Nope. I am exactly weighted in tech as I realize. I DO have a lot of tech. I have not said I don't. BUT, I am not heavily weighted in tech as compared to other sectors. I'm just not. Agip said I was a "tech investor." That implies something I am not. I do not go after any specific sector of the market. I try to be as absolutely diverse as possible...and I am.
it can't be just a wild coincidence that your performance lines up with tech-dominated portfolios.
What percentage of tech do you think I would have to own? Sounds like you are suggesting I would have to be 100% or nearly 100% in tech stocks. That's not even close to true.
it can't be just a wild coincidence that your performance lines up with tech-dominated portfolios.
What percentage of tech do you think I would have to own? Sounds like you are suggesting I would have to be 100% or nearly 100% in tech stocks. That's not even close to true.
well...I'd guess you have materially more tech than the indices have.
SP500 is 27% tech
Dow is 17% tech
I'd guess you have more than 30% tech, certainly.
Add to the problem that many stocks are 'growth' that act like tech but aren't tech stocks and I suspect you have lots of those.
What percentage of tech do you think I would have to own? Sounds like you are suggesting I would have to be 100% or nearly 100% in tech stocks. That's not even close to true.
well...I'd guess you have materially more tech than the indices have.
SP500 is 27% tech
Dow is 17% tech
I'd guess you have more than 30% tech, certainly.
Add to the problem that many stocks are 'growth' that act like tech but aren't tech stocks and I suspect you have lots of those.
If Flagpole was indeed tech-heavy that is just more reason he could not have beaten the market all those years. The NASDAQ was down 80% through much of 2002. The NASDAQ has had phenomenal years and some really bad years. So, if he IS tech-heavy he would beat the broader market on the years that the NASDAQ has thrived. If he ISN'T tech-heavy he would have lost out on those years that the NASDAQ did well.
Many cheering NASDAQ 100’s “new bull market” since its December low … nearly all of gain has been driven by forward P/E expansion (blue); forward EPS (orange) up marginally (but worth noting the move up over past 2 months) pic.twitter.com/Jhb0Bm3JkI
Indianapolis Colts head coach Jim Mora's iconic "Playoffs?!" rant. Mora was answering questions during a press conference subsequent to the Colts 40-21 loss ...
Bill Parcells once said your record is what your record is. The NASDAQ is up about 15% for the year, doesn't matter why.
Mass of confusion remains in the wake of the growth in the deflationary parts of Fed liabilities. As with all things in life, time will also heal the confusion. People are too young to recall massive 15% rally in $SPX between March - May 2008. https://t.co/0vsmVFvQbL
— Danielle DiMartino Booth (@DiMartinoBooth) March 30, 2023
What percentage of tech do you think I would have to own? Sounds like you are suggesting I would have to be 100% or nearly 100% in tech stocks. That's not even close to true.
well...I'd guess you have materially more tech than the indices have.
SP500 is 27% tech
Dow is 17% tech
I'd guess you have more than 30% tech, certainly.
Add to the problem that many stocks are 'growth' that act like tech but aren't tech stocks and I suspect you have lots of those.
Closer to what the Dow has with regard to tech stocks. And yes, I have growth stocks that aren't tech stocks.
well...I'd guess you have materially more tech than the indices have.
SP500 is 27% tech
Dow is 17% tech
I'd guess you have more than 30% tech, certainly.
Add to the problem that many stocks are 'growth' that act like tech but aren't tech stocks and I suspect you have lots of those.
If Flagpole was indeed tech-heavy that is just more reason he could not have beaten the market all those years. The NASDAQ was down 80% through much of 2002. The NASDAQ has had phenomenal years and some really bad years. So, if he IS tech-heavy he would beat the broader market on the years that the NASDAQ has thrived. If he ISN'T tech-heavy he would have lost out on those years that the NASDAQ did well.
1) I am not tech heavy.
2) The makeup of my holdings have changed a lot over the years. I didn't just buy something in 1989 and then I've kept it since. When I started I wasn't very diversified, and then I even changed stuff around a lot in those early days before settling on a philosophy of just buying as many new and different funds as I could to get as diversified as possible.
the answer is that to people of the austrian economics persuasion...gains are not good if they are not earned the korrekt way. And those volks most definitely think the US economy and stock market of the last 14 years have not earned gains the right way. They are not pleased and think any gains will be answered by lows even lower. And they WILL be pleased by that.