25

The US* and the rest of the world suffered a severe bear market in 2008-09. The very high returns in the years immediately after that represent the recovery from that market collapse (some of my own funds had a year or two of 20% or better returns). If you can't get older data for funds, try looking at general indexes (DJIA, S&P 500, etc.). For the US ...


18

Can I invest in S&P500 Index fund, while residing in India You can invest in US funds. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme one can invest up to USD 250,000 per year. Option 1: Open an account with an international broker. This is time consuming and KYC etc would take time. Transferring funds will also involve a bit of paperwork. You can then invest ...


15

The currently accepted answer is incorrect. Vanguard is quoting the 1-year return as of 9/30/2019. This is calculated from the close of 9/28/2018 (the last trading day of September 2018) to the close of 9/30/2019. It is important to get the exact dates right because stock indices can easily rise or fall 1% or more in a day. Stock price fluctuations are ...


10

Because you're buying at different times. Total annual return looks at the value today of $X invested on Jan 1 2015. But you don't have $X invested on Jan 1, 2015, you have: $Y on Jan 1, 2015 $Y on Jan 15, 2015 $Y on Feb 1, 2015 etc. where the sum of the Y values is X that you're trying to compare You have a different average unit cost and that impacts ...


9

Member mhoran's comment was an answer. why not just invest with any of the dozens of mutual fund companies that have an S&P 500 index fund or ETF? The ETFs are more commonly not leveraged. Of course, some are, so you'll avoid those. But the ticker SPY is the most popular one and it reflects no leverage at all. You get the return of the S&P ...


9

Google's numbers: 10/01/18 $268.04 09/27/19 $271.26 That's a gain of 1.20% which is far less than the actual return because Google did not account for dividends. During that period you would have received $5.43 in dividends so the Total Return with dividends reinvested would have been 3.34%. You can verify these numbers with a DRIP calculator or with ...


9

It depends which 3 years (and which 15). If you had bought the S&P500 index fund in the 2004-2005 time range, your 3 year returns would be small, nothing, or even negative, depending on how exactly you timed it, whereas waiting 15 year (until about now) would have more than doubled (nearly tripled, again depending on exact timing) your investment. See ...


8

I don't need funds at this time. Then there's nothing to do. If the strategy is "buy and hold" then you keep holding. When you need capital you assess your allocations and potentially sell some of this position. If you think you have allocation issues now, then the decision to reallocate anything would have to include an assessment of all your assets (...


8

The total amount of money weighted to issued stock can not exceed the market capitalization because the market capitalization IS the value of issued shares. What you are referring to would be a case of a highly illiquid stock, one that probably doesn't belong in an index fund. If an index fund cannot buy shares, that means there are no sellers, which means ...


8

"the average return for 3, 5, 10, 15 years is 9%, 8%, 13% and 7.6% respectively" I suspect this really means that the returns using the S&P average over the previous 3, 5, 10, 15 years is … . The answer you are quoting from seems to be simply giving examples of how the market has performed recently in order to give an idea of what is a reasonable ...


7

For the money in the beneficiary IRA, you should be able to pick from a group of Investments. This can include stock funds, bond funds, and even individual stocks. Those funds can be mutual funds or Exchange traded funds. It is likely among those lists of options some will be index funds, which are great because of their low costs. If you have earned income ...


7

From what I see, the NAZ composite was down 2.21% on 12/24 and the QQQ was down 2.76%. Note that the QQQ is an ETF and it can trade at a premium or a discount due to excessive buying or selling pressure. Given that the market lost ~3% on 12/24, it's a likely culprit. The other factor is that the QQQ went ex-div for $0.421 on 12/24 and the share holder will ...


7

As you seem to be located in Germany, here is a more Germany-based answer: The DAI (Deutsches Aktieninstitut, roughly "German Share Institute") provides some so-called "Renditedreiecke" ("return triangles") (English link, German link). The show you how much return you make after holding a certain index (in their case the DAX) for a long time. They ...


6

There are 2 aspects to your questions as I perceive it. Whether or not you are eligible to invest in it as a non-US resident and whether or not you have access to it outside the US. The short answer to both is yes. You're perfectly fine to invest in USA based ETFs as a non-resident. The second part I cannot help directly with since I'm not based in India ...


