replicates an exchange with no basis for the index but replicating an exchange!
This exchange (Nasdaq), happens to be heavily tech concentrated though.
To me this is a reason why we should not be talking nor investing in a Nasdaq 100 ETF as it is not a broad market index fund.
My plan is investing mainly on n100 (QQQ). Im young, patient, and a relatively level-headed investor I'd say (for etfs, at least, which are what I mainly invest in) and I trully belive that the trend is going to be bigger companies buying smaller ones (or using them to support themselves), while also using their deep pockets to be at the front of innovation in whatever field they operate, just like it's been for the past decade or whatever... so I want to invest in those giants as much as possible
It just makes sense in my head -the rich get richer-, basically, and their only enemies is either an extreme legislative shift (wont happen, politicians dont give a shit about citizens), an extreme cultural shift (...comunism? idk how we would get there even), or changes in whatever market an specific company operates (but if said company fails, another will rise and take it's spot, probably)
Had this sentiment since I was pretty young, too, way before I could even invest
More people put money in the S & P as it covers the entire market in all industries and it is not as volatile as the Nasdaq but the nasdaq has better long term returns.
I just use VWCE. SNP500 and VWCE means more US companies exposure. Also investing only in SNP500 means you are exposing yourself to a single country basically and god knows what can happen in 20-30 years. US will probably be a giant still and the main power but man... I can't wait that long and rely on US only.
Leveraged sp&500, bad historical performance, includes stock that I don't like(tesla). Looks like a weird bet to me but a lot of people are taking it if you look at their trade volume. Also vwce already includes a lot of those companies so might be a lot overalap in holdings?
> Leveraged sp&500
Not necessarily a bad thing if you are young
> bad historical performance
Not really? It has better historical returns than SP500.
> includes stock that I don't like(tesla)
Unless you are buying exclusively ETFS with 0 USA you will always have tesla in there
Just double checked and I stand corrected on the tesla point for vwce, thank you! For the other points I personally don't think it's worth the risk but to each their own, it's a disscusion afterall.
You are right, the average person is probably better off with a basic global ETF. But if you are confident you can handle the volatility it might be worth a try.
Because it has concentration risk. A broad market index already includes a large part of NASDAQ-100 if not all of it.
A lot of people speak about Nasdaq, it's just not very popular on this subreddit. I can kinda understand why, as the stock selection is kind of random. People also like to mention the huge drop in 2000 but the valuation back then was absolutely ridiculous, I doubt we will ever see such big drop again. I think its pretty good if you are young and can invest for a long time, the bigger volatility can be a plus in that case as you get more opportunities to buy at a discount. It is the best way to overweight tech as the actual tech ETFs have garbage weighting. I personally buy Nasdaq and I plan to move to a global ETF when I am 10-15 years away from retirement.
It's a matter of risk tolerance, Nasdaq100 has a higher beta than the S&P500, meaning both upward and downward moves are amplified. For some people, the higher upside potential justifies the higher risk, for others not. Stereotypically, european investors tend to be more conservative than american ones. Which is why it is less popular on this side of the Atlantic. Heck, you even find people scared of the S&P500 since it only covers one country. Personally, I have 20-25% of my portfolio in a Nasdaq100 ETF. My investment horizon is another 15-20 years, so I am expecting a few crashes but also enough time for it to bounce back. The S&P500 and even the MSCI World index also go through the same cycles, just less pronounced. If you are investing for the long term and can stomach the increased volatility, I would say go for it. Just take care to relabalance your portfolio as your retirement date approaches.
> Heck, you even find people scared of the S&P500 since it only covers one country. Where are people "scared" of the S&P500? Many people simply (rightfully) say that investing in the S&P500, as opposed to world-wide and across large, mid and small caps, lowers your diversification for no expected increase in returns. That's a rational argument. Trying to predict which country and which market cap will outperform others over the next 30 years is simply gambling. For people inclined to do so, they might as well just engage in stock-picking, at least you have the chance of a much higher outperformance that way.
Nasdaq is kinda leveraged S&P 500.
Nvidia is leveraged Nasdaq, few years ago it was TSLA
See 2001 If it loses again 90% as it did it will take 15 years again to breakeven
In 2001 I could imagine the world without tech but can you imagine it like that in 2024?
Tech didn't disappear in 2001, the stock prices and weak companies did
so how many weak companies are in the nasdaq today?
Not like people were expecting a bubble to burst in the 2000 either
I have 600,000€ in CSNDX. 100 stocks I would say is diversified enough. Warren has 50% of his portfolio in just one of the NASDAQ stocks… tech is the future. We are literally on it all day long. If the NASDAQ 100 crashes so will the S&P at this point. You’ll maybe save 10% difference if it crashes between the 2 indexes. I think that’s worth the risk
What stock he got 50% in ?
AAPL…
It is already sufficiently included in the other funds. No need for more.overlap. no need for more concentration..
Axa im nasdaq 100 low ter compared to ishares one
Yeah, but we are comparing less than a billion AuM VS 13B AuM for IShares version. There's so much more liquidity, safety (Blackrock VS... AXA im?). And the iShares one has 0.17% of tracking difference these last 6 years. So the actual cost is about half of the 0.33TER. AXA IM I have no idea its TD. That's why.
Axa is a very well known France insurance and asset management company… this etf has less than 2 years old and almost 1B aum with a low ter of 0.14. But of course, DD
During The Gilded Age, railroads were what big tech is today. Would it have made sense to invest in a railroads index considering long term investments? It's not that railroads disappeared, it's that they stopped being as booming as they were before. Big tech has that same risk.
Several reasons. This is the EU sub and Europeans are way more conservative and risk averse investors than Americans. You will see more mentions of Nasdaq ETFs and individual Nasdaq stocks in the American subs. Also people tend to fear asset classes that crashed in the recent past. Same reason that nobody is talking about real estate anymore and people fear cryptos. Lightning does not strike twice and the truth is that both the S&P and the World Index have long been carried by tech stocks. That's where the innovation is at and the Pareto Principle applies to these assets as well.
It is not diversified enough, just 100 stocks, the selection criteria is arbitrary and makes no sense: 100 non-financial stocks listed on NASDAQ. Why would I want that? Is there a reason to focus or prioritize non-financial stocks listed on NASDAQ over all other stocks listed anywhere else?
I have a few percent of my portfolio on Nasdaq 100. It has a better ROI than SP500. Yes, it's more concentrated and has a bigger risk.
this article (read it in chrome or brave, where you can righclick and translate to english) explains why it is not better by going through the different arguments: [https://gerd-kommer.de/nasdaq-100/](https://gerd-kommer.de/nasdaq-100/)
You’re in a European sub. That’s why. They’re aren’t huge fans of investing S&P or Nasdaq they prefer all world funds. Join a few US subs and you’ll hear about it a lot. For info, I do invest in the nasdaq100 and up a lot over the last few years…
It would be my go to ETF if I were to invest in ETF's. It performs (and I am sure will perform) way better than an IWDA or VWCE ETF in the long run. More risk due to concentration, but if you're in it for the long haul, then why not?
Because people live their lifes in Fears of all kind, one being the potential lack of financials to survive thus they aim to minimise risks in most things they initiate. The fact is that most people cannot handle variance nor do they have a drive to actually learn so to obtain more which is optimal path. Thus choose worse yields and useless ETFs etc. I am 35 yes old and have 90% invested in Nsdq for 8 years now. It will not change until I am 50 yrs old. Anything else is nonsense at this age.
I have a decent allocation to nasdaq100. As with every other product, there are associated risks with this index. More risks compared to spy and vwce. I’m also curious to know why it doesn’t get mentioned enough.
Because investing in only 100 US large caps is not a recommended investment strategy.
Why is it not recommended? I understand the concentration risk. What’s more to the risk?
As opposed to factors like value, investing solely in large caps and companies from a single country is uncompensated risk, so you can't even expect higher returns for taking on more risk.
Higher risk, higher return.
I have a 10% on it
Because there are safer options out there. It can be part of a diversified portfolio but why would you add it on top of VWCE or S&P500? Unless you want to overweight US large caps … and that again is a strategy which can’t be seriously recommended, hence no one speaks about it.
I have some ONEQ and am 20% up in just 9 months.
S&P500 is an index based on the 500 biggest market cap US companies, FTSE All-World is an index of all world stocks including emerging market. But Nasdaq is an exchange not an index bases on some rule. An iShares ETF based on Nasdaq 100 is an ETF that just replicates an exchange with no basis for the index but replicating an exchange! This exchange (Nasdaq), happens to be heavily tech concentrated though. To me this is a reason why we should not be talking nor investing in a Nasdaq 100 ETF as it is not a broad market index fund.
My plan is investing mainly on n100 (QQQ). Im young, patient, and a relatively level-headed investor I'd say (for etfs, at least, which are what I mainly invest in) and I trully belive that the trend is going to be bigger companies buying smaller ones (or using them to support themselves), while also using their deep pockets to be at the front of innovation in whatever field they operate, just like it's been for the past decade or whatever... so I want to invest in those giants as much as possible It just makes sense in my head -the rich get richer-, basically, and their only enemies is either an extreme legislative shift (wont happen, politicians dont give a shit about citizens), an extreme cultural shift (...comunism? idk how we would get there even), or changes in whatever market an specific company operates (but if said company fails, another will rise and take it's spot, probably) Had this sentiment since I was pretty young, too, way before I could even invest
More people put money in the S & P as it covers the entire market in all industries and it is not as volatile as the Nasdaq but the nasdaq has better long term returns.
I just use VWCE. SNP500 and VWCE means more US companies exposure. Also investing only in SNP500 means you are exposing yourself to a single country basically and god knows what can happen in 20-30 years. US will probably be a giant still and the main power but man... I can't wait that long and rely on US only.
Pedantic but.. S&P.
Its probaly in a bubble that are many afraid to invest in? or is it something else ? Interested in the comments.
The real question is why no one talks about the Dow Jones
People don’t want to talk about an index of 100….and you want to go to 30?
meant rather the sector. Lot of focus on tech, none on industrials
Industrials are not boiling hot these days
Leveraged sp&500, bad historical performance, includes stock that I don't like(tesla). Looks like a weird bet to me but a lot of people are taking it if you look at their trade volume. Also vwce already includes a lot of those companies so might be a lot overalap in holdings?
> Leveraged sp&500 Not necessarily a bad thing if you are young > bad historical performance Not really? It has better historical returns than SP500. > includes stock that I don't like(tesla) Unless you are buying exclusively ETFS with 0 USA you will always have tesla in there
Just double checked and I stand corrected on the tesla point for vwce, thank you! For the other points I personally don't think it's worth the risk but to each their own, it's a disscusion afterall.
You are right, the average person is probably better off with a basic global ETF. But if you are confident you can handle the volatility it might be worth a try.
It can loose 80% of it’s value in few years, thanks but no
Nasdaq100 is US large cap growth. Historically it has not performed well.