6

Actually the link you provided in your question, gives you all the information you need. The fund has an load fee "Ausgabeaufschlag" of 3,75% and a TER (Total Expense Ratio) of 1,43% per annum. A somewhat similiar ETF, to compare your fund with, is iShares Dow Jones Global Titans 50 UCITS ETF (ISIN DE0006289382), which has a TER of 0,51% and no load fee. ...


6

I found a good article about how Standards & Poors decides which companies are included in the S&P 500 index. It's from quite a while ago (year 2000), but it's somewhat definitive as it was written by David Blitzer himself. See ETF.com - Here, At The S&P 500 (archive copy). While the article focuses on the criteria for company inclusion in the ...


6

Yes, I believe Burry's concern applies to physical ETFs as well as synthetic. The increasing popularity of passive investing via index-tracking funds means - according to Burry - that companies that form part of an index are inherently overvalued, relative to smaller companies that are not part of a major index. Consider for example the NASDAQ-100 index, ...


6

There are a number of factors that will not make your theory work. First off actively managed funds do tend to profit in most years. So if you do exactly the opposite, you would lose money. Secondly there is a cost to trading. When you buys-sell-buy your costs are triple that of those that just buy. Basically that is what an index fund does, just buy. ...


5

The quote you are asking about is a footnote to the fund expenses/fees, which is listed as 0.26%. I’m not completely sure, but I believe that this note is saying that the fund sometimes lends out its assets (as you might do for someone who is shorting stock), and the revenue generated by that activity might lower the expenses beyond the percentage listed. As ...


5

Investing in other countries adds additional risks to your portfolio. Most obviously currency risk. Yes investments may have better returns in other countries, but that doesn't help as much if that currency is weakening, since when you cash out you'll get less of your home currency back. For most people, it makes the most sense to invest in their home ...


5

The S&P 500 constituents are rebalanced on a quarterly basis on the third Friday of March, June, September and December on the basis of their weighting and other relevant factors. Intra-quarter changes can also occur, typically because a company becomes ineligible to remain in the index, such as takeover/merger, removal from major exchanges due to ...


4

After the fact, you can point to a few active managers who have done very well (see Buffett, W.). But you don't know in advance who they will be. So, you have to think in terms of the expected performance of an active fund. Then, you realize that the market is made of traders constantly buying and selling from each other (and extracting fees) trying to get ...


4

Imagine two companies - one worth $1 Million that has 10 shares outstanding, and one worth $10 Million that has 10 Million shares outstanding. The shares of the first company will be worth $100,000, each while the shares of the second company will be worth $1. Is the first company 100,000 times "better" than the second? Prices are not directly comparable ...


4

Per your link, you own 1.89% FB. Multiply that by $200k and you have $3,780 of FB risk. FB is approximately $175 so you'd short 22 shares for a credit of $3,850. The additional credit of $70 would coincidentally de-risk FB from the additional index purchase. At my broker, the borrow rate for FB is currently 0.25% and the annual borrow fee for this ...


4

When shares are borrowed for the purpose of shorting, a borrow is fee charged by the brokerage firm to a client who borrows the shares. If the broker does not have lendable shares in house, it will have to borrow the shares from another broker to effect this and the brokers will share the fee. Some brokers share a portion of this fee with the lender (...


4

It depends. Actively managed funds which aren't tasked with following a specific index would certainly sell their shares in a situation like this. Passive funds which track an index would, naturally, follow what the index does.


4

I can just buy some index fund shares and sell them at any time in case I need some money, right? If this is your investment goal, pension products (regardless of whether they are private or subsidised) don't suit you. Pension products like Riester or Rürup (and other products insurance companies can sell you) should be held until you go into retirement. ...


4

If you refer to Michael Burry statements about the ETF bubbles and assume that everyone will go buying index ETF. Logically, I think it is impossible Major shareholders are holding company stock directly Passive Index funds will not manipulate the index There are always people wants to sell the funds like they holding a stock. E.g. balance the portfolio ...


4

@BenVoigt's answer is pasted below so people searching for questions with no answers can avoid this one. Your final paragraph is correct. The managers are not enough better than dumb luck to pay the management and trading costs. But they aren't necessarily worse than dumb luck either, certainly not by enough to make your "opposites" proposal work.


4

Is this because it no longer makes sense to track the DJIA? If so, why? Some reasons come to mind: The DJIA consists of only 30 companies, so it is more risky since one company can make large changes in the index. Other indices have hundreds of companies, making them more diversified and less risky. Th DJIA is not market-cap-weighted like the S&P 500. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible