Are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks?Wash sale rule + Mutual Funds/ETFs?What are the risks with ETFs with relatively low market caps?Why would a long-term investor ever chose a Mutual Fund over an ETF?Can an ETF perform differently than its holdings?Can we use ETF instead of individual stocks to perform an index arbitrageHow does shorting ETFs work? What are the costs and tax implications?Other ETFs of world bonds and stocks (Alternatives to VT and BND)?Are wash sale rules different for stocks and ETFs / Mutual Funds?What forces affect the value of my ETF?What are the best investments to increase wealth long-term in France?

Opacity of an object in 2.8

compactness of a set where am I going wrong

Why Choose Less Effective Armour Types?

Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?

Happy pi day, everyone!

How can I track script which gives me "command not found" right after the login?

Hacking a Safe Lock after 3 tries

Instead of Universal Basic Income, why not Universal Basic NEEDS?

Gantt Chart like rectangles with log scale

Co-worker team leader wants to inject his friend's awful software into our development. What should I say to our common boss?

How to make healing in an exploration game interesting

Define, (actually define) the "stability" and "energy" of a compound

Are there other languages, besides English, where the indefinite (or definite) article varies based on sound?

Why do passenger jet manufacturers design their planes with stall prevention systems?

What are the naunces between the use of 訊く instead of 聞く in the following sentence?

Employee lack of ownership

My adviser wants to be the first author

Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?

Do the common programs (for example: "ls", "cat") in Linux and BSD come from the same source code?

What should tie a collection of short-stories together?

Can a druid choose the size of its wild shape beast?

A link redirect to http instead of https: how critical is it?

If I can solve Sudoku can I solve Travelling Salesman Problem(TSP)? If yes, how?

Use of undefined constant bloginfo



Are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks?


Wash sale rule + Mutual Funds/ETFs?What are the risks with ETFs with relatively low market caps?Why would a long-term investor ever chose a Mutual Fund over an ETF?Can an ETF perform differently than its holdings?Can we use ETF instead of individual stocks to perform an index arbitrageHow does shorting ETFs work? What are the costs and tax implications?Other ETFs of world bonds and stocks (Alternatives to VT and BND)?Are wash sale rules different for stocks and ETFs / Mutual Funds?What forces affect the value of my ETF?What are the best investments to increase wealth long-term in France?













6















My situation: I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments. My philosophy is "only sell if the company becomes fundamentally worse", so I only pick stocks of companies I feel comfortable being an owner of.




The consensus seems to be that for long-term investments, ETF trackers are better than individual stocks mainly for the following reasons:



  • "You can't beat the market";

  • Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;

  • Lower risk;

  • Historically better than individual stock investments.

However, I am not fully convinced by ETF Trackers in the current context, for various reasons:



  • Reading things like "buy ETFs and earn money easily and passively" or "people are buying ETFs more than ever", make me worried. If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.


  • Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios. [Note that this is assuming that there are no significant fees for doing that, so that would mean European stocks for me].


  • I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.


  • I have the liberty to buy / sell any stock.


  • Finally, it just seems too easy. If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.


So, are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks? Am I missing something important here? Or is my gut feeling just wrong?



Note that there is always the possibility of having both stocks and ETFs, but this would be pointless if ETFs are fundamentally better.










share|improve this question

















  • 2





    If you have enough #1 money to diversify your investments, #2 time to research them, and #3 desire to research them, then I don't see why ETFs be inherently better.

    – RonJohn
    8 hours ago











  • An "ETF tracker" would be something that tracks the value of an ETF. In other words, market research, not something you can invest in. I think you meant "index-tracking passively managed ETF" (to differentiate against actively-managed ETFs, index-tracking mutual funds, or passively-managed funds that use a different investment rule than tracking a major index)?

    – Ben Voigt
    5 hours ago











  • If you're considering ETFs you should also look into index mutual funds. thebalance.com/index-funds-vs-etfs-2466395

    – Barmar
    5 hours ago











  • Why? The whole point of the ETF is its low cost.

    – Douglas Held
    3 hours ago











  • @DouglasHeld: No, the whole point of an ETF is being exchange-traded. Cost is the point of passive management, and applies almost as well to mutual funds as to ETFs.

    – Ben Voigt
    2 hours ago















6















My situation: I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments. My philosophy is "only sell if the company becomes fundamentally worse", so I only pick stocks of companies I feel comfortable being an owner of.




The consensus seems to be that for long-term investments, ETF trackers are better than individual stocks mainly for the following reasons:



  • "You can't beat the market";

  • Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;

  • Lower risk;

  • Historically better than individual stock investments.

However, I am not fully convinced by ETF Trackers in the current context, for various reasons:



  • Reading things like "buy ETFs and earn money easily and passively" or "people are buying ETFs more than ever", make me worried. If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.


  • Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios. [Note that this is assuming that there are no significant fees for doing that, so that would mean European stocks for me].


  • I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.


  • I have the liberty to buy / sell any stock.


  • Finally, it just seems too easy. If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.


So, are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks? Am I missing something important here? Or is my gut feeling just wrong?



Note that there is always the possibility of having both stocks and ETFs, but this would be pointless if ETFs are fundamentally better.










share|improve this question

















  • 2





    If you have enough #1 money to diversify your investments, #2 time to research them, and #3 desire to research them, then I don't see why ETFs be inherently better.

    – RonJohn
    8 hours ago











  • An "ETF tracker" would be something that tracks the value of an ETF. In other words, market research, not something you can invest in. I think you meant "index-tracking passively managed ETF" (to differentiate against actively-managed ETFs, index-tracking mutual funds, or passively-managed funds that use a different investment rule than tracking a major index)?

    – Ben Voigt
    5 hours ago











  • If you're considering ETFs you should also look into index mutual funds. thebalance.com/index-funds-vs-etfs-2466395

    – Barmar
    5 hours ago











  • Why? The whole point of the ETF is its low cost.

    – Douglas Held
    3 hours ago











  • @DouglasHeld: No, the whole point of an ETF is being exchange-traded. Cost is the point of passive management, and applies almost as well to mutual funds as to ETFs.

    – Ben Voigt
    2 hours ago













6












6








6








My situation: I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments. My philosophy is "only sell if the company becomes fundamentally worse", so I only pick stocks of companies I feel comfortable being an owner of.




The consensus seems to be that for long-term investments, ETF trackers are better than individual stocks mainly for the following reasons:



  • "You can't beat the market";

  • Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;

  • Lower risk;

  • Historically better than individual stock investments.

However, I am not fully convinced by ETF Trackers in the current context, for various reasons:



  • Reading things like "buy ETFs and earn money easily and passively" or "people are buying ETFs more than ever", make me worried. If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.


  • Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios. [Note that this is assuming that there are no significant fees for doing that, so that would mean European stocks for me].


  • I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.


  • I have the liberty to buy / sell any stock.


  • Finally, it just seems too easy. If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.


So, are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks? Am I missing something important here? Or is my gut feeling just wrong?



Note that there is always the possibility of having both stocks and ETFs, but this would be pointless if ETFs are fundamentally better.










share|improve this question














My situation: I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments. My philosophy is "only sell if the company becomes fundamentally worse", so I only pick stocks of companies I feel comfortable being an owner of.




The consensus seems to be that for long-term investments, ETF trackers are better than individual stocks mainly for the following reasons:



  • "You can't beat the market";

  • Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;

  • Lower risk;

  • Historically better than individual stock investments.

However, I am not fully convinced by ETF Trackers in the current context, for various reasons:



  • Reading things like "buy ETFs and earn money easily and passively" or "people are buying ETFs more than ever", make me worried. If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.


  • Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios. [Note that this is assuming that there are no significant fees for doing that, so that would mean European stocks for me].


  • I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.


  • I have the liberty to buy / sell any stock.


  • Finally, it just seems too easy. If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.


So, are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks? Am I missing something important here? Or is my gut feeling just wrong?



Note that there is always the possibility of having both stocks and ETFs, but this would be pointless if ETFs are fundamentally better.







stocks etf dividends long-term






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









AdrAdr

382




382







  • 2





    If you have enough #1 money to diversify your investments, #2 time to research them, and #3 desire to research them, then I don't see why ETFs be inherently better.

    – RonJohn
    8 hours ago











  • An "ETF tracker" would be something that tracks the value of an ETF. In other words, market research, not something you can invest in. I think you meant "index-tracking passively managed ETF" (to differentiate against actively-managed ETFs, index-tracking mutual funds, or passively-managed funds that use a different investment rule than tracking a major index)?

    – Ben Voigt
    5 hours ago











  • If you're considering ETFs you should also look into index mutual funds. thebalance.com/index-funds-vs-etfs-2466395

    – Barmar
    5 hours ago











  • Why? The whole point of the ETF is its low cost.

    – Douglas Held
    3 hours ago











  • @DouglasHeld: No, the whole point of an ETF is being exchange-traded. Cost is the point of passive management, and applies almost as well to mutual funds as to ETFs.

    – Ben Voigt
    2 hours ago












  • 2





    If you have enough #1 money to diversify your investments, #2 time to research them, and #3 desire to research them, then I don't see why ETFs be inherently better.

    – RonJohn
    8 hours ago











  • An "ETF tracker" would be something that tracks the value of an ETF. In other words, market research, not something you can invest in. I think you meant "index-tracking passively managed ETF" (to differentiate against actively-managed ETFs, index-tracking mutual funds, or passively-managed funds that use a different investment rule than tracking a major index)?

    – Ben Voigt
    5 hours ago











  • If you're considering ETFs you should also look into index mutual funds. thebalance.com/index-funds-vs-etfs-2466395

    – Barmar
    5 hours ago











  • Why? The whole point of the ETF is its low cost.

    – Douglas Held
    3 hours ago











  • @DouglasHeld: No, the whole point of an ETF is being exchange-traded. Cost is the point of passive management, and applies almost as well to mutual funds as to ETFs.

    – Ben Voigt
    2 hours ago







2




2





If you have enough #1 money to diversify your investments, #2 time to research them, and #3 desire to research them, then I don't see why ETFs be inherently better.

– RonJohn
8 hours ago





If you have enough #1 money to diversify your investments, #2 time to research them, and #3 desire to research them, then I don't see why ETFs be inherently better.

– RonJohn
8 hours ago













An "ETF tracker" would be something that tracks the value of an ETF. In other words, market research, not something you can invest in. I think you meant "index-tracking passively managed ETF" (to differentiate against actively-managed ETFs, index-tracking mutual funds, or passively-managed funds that use a different investment rule than tracking a major index)?

– Ben Voigt
5 hours ago





An "ETF tracker" would be something that tracks the value of an ETF. In other words, market research, not something you can invest in. I think you meant "index-tracking passively managed ETF" (to differentiate against actively-managed ETFs, index-tracking mutual funds, or passively-managed funds that use a different investment rule than tracking a major index)?

– Ben Voigt
5 hours ago













If you're considering ETFs you should also look into index mutual funds. thebalance.com/index-funds-vs-etfs-2466395

– Barmar
5 hours ago





If you're considering ETFs you should also look into index mutual funds. thebalance.com/index-funds-vs-etfs-2466395

– Barmar
5 hours ago













Why? The whole point of the ETF is its low cost.

– Douglas Held
3 hours ago





Why? The whole point of the ETF is its low cost.

– Douglas Held
3 hours ago













@DouglasHeld: No, the whole point of an ETF is being exchange-traded. Cost is the point of passive management, and applies almost as well to mutual funds as to ETFs.

– Ben Voigt
2 hours ago





@DouglasHeld: No, the whole point of an ETF is being exchange-traded. Cost is the point of passive management, and applies almost as well to mutual funds as to ETFs.

– Ben Voigt
2 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















7















I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments.




Why only dividend stocks? The value of a stock goes down when they pay a dividend, so dividend stocks are (in my opinion) more appropriate for short-term income needs. Long-term you should be looking at total return (dividends + price growth). Plus, capital gains are taxed less if the stock is held for more than one year (this does not matter if you're talking about a tax-deferred account).




"You can't beat the market";




This is a theory that only applies to long-term diversified investing. Certainly individual stocks can perform better then the market, but the more you diversify, the closer you get to "market" performance.




Historically better than individual stock investments.




Again, there are individual stocks that outperform ETFs - ETFs just are more diversified, resulting in more of an average return.




If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.




Well, remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them, so I don't see how ETFs can be "overbought" (which would be the premise of a market crash) without the individual stocks being overbought.




Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios.




Many ETFs contain hundreds of stocks. I suspect that transaction fees would be significantly higher, plus it would be a lot more work on your end.




I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.




Many brokers will do this for you, even with ETF.



Neither one is "fundamentally better." Picking stocks is hard, which is one reason why good asset managers make millions of dollars. There's nothing wrong with using ETFs as easy diversification and to avoid the hard work needed to pick "good" stocks. But it is possible to beat them with your own stock selection (and probably a little luck :-) )






share|improve this answer

























  • "remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them" - not really. ETFs can contain other things, and there's also the fact that a lot of people use the term ETF when they should be talking about ETPs, which include ETNs that can have literally 0 things in them.

    – Bruno Reis
    3 hours ago


















3














The quick and dirty answer to your question is no.



An ETF is not company equity. Is pizza fundamentally better than pepperoni?



When you dig deeper in to the "you can't beat the market" it's REALLY about fees. Passive index tracking funds, either exchange traded or mutual funds, have low fees. If I can buy an actively managed fund that seeks to beat the S&P500 by also only holding large cap US company stock for an expense ratio of 0.9%, why not buy the index ETF for 0.04%? The active fund would have to beat the S&P500 by 0.86% every single year for 40 years and that's just statistically unlikely.



When you read the "active managers can't beat the market" what's often left out is "net of fees." Bridgewater's Alpha Fund has done very well against the S&P500. In fact, the alpha fund 2018 return was +18.5% compared to -4.5% from the S&P500. But, when you look over an extended timeframe and consider your actual and expected costs there's a different story.



ETFs are not all the same. ETFs are not "lower risk" by default. An oil ETF has a materially different risk profile than SPY. BUT, buying and rolling over your own oil futures contracts will take a lot of capital to start and likely carry costs in excess of just buying USO. Investing in Brazilian companies, or the Japanese Utilities industry, is difficult and expensive to do as an individual. I'm sure there are ETFs for both.
Will these ETFs "beat the market"? Maybe, but they're not designed to. All ETFs are not broad index tracking ETFs, a lot of funds will follow some theory. You need to read the prospectus for the fund and find out what it's doing.



Many discount brokers have a list of Mutual Funds and ETFs that they will trade for no cost. Getting the money in to the market with no cost, in to a broad market index tracking fund with basically no maintenance fee is hard to beat. If you have a low trading commission of $5 per trade, but you want to routinely invest $250 every other week, you give up 2% of your investment off the top. Over a long time frame it is extremely unlikely for you to beat the market return and a 0.04% expense ratio when you give up 2% of all of your invested dollars; ignoring the fact that you will eventually have to sell these investments and incur sale commissions too.



TONS of people beat the market. A friend of mine bought too much Netflix when it was $15 or $20 per share. She has crushed the market. It was by accident, and too much of her wealth is in Netflix, but she has beaten the market to death. Can you routinely pick the Netflix out of all the potential investments? Probably not.



A couple books I would recommend are "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" and "The Money Game." Most people don't have the emotional fortitude to really handle their own investments. Most of what you will read as investment advice is directed at those folks. If you've got your proper emergency fund, got your retirement funds and contributions on track, and you understand the risks of investing in the particular thing you're deciding to invest in, go for it.



Can you beat the market by actively trading your own retirement fund? Probably not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep your own brokerage account and make some investment decisions for yourself while your long term money sits in low cost market index funds.






share|improve this answer






























    2














    Let's break this down into some of your premises and some of the external premises you seem to believe in:



    • You seem to be a fundamental analyst/investor.

    • You want to buy and hold, only selling a company if it gets fundamentally worse.

    • You want to own parts of a company, not just speculate with them.

    • You are interested in dividends, which is the way a businessperson looks at it, and also some investors.

    With that said, you seem to look more at the business side of things than the speculative side of things. You want to be a businessperson that owns a fraction of ownership of a company, looking at it exactly the same way a businessperson with a big share of a company would look at.



    Now I'd like to discuss two of your ETF premises that I disagree with:



    • You can't beat the market.

    • If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.

    First of all, you absolutely can beat the market. You can't beat the market if you don't know how to analyze it and make decisions. A quick trip to the library will prove that thousands of people have beaten and continue to beat the market everyday. An uneducated person can't beat the market in the long term, that's for sure. Someone with no interest in investing can't beat the market. ETFs are great for these folks.



    Second of all, things shouldn't necessarily go wrong if "everyone starts buying ETFs" (I'd agree with the statement if you were talking about individual stocks), due to the principle that ETFs track indices, which typically somehow track the economy as a whole and all economies grow in the long term (note the "long term"). The nature of any economy is to grow, so if an ETF gets hit really hard and it tracks an index, the index probably is getting hit really hard as well. If the index is a broad one (e.g. S&P 500), it probably means the economy, in turn, is going down. Well, there have been several crises in history but the economy has always bounced back. You may lose a lot of money for months or even years, but it does bounce back simply because it's the nature of any economy to grow in the long term. I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term (which would materialize your belief that too many ETF investors are a bad thing), then it's the end of the world as we know it and it no longer matters whether you have money in ETFs or not (think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years).



    With all that said, and from what I could tell about you through your question, here are my two cents:



    • You can beat the market if you pick and choose the right stocks. You seem to want to do exactly that.

    • Imagine if, ten years ago, you really believed Amazon's mission and proposal. You knew the tech industry, you did the math, you analyzed Amazon's fundamentals, and made a life-long decision to invest €40,000 in it. Today, you'd have over €1,000,000.00. If that's not beating the market, I don't know what is.

    • ETFs are a great way of diversifying and therefore reducing your risk. This is great if you don't have the time or interest to invest.

    • Diversifying means you will inevitably go with a certain industry or the whole economy, depending on what your ETF is tracking. Note that this can be good or bad.

    • As a businessperson, you may want to analyze dozens of fundamental criteria and business criteria and make a decision on only a few or half a dozen stocks, and that's OK. As I implied above, it is exactly like having some money saved over and then deciding that you want to open a bakery or a smartphone app startup: you put money into a business and you expect returns from it. Except that you own maybe 0.001% of a company worth 10 billion instead of owning 100% of a company worth 100 thousand. I suggest doing an internet search on what Warren Buffett has to say about diversification.

    • You can still "get rich" buying ETFs, just not as rich as you would if you bet on the right company.

    • In the long term, you are more likely to make a lot more or lose a lot more by creating your own portfolio than by buying an index-tracking ETF.

    As someone with a similar profile and similar goals as you, I have made the decision to fundamentally analyze the market and buy stocks myself.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 2





      A quick trip to the library will prove could you share more info on that? Because I'm really looking for such people to study their experience and see only few of them, who beats the market in long term. To beat the market in one year is easy: there's about 50% chance of it - you'll either beat it or not. But I see, that in long term even vast majority of professional analytics fail to do this.

      – Michel_T.
      7 hours ago







    • 2





      "I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term ... think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years" Japan, a global top 10 capitalist economy: the Nikkei 225 index hit it's high in 1989, 30 years ago this December. It's been under water ever since, still about 40% down from that peak today (peak 38957, now 21450). I cannot agree with an answer with the assertion economies and stock markets always go up or recover in 15 years.

      – user662852
      6 hours ago











    • @user662852: Japan may be a capitalist economy today, but in 1989 it was not. Relationships, not free markets, were king (and conglomerates still exert disproportionate influence). There are a lot of reasons that the history of the economy in Japan can't be used to make inferences about any other economy (except perhaps what might happen if other economies adopted the Japanese model).

      – Ben Voigt
      6 hours ago











    • @BenVoigt "crony capitalism" is still a flavor of capitalism, and at the same time period, just off the top of my head, American Home Products, Beatrice, General Electric, Tyco, RJR Nabisco, Berkshire Hathaway come to mind as successful American conglomerates. I am not convinced the present US economy is any freer than that of 1980s Japan, especially as both democrats and republicans are interested in industrial policy again. But to the point, if 1980s Japan isn't a market we can infer on, then we just have the US and FTSE (until brexit?)

      – user662852
      3 hours ago












    • @user662852: Japanese conglomerates were not a flavor of capitalism. When members of the conglomerate went to buy raw materials, in Japan it literally did not matter what pricing was outside the conglomerate -- bids were never solicited, because purchases simply would not be made from outside at any price. Crony capitalism distorts the equilibrium of supply and demand, but in Japan those factors were not distorted, they were not part of the pricing model at all.

      – Ben Voigt
      2 hours ago



















    1














    Because a few dozen companies randomly chosen from widespread market show the same gain in the long term as all the indices (Dow, SP500, etc), I don't think that fundamentally you'll win or lose anything. ETFs provide a wider diversity of shares.



    Suppose you have 30 stocks in your portfolio. If one of them goes bankrupt (see Enron), then you'll lose 1/30 of your portfolio which is ~3% of assets. On the other hand, an ETF may have hundreds of companies so losing one company is nothing.



    You've mentioned no significant fees with your investing. It would be great not to have to pay commission but do you really in such situation? Funds like Vanguard usually pay lower commissions than you will.



    the liberty to buy / sell any stock is a disadvantage for me because you'll have the temptation to sell or buy the stocks. In most cases it's a way to lose money rather than earn it.



    "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich. I suppose it's a wrong attitude to the market. In my opinion, investing helps to avoid becoming a pauper rather than becoming rich.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



























      0














      There are wide range of ETFs, in the context of your question, I assume you're talking about passively managed ETF that tracks an index (e.g. S&P 500).




      Are index ETF fundamentally better?




      The short answer is no, it's just a market average, but I will say it's one of the most amazing invention if you look at it from the historical context.



      According to my quick google search, it was 1975 when John Bogle first invented low fee index mutual fund, and the first S&P 500 ETF (SPY) was not created until 1993.



      Imagine you are a small investor in 1975 and wanted to invest in stock (in a diversified way), what were your choices? Discount electronic brokers were not available (Etrade was founded in 1982), human brokers commission were expensive, shares were mostly traded at multiple of 100 shares (and it didn't make sense to trade less because of the commission anyway). All of these were barriers to you, as a result, your only reasonable choice was probably put your money to a mutual fund, accepted whatever fee they charge, and pray for the manager doing a good job for you. Low cost index fund offered you a second simpler and likely better choice at that time.




      Are index ETF still better than individual stock nowadays for the reasons you list?




      Let's see.




      "You can't beat the market";




      Although I cannot be completely sure, if "the market" means S&P 500 imo it's easy to beat by screening off some bad companies from S&P 500 (Use an online screening tool, cross out companies that have low revenue growth & no dividend & low historical return & whatever reasonable criteria you want to use) and diversified your portfolio among others.



      The simplest examples are DIA and QQQ (ETF that tracks Dow and Nasdaq), they both beat SPY by about 1% a year (Use this to check) on average for 20 years, both are indices that track fewer number ( and therefore slightly higher average quality) of companies.



      I am confident that you can do even slightly better by picking stocks yourself rather than following another index.




      Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;




      Yes these are main reasons I use ETF to invest in foreign equities and junk bond market.




      Lower risk;




      This is a common misconception. Because most stocks are positively correlated with correlation coefficient about 0.2~0.5 (Use this to check). As a result diversified yourself in 500 companies is not going to lower the variance of the portfolio by much compare to diversify in 20~30 companies.




      Historically better than individual stock investments.




      This is not well defined, depends on which stock you compare to.




      Why not make my own portfolio?




      I am using almost exactly the strategies you describe with my little ~$10000 portfolio in a 0 commission brokerage account now, so yes imo it's at least worth a try. :)



      Keep in mind though,



      1. Bid-ask spreads, and exchange clearing fees are still small hidden fees.


      2. When you re-balance portfolio by selling something for a profit, you have to pay tax.


      3. It might be more valuable to put time into work, career development, etc. instead of researching how to beat S&P500 by a few percent on a small size portfolio. :)


      Cheer!






      share|improve this answer






















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "93"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106547%2fare-etf-trackers-fundamentally-better-than-individual-stocks%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        7















        I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments.




        Why only dividend stocks? The value of a stock goes down when they pay a dividend, so dividend stocks are (in my opinion) more appropriate for short-term income needs. Long-term you should be looking at total return (dividends + price growth). Plus, capital gains are taxed less if the stock is held for more than one year (this does not matter if you're talking about a tax-deferred account).




        "You can't beat the market";




        This is a theory that only applies to long-term diversified investing. Certainly individual stocks can perform better then the market, but the more you diversify, the closer you get to "market" performance.




        Historically better than individual stock investments.




        Again, there are individual stocks that outperform ETFs - ETFs just are more diversified, resulting in more of an average return.




        If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.




        Well, remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them, so I don't see how ETFs can be "overbought" (which would be the premise of a market crash) without the individual stocks being overbought.




        Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios.




        Many ETFs contain hundreds of stocks. I suspect that transaction fees would be significantly higher, plus it would be a lot more work on your end.




        I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.




        Many brokers will do this for you, even with ETF.



        Neither one is "fundamentally better." Picking stocks is hard, which is one reason why good asset managers make millions of dollars. There's nothing wrong with using ETFs as easy diversification and to avoid the hard work needed to pick "good" stocks. But it is possible to beat them with your own stock selection (and probably a little luck :-) )






        share|improve this answer

























        • "remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them" - not really. ETFs can contain other things, and there's also the fact that a lot of people use the term ETF when they should be talking about ETPs, which include ETNs that can have literally 0 things in them.

          – Bruno Reis
          3 hours ago















        7















        I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments.




        Why only dividend stocks? The value of a stock goes down when they pay a dividend, so dividend stocks are (in my opinion) more appropriate for short-term income needs. Long-term you should be looking at total return (dividends + price growth). Plus, capital gains are taxed less if the stock is held for more than one year (this does not matter if you're talking about a tax-deferred account).




        "You can't beat the market";




        This is a theory that only applies to long-term diversified investing. Certainly individual stocks can perform better then the market, but the more you diversify, the closer you get to "market" performance.




        Historically better than individual stock investments.




        Again, there are individual stocks that outperform ETFs - ETFs just are more diversified, resulting in more of an average return.




        If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.




        Well, remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them, so I don't see how ETFs can be "overbought" (which would be the premise of a market crash) without the individual stocks being overbought.




        Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios.




        Many ETFs contain hundreds of stocks. I suspect that transaction fees would be significantly higher, plus it would be a lot more work on your end.




        I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.




        Many brokers will do this for you, even with ETF.



        Neither one is "fundamentally better." Picking stocks is hard, which is one reason why good asset managers make millions of dollars. There's nothing wrong with using ETFs as easy diversification and to avoid the hard work needed to pick "good" stocks. But it is possible to beat them with your own stock selection (and probably a little luck :-) )






        share|improve this answer

























        • "remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them" - not really. ETFs can contain other things, and there's also the fact that a lot of people use the term ETF when they should be talking about ETPs, which include ETNs that can have literally 0 things in them.

          – Bruno Reis
          3 hours ago













        7












        7








        7








        I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments.




        Why only dividend stocks? The value of a stock goes down when they pay a dividend, so dividend stocks are (in my opinion) more appropriate for short-term income needs. Long-term you should be looking at total return (dividends + price growth). Plus, capital gains are taxed less if the stock is held for more than one year (this does not matter if you're talking about a tax-deferred account).




        "You can't beat the market";




        This is a theory that only applies to long-term diversified investing. Certainly individual stocks can perform better then the market, but the more you diversify, the closer you get to "market" performance.




        Historically better than individual stock investments.




        Again, there are individual stocks that outperform ETFs - ETFs just are more diversified, resulting in more of an average return.




        If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.




        Well, remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them, so I don't see how ETFs can be "overbought" (which would be the premise of a market crash) without the individual stocks being overbought.




        Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios.




        Many ETFs contain hundreds of stocks. I suspect that transaction fees would be significantly higher, plus it would be a lot more work on your end.




        I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.




        Many brokers will do this for you, even with ETF.



        Neither one is "fundamentally better." Picking stocks is hard, which is one reason why good asset managers make millions of dollars. There's nothing wrong with using ETFs as easy diversification and to avoid the hard work needed to pick "good" stocks. But it is possible to beat them with your own stock selection (and probably a little luck :-) )






        share|improve this answer
















        I am mostly interested in long-term dividend-paying investments.




        Why only dividend stocks? The value of a stock goes down when they pay a dividend, so dividend stocks are (in my opinion) more appropriate for short-term income needs. Long-term you should be looking at total return (dividends + price growth). Plus, capital gains are taxed less if the stock is held for more than one year (this does not matter if you're talking about a tax-deferred account).




        "You can't beat the market";




        This is a theory that only applies to long-term diversified investing. Certainly individual stocks can perform better then the market, but the more you diversify, the closer you get to "market" performance.




        Historically better than individual stock investments.




        Again, there are individual stocks that outperform ETFs - ETFs just are more diversified, resulting in more of an average return.




        If I start reading that "ETFs are the new paradigm", I'll think that a market crash is imminent.




        Well, remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them, so I don't see how ETFs can be "overbought" (which would be the premise of a market crash) without the individual stocks being overbought.




        Why not make my own portfolio? I could simply look at the stock ratios of the major ETF trackers and buy stocks with similar ratios.




        Many ETFs contain hundreds of stocks. I suspect that transaction fees would be significantly higher, plus it would be a lot more work on your end.




        I like to be able to reinvest the dividends as soon as I get them.




        Many brokers will do this for you, even with ETF.



        Neither one is "fundamentally better." Picking stocks is hard, which is one reason why good asset managers make millions of dollars. There's nothing wrong with using ETFs as easy diversification and to avoid the hard work needed to pick "good" stocks. But it is possible to beat them with your own stock selection (and probably a little luck :-) )







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 4 hours ago

























        answered 7 hours ago









        D StanleyD Stanley

        57.4k10169173




        57.4k10169173












        • "remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them" - not really. ETFs can contain other things, and there's also the fact that a lot of people use the term ETF when they should be talking about ETPs, which include ETNs that can have literally 0 things in them.

          – Bruno Reis
          3 hours ago

















        • "remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them" - not really. ETFs can contain other things, and there's also the fact that a lot of people use the term ETF when they should be talking about ETPs, which include ETNs that can have literally 0 things in them.

          – Bruno Reis
          3 hours ago
















        "remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them" - not really. ETFs can contain other things, and there's also the fact that a lot of people use the term ETF when they should be talking about ETPs, which include ETNs that can have literally 0 things in them.

        – Bruno Reis
        3 hours ago





        "remember that ETFs just contain stocks within them" - not really. ETFs can contain other things, and there's also the fact that a lot of people use the term ETF when they should be talking about ETPs, which include ETNs that can have literally 0 things in them.

        – Bruno Reis
        3 hours ago













        3














        The quick and dirty answer to your question is no.



        An ETF is not company equity. Is pizza fundamentally better than pepperoni?



        When you dig deeper in to the "you can't beat the market" it's REALLY about fees. Passive index tracking funds, either exchange traded or mutual funds, have low fees. If I can buy an actively managed fund that seeks to beat the S&P500 by also only holding large cap US company stock for an expense ratio of 0.9%, why not buy the index ETF for 0.04%? The active fund would have to beat the S&P500 by 0.86% every single year for 40 years and that's just statistically unlikely.



        When you read the "active managers can't beat the market" what's often left out is "net of fees." Bridgewater's Alpha Fund has done very well against the S&P500. In fact, the alpha fund 2018 return was +18.5% compared to -4.5% from the S&P500. But, when you look over an extended timeframe and consider your actual and expected costs there's a different story.



        ETFs are not all the same. ETFs are not "lower risk" by default. An oil ETF has a materially different risk profile than SPY. BUT, buying and rolling over your own oil futures contracts will take a lot of capital to start and likely carry costs in excess of just buying USO. Investing in Brazilian companies, or the Japanese Utilities industry, is difficult and expensive to do as an individual. I'm sure there are ETFs for both.
        Will these ETFs "beat the market"? Maybe, but they're not designed to. All ETFs are not broad index tracking ETFs, a lot of funds will follow some theory. You need to read the prospectus for the fund and find out what it's doing.



        Many discount brokers have a list of Mutual Funds and ETFs that they will trade for no cost. Getting the money in to the market with no cost, in to a broad market index tracking fund with basically no maintenance fee is hard to beat. If you have a low trading commission of $5 per trade, but you want to routinely invest $250 every other week, you give up 2% of your investment off the top. Over a long time frame it is extremely unlikely for you to beat the market return and a 0.04% expense ratio when you give up 2% of all of your invested dollars; ignoring the fact that you will eventually have to sell these investments and incur sale commissions too.



        TONS of people beat the market. A friend of mine bought too much Netflix when it was $15 or $20 per share. She has crushed the market. It was by accident, and too much of her wealth is in Netflix, but she has beaten the market to death. Can you routinely pick the Netflix out of all the potential investments? Probably not.



        A couple books I would recommend are "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" and "The Money Game." Most people don't have the emotional fortitude to really handle their own investments. Most of what you will read as investment advice is directed at those folks. If you've got your proper emergency fund, got your retirement funds and contributions on track, and you understand the risks of investing in the particular thing you're deciding to invest in, go for it.



        Can you beat the market by actively trading your own retirement fund? Probably not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep your own brokerage account and make some investment decisions for yourself while your long term money sits in low cost market index funds.






        share|improve this answer



























          3














          The quick and dirty answer to your question is no.



          An ETF is not company equity. Is pizza fundamentally better than pepperoni?



          When you dig deeper in to the "you can't beat the market" it's REALLY about fees. Passive index tracking funds, either exchange traded or mutual funds, have low fees. If I can buy an actively managed fund that seeks to beat the S&P500 by also only holding large cap US company stock for an expense ratio of 0.9%, why not buy the index ETF for 0.04%? The active fund would have to beat the S&P500 by 0.86% every single year for 40 years and that's just statistically unlikely.



          When you read the "active managers can't beat the market" what's often left out is "net of fees." Bridgewater's Alpha Fund has done very well against the S&P500. In fact, the alpha fund 2018 return was +18.5% compared to -4.5% from the S&P500. But, when you look over an extended timeframe and consider your actual and expected costs there's a different story.



          ETFs are not all the same. ETFs are not "lower risk" by default. An oil ETF has a materially different risk profile than SPY. BUT, buying and rolling over your own oil futures contracts will take a lot of capital to start and likely carry costs in excess of just buying USO. Investing in Brazilian companies, or the Japanese Utilities industry, is difficult and expensive to do as an individual. I'm sure there are ETFs for both.
          Will these ETFs "beat the market"? Maybe, but they're not designed to. All ETFs are not broad index tracking ETFs, a lot of funds will follow some theory. You need to read the prospectus for the fund and find out what it's doing.



          Many discount brokers have a list of Mutual Funds and ETFs that they will trade for no cost. Getting the money in to the market with no cost, in to a broad market index tracking fund with basically no maintenance fee is hard to beat. If you have a low trading commission of $5 per trade, but you want to routinely invest $250 every other week, you give up 2% of your investment off the top. Over a long time frame it is extremely unlikely for you to beat the market return and a 0.04% expense ratio when you give up 2% of all of your invested dollars; ignoring the fact that you will eventually have to sell these investments and incur sale commissions too.



          TONS of people beat the market. A friend of mine bought too much Netflix when it was $15 or $20 per share. She has crushed the market. It was by accident, and too much of her wealth is in Netflix, but she has beaten the market to death. Can you routinely pick the Netflix out of all the potential investments? Probably not.



          A couple books I would recommend are "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" and "The Money Game." Most people don't have the emotional fortitude to really handle their own investments. Most of what you will read as investment advice is directed at those folks. If you've got your proper emergency fund, got your retirement funds and contributions on track, and you understand the risks of investing in the particular thing you're deciding to invest in, go for it.



          Can you beat the market by actively trading your own retirement fund? Probably not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep your own brokerage account and make some investment decisions for yourself while your long term money sits in low cost market index funds.






          share|improve this answer

























            3












            3








            3







            The quick and dirty answer to your question is no.



            An ETF is not company equity. Is pizza fundamentally better than pepperoni?



            When you dig deeper in to the "you can't beat the market" it's REALLY about fees. Passive index tracking funds, either exchange traded or mutual funds, have low fees. If I can buy an actively managed fund that seeks to beat the S&P500 by also only holding large cap US company stock for an expense ratio of 0.9%, why not buy the index ETF for 0.04%? The active fund would have to beat the S&P500 by 0.86% every single year for 40 years and that's just statistically unlikely.



            When you read the "active managers can't beat the market" what's often left out is "net of fees." Bridgewater's Alpha Fund has done very well against the S&P500. In fact, the alpha fund 2018 return was +18.5% compared to -4.5% from the S&P500. But, when you look over an extended timeframe and consider your actual and expected costs there's a different story.



            ETFs are not all the same. ETFs are not "lower risk" by default. An oil ETF has a materially different risk profile than SPY. BUT, buying and rolling over your own oil futures contracts will take a lot of capital to start and likely carry costs in excess of just buying USO. Investing in Brazilian companies, or the Japanese Utilities industry, is difficult and expensive to do as an individual. I'm sure there are ETFs for both.
            Will these ETFs "beat the market"? Maybe, but they're not designed to. All ETFs are not broad index tracking ETFs, a lot of funds will follow some theory. You need to read the prospectus for the fund and find out what it's doing.



            Many discount brokers have a list of Mutual Funds and ETFs that they will trade for no cost. Getting the money in to the market with no cost, in to a broad market index tracking fund with basically no maintenance fee is hard to beat. If you have a low trading commission of $5 per trade, but you want to routinely invest $250 every other week, you give up 2% of your investment off the top. Over a long time frame it is extremely unlikely for you to beat the market return and a 0.04% expense ratio when you give up 2% of all of your invested dollars; ignoring the fact that you will eventually have to sell these investments and incur sale commissions too.



            TONS of people beat the market. A friend of mine bought too much Netflix when it was $15 or $20 per share. She has crushed the market. It was by accident, and too much of her wealth is in Netflix, but she has beaten the market to death. Can you routinely pick the Netflix out of all the potential investments? Probably not.



            A couple books I would recommend are "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" and "The Money Game." Most people don't have the emotional fortitude to really handle their own investments. Most of what you will read as investment advice is directed at those folks. If you've got your proper emergency fund, got your retirement funds and contributions on track, and you understand the risks of investing in the particular thing you're deciding to invest in, go for it.



            Can you beat the market by actively trading your own retirement fund? Probably not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep your own brokerage account and make some investment decisions for yourself while your long term money sits in low cost market index funds.






            share|improve this answer













            The quick and dirty answer to your question is no.



            An ETF is not company equity. Is pizza fundamentally better than pepperoni?



            When you dig deeper in to the "you can't beat the market" it's REALLY about fees. Passive index tracking funds, either exchange traded or mutual funds, have low fees. If I can buy an actively managed fund that seeks to beat the S&P500 by also only holding large cap US company stock for an expense ratio of 0.9%, why not buy the index ETF for 0.04%? The active fund would have to beat the S&P500 by 0.86% every single year for 40 years and that's just statistically unlikely.



            When you read the "active managers can't beat the market" what's often left out is "net of fees." Bridgewater's Alpha Fund has done very well against the S&P500. In fact, the alpha fund 2018 return was +18.5% compared to -4.5% from the S&P500. But, when you look over an extended timeframe and consider your actual and expected costs there's a different story.



            ETFs are not all the same. ETFs are not "lower risk" by default. An oil ETF has a materially different risk profile than SPY. BUT, buying and rolling over your own oil futures contracts will take a lot of capital to start and likely carry costs in excess of just buying USO. Investing in Brazilian companies, or the Japanese Utilities industry, is difficult and expensive to do as an individual. I'm sure there are ETFs for both.
            Will these ETFs "beat the market"? Maybe, but they're not designed to. All ETFs are not broad index tracking ETFs, a lot of funds will follow some theory. You need to read the prospectus for the fund and find out what it's doing.



            Many discount brokers have a list of Mutual Funds and ETFs that they will trade for no cost. Getting the money in to the market with no cost, in to a broad market index tracking fund with basically no maintenance fee is hard to beat. If you have a low trading commission of $5 per trade, but you want to routinely invest $250 every other week, you give up 2% of your investment off the top. Over a long time frame it is extremely unlikely for you to beat the market return and a 0.04% expense ratio when you give up 2% of all of your invested dollars; ignoring the fact that you will eventually have to sell these investments and incur sale commissions too.



            TONS of people beat the market. A friend of mine bought too much Netflix when it was $15 or $20 per share. She has crushed the market. It was by accident, and too much of her wealth is in Netflix, but she has beaten the market to death. Can you routinely pick the Netflix out of all the potential investments? Probably not.



            A couple books I would recommend are "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" and "The Money Game." Most people don't have the emotional fortitude to really handle their own investments. Most of what you will read as investment advice is directed at those folks. If you've got your proper emergency fund, got your retirement funds and contributions on track, and you understand the risks of investing in the particular thing you're deciding to invest in, go for it.



            Can you beat the market by actively trading your own retirement fund? Probably not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep your own brokerage account and make some investment decisions for yourself while your long term money sits in low cost market index funds.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 7 hours ago









            quidquid

            37.2k868122




            37.2k868122





















                2














                Let's break this down into some of your premises and some of the external premises you seem to believe in:



                • You seem to be a fundamental analyst/investor.

                • You want to buy and hold, only selling a company if it gets fundamentally worse.

                • You want to own parts of a company, not just speculate with them.

                • You are interested in dividends, which is the way a businessperson looks at it, and also some investors.

                With that said, you seem to look more at the business side of things than the speculative side of things. You want to be a businessperson that owns a fraction of ownership of a company, looking at it exactly the same way a businessperson with a big share of a company would look at.



                Now I'd like to discuss two of your ETF premises that I disagree with:



                • You can't beat the market.

                • If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.

                First of all, you absolutely can beat the market. You can't beat the market if you don't know how to analyze it and make decisions. A quick trip to the library will prove that thousands of people have beaten and continue to beat the market everyday. An uneducated person can't beat the market in the long term, that's for sure. Someone with no interest in investing can't beat the market. ETFs are great for these folks.



                Second of all, things shouldn't necessarily go wrong if "everyone starts buying ETFs" (I'd agree with the statement if you were talking about individual stocks), due to the principle that ETFs track indices, which typically somehow track the economy as a whole and all economies grow in the long term (note the "long term"). The nature of any economy is to grow, so if an ETF gets hit really hard and it tracks an index, the index probably is getting hit really hard as well. If the index is a broad one (e.g. S&P 500), it probably means the economy, in turn, is going down. Well, there have been several crises in history but the economy has always bounced back. You may lose a lot of money for months or even years, but it does bounce back simply because it's the nature of any economy to grow in the long term. I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term (which would materialize your belief that too many ETF investors are a bad thing), then it's the end of the world as we know it and it no longer matters whether you have money in ETFs or not (think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years).



                With all that said, and from what I could tell about you through your question, here are my two cents:



                • You can beat the market if you pick and choose the right stocks. You seem to want to do exactly that.

                • Imagine if, ten years ago, you really believed Amazon's mission and proposal. You knew the tech industry, you did the math, you analyzed Amazon's fundamentals, and made a life-long decision to invest €40,000 in it. Today, you'd have over €1,000,000.00. If that's not beating the market, I don't know what is.

                • ETFs are a great way of diversifying and therefore reducing your risk. This is great if you don't have the time or interest to invest.

                • Diversifying means you will inevitably go with a certain industry or the whole economy, depending on what your ETF is tracking. Note that this can be good or bad.

                • As a businessperson, you may want to analyze dozens of fundamental criteria and business criteria and make a decision on only a few or half a dozen stocks, and that's OK. As I implied above, it is exactly like having some money saved over and then deciding that you want to open a bakery or a smartphone app startup: you put money into a business and you expect returns from it. Except that you own maybe 0.001% of a company worth 10 billion instead of owning 100% of a company worth 100 thousand. I suggest doing an internet search on what Warren Buffett has to say about diversification.

                • You can still "get rich" buying ETFs, just not as rich as you would if you bet on the right company.

                • In the long term, you are more likely to make a lot more or lose a lot more by creating your own portfolio than by buying an index-tracking ETF.

                As someone with a similar profile and similar goals as you, I have made the decision to fundamentally analyze the market and buy stocks myself.






                share|improve this answer


















                • 2





                  A quick trip to the library will prove could you share more info on that? Because I'm really looking for such people to study their experience and see only few of them, who beats the market in long term. To beat the market in one year is easy: there's about 50% chance of it - you'll either beat it or not. But I see, that in long term even vast majority of professional analytics fail to do this.

                  – Michel_T.
                  7 hours ago







                • 2





                  "I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term ... think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years" Japan, a global top 10 capitalist economy: the Nikkei 225 index hit it's high in 1989, 30 years ago this December. It's been under water ever since, still about 40% down from that peak today (peak 38957, now 21450). I cannot agree with an answer with the assertion economies and stock markets always go up or recover in 15 years.

                  – user662852
                  6 hours ago











                • @user662852: Japan may be a capitalist economy today, but in 1989 it was not. Relationships, not free markets, were king (and conglomerates still exert disproportionate influence). There are a lot of reasons that the history of the economy in Japan can't be used to make inferences about any other economy (except perhaps what might happen if other economies adopted the Japanese model).

                  – Ben Voigt
                  6 hours ago











                • @BenVoigt "crony capitalism" is still a flavor of capitalism, and at the same time period, just off the top of my head, American Home Products, Beatrice, General Electric, Tyco, RJR Nabisco, Berkshire Hathaway come to mind as successful American conglomerates. I am not convinced the present US economy is any freer than that of 1980s Japan, especially as both democrats and republicans are interested in industrial policy again. But to the point, if 1980s Japan isn't a market we can infer on, then we just have the US and FTSE (until brexit?)

                  – user662852
                  3 hours ago












                • @user662852: Japanese conglomerates were not a flavor of capitalism. When members of the conglomerate went to buy raw materials, in Japan it literally did not matter what pricing was outside the conglomerate -- bids were never solicited, because purchases simply would not be made from outside at any price. Crony capitalism distorts the equilibrium of supply and demand, but in Japan those factors were not distorted, they were not part of the pricing model at all.

                  – Ben Voigt
                  2 hours ago
















                2














                Let's break this down into some of your premises and some of the external premises you seem to believe in:



                • You seem to be a fundamental analyst/investor.

                • You want to buy and hold, only selling a company if it gets fundamentally worse.

                • You want to own parts of a company, not just speculate with them.

                • You are interested in dividends, which is the way a businessperson looks at it, and also some investors.

                With that said, you seem to look more at the business side of things than the speculative side of things. You want to be a businessperson that owns a fraction of ownership of a company, looking at it exactly the same way a businessperson with a big share of a company would look at.



                Now I'd like to discuss two of your ETF premises that I disagree with:



                • You can't beat the market.

                • If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.

                First of all, you absolutely can beat the market. You can't beat the market if you don't know how to analyze it and make decisions. A quick trip to the library will prove that thousands of people have beaten and continue to beat the market everyday. An uneducated person can't beat the market in the long term, that's for sure. Someone with no interest in investing can't beat the market. ETFs are great for these folks.



                Second of all, things shouldn't necessarily go wrong if "everyone starts buying ETFs" (I'd agree with the statement if you were talking about individual stocks), due to the principle that ETFs track indices, which typically somehow track the economy as a whole and all economies grow in the long term (note the "long term"). The nature of any economy is to grow, so if an ETF gets hit really hard and it tracks an index, the index probably is getting hit really hard as well. If the index is a broad one (e.g. S&P 500), it probably means the economy, in turn, is going down. Well, there have been several crises in history but the economy has always bounced back. You may lose a lot of money for months or even years, but it does bounce back simply because it's the nature of any economy to grow in the long term. I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term (which would materialize your belief that too many ETF investors are a bad thing), then it's the end of the world as we know it and it no longer matters whether you have money in ETFs or not (think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years).



                With all that said, and from what I could tell about you through your question, here are my two cents:



                • You can beat the market if you pick and choose the right stocks. You seem to want to do exactly that.

                • Imagine if, ten years ago, you really believed Amazon's mission and proposal. You knew the tech industry, you did the math, you analyzed Amazon's fundamentals, and made a life-long decision to invest €40,000 in it. Today, you'd have over €1,000,000.00. If that's not beating the market, I don't know what is.

                • ETFs are a great way of diversifying and therefore reducing your risk. This is great if you don't have the time or interest to invest.

                • Diversifying means you will inevitably go with a certain industry or the whole economy, depending on what your ETF is tracking. Note that this can be good or bad.

                • As a businessperson, you may want to analyze dozens of fundamental criteria and business criteria and make a decision on only a few or half a dozen stocks, and that's OK. As I implied above, it is exactly like having some money saved over and then deciding that you want to open a bakery or a smartphone app startup: you put money into a business and you expect returns from it. Except that you own maybe 0.001% of a company worth 10 billion instead of owning 100% of a company worth 100 thousand. I suggest doing an internet search on what Warren Buffett has to say about diversification.

                • You can still "get rich" buying ETFs, just not as rich as you would if you bet on the right company.

                • In the long term, you are more likely to make a lot more or lose a lot more by creating your own portfolio than by buying an index-tracking ETF.

                As someone with a similar profile and similar goals as you, I have made the decision to fundamentally analyze the market and buy stocks myself.






                share|improve this answer


















                • 2





                  A quick trip to the library will prove could you share more info on that? Because I'm really looking for such people to study their experience and see only few of them, who beats the market in long term. To beat the market in one year is easy: there's about 50% chance of it - you'll either beat it or not. But I see, that in long term even vast majority of professional analytics fail to do this.

                  – Michel_T.
                  7 hours ago







                • 2





                  "I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term ... think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years" Japan, a global top 10 capitalist economy: the Nikkei 225 index hit it's high in 1989, 30 years ago this December. It's been under water ever since, still about 40% down from that peak today (peak 38957, now 21450). I cannot agree with an answer with the assertion economies and stock markets always go up or recover in 15 years.

                  – user662852
                  6 hours ago











                • @user662852: Japan may be a capitalist economy today, but in 1989 it was not. Relationships, not free markets, were king (and conglomerates still exert disproportionate influence). There are a lot of reasons that the history of the economy in Japan can't be used to make inferences about any other economy (except perhaps what might happen if other economies adopted the Japanese model).

                  – Ben Voigt
                  6 hours ago











                • @BenVoigt "crony capitalism" is still a flavor of capitalism, and at the same time period, just off the top of my head, American Home Products, Beatrice, General Electric, Tyco, RJR Nabisco, Berkshire Hathaway come to mind as successful American conglomerates. I am not convinced the present US economy is any freer than that of 1980s Japan, especially as both democrats and republicans are interested in industrial policy again. But to the point, if 1980s Japan isn't a market we can infer on, then we just have the US and FTSE (until brexit?)

                  – user662852
                  3 hours ago












                • @user662852: Japanese conglomerates were not a flavor of capitalism. When members of the conglomerate went to buy raw materials, in Japan it literally did not matter what pricing was outside the conglomerate -- bids were never solicited, because purchases simply would not be made from outside at any price. Crony capitalism distorts the equilibrium of supply and demand, but in Japan those factors were not distorted, they were not part of the pricing model at all.

                  – Ben Voigt
                  2 hours ago














                2












                2








                2







                Let's break this down into some of your premises and some of the external premises you seem to believe in:



                • You seem to be a fundamental analyst/investor.

                • You want to buy and hold, only selling a company if it gets fundamentally worse.

                • You want to own parts of a company, not just speculate with them.

                • You are interested in dividends, which is the way a businessperson looks at it, and also some investors.

                With that said, you seem to look more at the business side of things than the speculative side of things. You want to be a businessperson that owns a fraction of ownership of a company, looking at it exactly the same way a businessperson with a big share of a company would look at.



                Now I'd like to discuss two of your ETF premises that I disagree with:



                • You can't beat the market.

                • If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.

                First of all, you absolutely can beat the market. You can't beat the market if you don't know how to analyze it and make decisions. A quick trip to the library will prove that thousands of people have beaten and continue to beat the market everyday. An uneducated person can't beat the market in the long term, that's for sure. Someone with no interest in investing can't beat the market. ETFs are great for these folks.



                Second of all, things shouldn't necessarily go wrong if "everyone starts buying ETFs" (I'd agree with the statement if you were talking about individual stocks), due to the principle that ETFs track indices, which typically somehow track the economy as a whole and all economies grow in the long term (note the "long term"). The nature of any economy is to grow, so if an ETF gets hit really hard and it tracks an index, the index probably is getting hit really hard as well. If the index is a broad one (e.g. S&P 500), it probably means the economy, in turn, is going down. Well, there have been several crises in history but the economy has always bounced back. You may lose a lot of money for months or even years, but it does bounce back simply because it's the nature of any economy to grow in the long term. I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term (which would materialize your belief that too many ETF investors are a bad thing), then it's the end of the world as we know it and it no longer matters whether you have money in ETFs or not (think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years).



                With all that said, and from what I could tell about you through your question, here are my two cents:



                • You can beat the market if you pick and choose the right stocks. You seem to want to do exactly that.

                • Imagine if, ten years ago, you really believed Amazon's mission and proposal. You knew the tech industry, you did the math, you analyzed Amazon's fundamentals, and made a life-long decision to invest €40,000 in it. Today, you'd have over €1,000,000.00. If that's not beating the market, I don't know what is.

                • ETFs are a great way of diversifying and therefore reducing your risk. This is great if you don't have the time or interest to invest.

                • Diversifying means you will inevitably go with a certain industry or the whole economy, depending on what your ETF is tracking. Note that this can be good or bad.

                • As a businessperson, you may want to analyze dozens of fundamental criteria and business criteria and make a decision on only a few or half a dozen stocks, and that's OK. As I implied above, it is exactly like having some money saved over and then deciding that you want to open a bakery or a smartphone app startup: you put money into a business and you expect returns from it. Except that you own maybe 0.001% of a company worth 10 billion instead of owning 100% of a company worth 100 thousand. I suggest doing an internet search on what Warren Buffett has to say about diversification.

                • You can still "get rich" buying ETFs, just not as rich as you would if you bet on the right company.

                • In the long term, you are more likely to make a lot more or lose a lot more by creating your own portfolio than by buying an index-tracking ETF.

                As someone with a similar profile and similar goals as you, I have made the decision to fundamentally analyze the market and buy stocks myself.






                share|improve this answer













                Let's break this down into some of your premises and some of the external premises you seem to believe in:



                • You seem to be a fundamental analyst/investor.

                • You want to buy and hold, only selling a company if it gets fundamentally worse.

                • You want to own parts of a company, not just speculate with them.

                • You are interested in dividends, which is the way a businessperson looks at it, and also some investors.

                With that said, you seem to look more at the business side of things than the speculative side of things. You want to be a businessperson that owns a fraction of ownership of a company, looking at it exactly the same way a businessperson with a big share of a company would look at.



                Now I'd like to discuss two of your ETF premises that I disagree with:



                • You can't beat the market.

                • If "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich, things will go wrong sooner or later.

                First of all, you absolutely can beat the market. You can't beat the market if you don't know how to analyze it and make decisions. A quick trip to the library will prove that thousands of people have beaten and continue to beat the market everyday. An uneducated person can't beat the market in the long term, that's for sure. Someone with no interest in investing can't beat the market. ETFs are great for these folks.



                Second of all, things shouldn't necessarily go wrong if "everyone starts buying ETFs" (I'd agree with the statement if you were talking about individual stocks), due to the principle that ETFs track indices, which typically somehow track the economy as a whole and all economies grow in the long term (note the "long term"). The nature of any economy is to grow, so if an ETF gets hit really hard and it tracks an index, the index probably is getting hit really hard as well. If the index is a broad one (e.g. S&P 500), it probably means the economy, in turn, is going down. Well, there have been several crises in history but the economy has always bounced back. You may lose a lot of money for months or even years, but it does bounce back simply because it's the nature of any economy to grow in the long term. I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term (which would materialize your belief that too many ETF investors are a bad thing), then it's the end of the world as we know it and it no longer matters whether you have money in ETFs or not (think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years).



                With all that said, and from what I could tell about you through your question, here are my two cents:



                • You can beat the market if you pick and choose the right stocks. You seem to want to do exactly that.

                • Imagine if, ten years ago, you really believed Amazon's mission and proposal. You knew the tech industry, you did the math, you analyzed Amazon's fundamentals, and made a life-long decision to invest €40,000 in it. Today, you'd have over €1,000,000.00. If that's not beating the market, I don't know what is.

                • ETFs are a great way of diversifying and therefore reducing your risk. This is great if you don't have the time or interest to invest.

                • Diversifying means you will inevitably go with a certain industry or the whole economy, depending on what your ETF is tracking. Note that this can be good or bad.

                • As a businessperson, you may want to analyze dozens of fundamental criteria and business criteria and make a decision on only a few or half a dozen stocks, and that's OK. As I implied above, it is exactly like having some money saved over and then deciding that you want to open a bakery or a smartphone app startup: you put money into a business and you expect returns from it. Except that you own maybe 0.001% of a company worth 10 billion instead of owning 100% of a company worth 100 thousand. I suggest doing an internet search on what Warren Buffett has to say about diversification.

                • You can still "get rich" buying ETFs, just not as rich as you would if you bet on the right company.

                • In the long term, you are more likely to make a lot more or lose a lot more by creating your own portfolio than by buying an index-tracking ETF.

                As someone with a similar profile and similar goals as you, I have made the decision to fundamentally analyze the market and buy stocks myself.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 8 hours ago









                PhilPhil

                554412




                554412







                • 2





                  A quick trip to the library will prove could you share more info on that? Because I'm really looking for such people to study their experience and see only few of them, who beats the market in long term. To beat the market in one year is easy: there's about 50% chance of it - you'll either beat it or not. But I see, that in long term even vast majority of professional analytics fail to do this.

                  – Michel_T.
                  7 hours ago







                • 2





                  "I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term ... think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years" Japan, a global top 10 capitalist economy: the Nikkei 225 index hit it's high in 1989, 30 years ago this December. It's been under water ever since, still about 40% down from that peak today (peak 38957, now 21450). I cannot agree with an answer with the assertion economies and stock markets always go up or recover in 15 years.

                  – user662852
                  6 hours ago











                • @user662852: Japan may be a capitalist economy today, but in 1989 it was not. Relationships, not free markets, were king (and conglomerates still exert disproportionate influence). There are a lot of reasons that the history of the economy in Japan can't be used to make inferences about any other economy (except perhaps what might happen if other economies adopted the Japanese model).

                  – Ben Voigt
                  6 hours ago











                • @BenVoigt "crony capitalism" is still a flavor of capitalism, and at the same time period, just off the top of my head, American Home Products, Beatrice, General Electric, Tyco, RJR Nabisco, Berkshire Hathaway come to mind as successful American conglomerates. I am not convinced the present US economy is any freer than that of 1980s Japan, especially as both democrats and republicans are interested in industrial policy again. But to the point, if 1980s Japan isn't a market we can infer on, then we just have the US and FTSE (until brexit?)

                  – user662852
                  3 hours ago












                • @user662852: Japanese conglomerates were not a flavor of capitalism. When members of the conglomerate went to buy raw materials, in Japan it literally did not matter what pricing was outside the conglomerate -- bids were never solicited, because purchases simply would not be made from outside at any price. Crony capitalism distorts the equilibrium of supply and demand, but in Japan those factors were not distorted, they were not part of the pricing model at all.

                  – Ben Voigt
                  2 hours ago













                • 2





                  A quick trip to the library will prove could you share more info on that? Because I'm really looking for such people to study their experience and see only few of them, who beats the market in long term. To beat the market in one year is easy: there's about 50% chance of it - you'll either beat it or not. But I see, that in long term even vast majority of professional analytics fail to do this.

                  – Michel_T.
                  7 hours ago







                • 2





                  "I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term ... think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years" Japan, a global top 10 capitalist economy: the Nikkei 225 index hit it's high in 1989, 30 years ago this December. It's been under water ever since, still about 40% down from that peak today (peak 38957, now 21450). I cannot agree with an answer with the assertion economies and stock markets always go up or recover in 15 years.

                  – user662852
                  6 hours ago











                • @user662852: Japan may be a capitalist economy today, but in 1989 it was not. Relationships, not free markets, were king (and conglomerates still exert disproportionate influence). There are a lot of reasons that the history of the economy in Japan can't be used to make inferences about any other economy (except perhaps what might happen if other economies adopted the Japanese model).

                  – Ben Voigt
                  6 hours ago











                • @BenVoigt "crony capitalism" is still a flavor of capitalism, and at the same time period, just off the top of my head, American Home Products, Beatrice, General Electric, Tyco, RJR Nabisco, Berkshire Hathaway come to mind as successful American conglomerates. I am not convinced the present US economy is any freer than that of 1980s Japan, especially as both democrats and republicans are interested in industrial policy again. But to the point, if 1980s Japan isn't a market we can infer on, then we just have the US and FTSE (until brexit?)

                  – user662852
                  3 hours ago












                • @user662852: Japanese conglomerates were not a flavor of capitalism. When members of the conglomerate went to buy raw materials, in Japan it literally did not matter what pricing was outside the conglomerate -- bids were never solicited, because purchases simply would not be made from outside at any price. Crony capitalism distorts the equilibrium of supply and demand, but in Japan those factors were not distorted, they were not part of the pricing model at all.

                  – Ben Voigt
                  2 hours ago








                2




                2





                A quick trip to the library will prove could you share more info on that? Because I'm really looking for such people to study their experience and see only few of them, who beats the market in long term. To beat the market in one year is easy: there's about 50% chance of it - you'll either beat it or not. But I see, that in long term even vast majority of professional analytics fail to do this.

                – Michel_T.
                7 hours ago






                A quick trip to the library will prove could you share more info on that? Because I'm really looking for such people to study their experience and see only few of them, who beats the market in long term. To beat the market in one year is easy: there's about 50% chance of it - you'll either beat it or not. But I see, that in long term even vast majority of professional analytics fail to do this.

                – Michel_T.
                7 hours ago





                2




                2





                "I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term ... think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years" Japan, a global top 10 capitalist economy: the Nikkei 225 index hit it's high in 1989, 30 years ago this December. It's been under water ever since, still about 40% down from that peak today (peak 38957, now 21450). I cannot agree with an answer with the assertion economies and stock markets always go up or recover in 15 years.

                – user662852
                6 hours ago





                "I particularly believe that, if the global economy (or any economy for that matter) goes down really hard in the really long term ... think what would happen if the S&P 500 went down 50% and stayed there for 15 years" Japan, a global top 10 capitalist economy: the Nikkei 225 index hit it's high in 1989, 30 years ago this December. It's been under water ever since, still about 40% down from that peak today (peak 38957, now 21450). I cannot agree with an answer with the assertion economies and stock markets always go up or recover in 15 years.

                – user662852
                6 hours ago













                @user662852: Japan may be a capitalist economy today, but in 1989 it was not. Relationships, not free markets, were king (and conglomerates still exert disproportionate influence). There are a lot of reasons that the history of the economy in Japan can't be used to make inferences about any other economy (except perhaps what might happen if other economies adopted the Japanese model).

                – Ben Voigt
                6 hours ago





                @user662852: Japan may be a capitalist economy today, but in 1989 it was not. Relationships, not free markets, were king (and conglomerates still exert disproportionate influence). There are a lot of reasons that the history of the economy in Japan can't be used to make inferences about any other economy (except perhaps what might happen if other economies adopted the Japanese model).

                – Ben Voigt
                6 hours ago













                @BenVoigt "crony capitalism" is still a flavor of capitalism, and at the same time period, just off the top of my head, American Home Products, Beatrice, General Electric, Tyco, RJR Nabisco, Berkshire Hathaway come to mind as successful American conglomerates. I am not convinced the present US economy is any freer than that of 1980s Japan, especially as both democrats and republicans are interested in industrial policy again. But to the point, if 1980s Japan isn't a market we can infer on, then we just have the US and FTSE (until brexit?)

                – user662852
                3 hours ago






                @BenVoigt "crony capitalism" is still a flavor of capitalism, and at the same time period, just off the top of my head, American Home Products, Beatrice, General Electric, Tyco, RJR Nabisco, Berkshire Hathaway come to mind as successful American conglomerates. I am not convinced the present US economy is any freer than that of 1980s Japan, especially as both democrats and republicans are interested in industrial policy again. But to the point, if 1980s Japan isn't a market we can infer on, then we just have the US and FTSE (until brexit?)

                – user662852
                3 hours ago














                @user662852: Japanese conglomerates were not a flavor of capitalism. When members of the conglomerate went to buy raw materials, in Japan it literally did not matter what pricing was outside the conglomerate -- bids were never solicited, because purchases simply would not be made from outside at any price. Crony capitalism distorts the equilibrium of supply and demand, but in Japan those factors were not distorted, they were not part of the pricing model at all.

                – Ben Voigt
                2 hours ago






                @user662852: Japanese conglomerates were not a flavor of capitalism. When members of the conglomerate went to buy raw materials, in Japan it literally did not matter what pricing was outside the conglomerate -- bids were never solicited, because purchases simply would not be made from outside at any price. Crony capitalism distorts the equilibrium of supply and demand, but in Japan those factors were not distorted, they were not part of the pricing model at all.

                – Ben Voigt
                2 hours ago












                1














                Because a few dozen companies randomly chosen from widespread market show the same gain in the long term as all the indices (Dow, SP500, etc), I don't think that fundamentally you'll win or lose anything. ETFs provide a wider diversity of shares.



                Suppose you have 30 stocks in your portfolio. If one of them goes bankrupt (see Enron), then you'll lose 1/30 of your portfolio which is ~3% of assets. On the other hand, an ETF may have hundreds of companies so losing one company is nothing.



                You've mentioned no significant fees with your investing. It would be great not to have to pay commission but do you really in such situation? Funds like Vanguard usually pay lower commissions than you will.



                the liberty to buy / sell any stock is a disadvantage for me because you'll have the temptation to sell or buy the stocks. In most cases it's a way to lose money rather than earn it.



                "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich. I suppose it's a wrong attitude to the market. In my opinion, investing helps to avoid becoming a pauper rather than becoming rich.






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                  1














                  Because a few dozen companies randomly chosen from widespread market show the same gain in the long term as all the indices (Dow, SP500, etc), I don't think that fundamentally you'll win or lose anything. ETFs provide a wider diversity of shares.



                  Suppose you have 30 stocks in your portfolio. If one of them goes bankrupt (see Enron), then you'll lose 1/30 of your portfolio which is ~3% of assets. On the other hand, an ETF may have hundreds of companies so losing one company is nothing.



                  You've mentioned no significant fees with your investing. It would be great not to have to pay commission but do you really in such situation? Funds like Vanguard usually pay lower commissions than you will.



                  the liberty to buy / sell any stock is a disadvantage for me because you'll have the temptation to sell or buy the stocks. In most cases it's a way to lose money rather than earn it.



                  "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich. I suppose it's a wrong attitude to the market. In my opinion, investing helps to avoid becoming a pauper rather than becoming rich.






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                    1












                    1








                    1







                    Because a few dozen companies randomly chosen from widespread market show the same gain in the long term as all the indices (Dow, SP500, etc), I don't think that fundamentally you'll win or lose anything. ETFs provide a wider diversity of shares.



                    Suppose you have 30 stocks in your portfolio. If one of them goes bankrupt (see Enron), then you'll lose 1/30 of your portfolio which is ~3% of assets. On the other hand, an ETF may have hundreds of companies so losing one company is nothing.



                    You've mentioned no significant fees with your investing. It would be great not to have to pay commission but do you really in such situation? Funds like Vanguard usually pay lower commissions than you will.



                    the liberty to buy / sell any stock is a disadvantage for me because you'll have the temptation to sell or buy the stocks. In most cases it's a way to lose money rather than earn it.



                    "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich. I suppose it's a wrong attitude to the market. In my opinion, investing helps to avoid becoming a pauper rather than becoming rich.






                    share|improve this answer










                    New contributor




                    Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.










                    Because a few dozen companies randomly chosen from widespread market show the same gain in the long term as all the indices (Dow, SP500, etc), I don't think that fundamentally you'll win or lose anything. ETFs provide a wider diversity of shares.



                    Suppose you have 30 stocks in your portfolio. If one of them goes bankrupt (see Enron), then you'll lose 1/30 of your portfolio which is ~3% of assets. On the other hand, an ETF may have hundreds of companies so losing one company is nothing.



                    You've mentioned no significant fees with your investing. It would be great not to have to pay commission but do you really in such situation? Funds like Vanguard usually pay lower commissions than you will.



                    the liberty to buy / sell any stock is a disadvantage for me because you'll have the temptation to sell or buy the stocks. In most cases it's a way to lose money rather than earn it.



                    "everyone" starts thinking that with ETFs they are going to be rich. I suppose it's a wrong attitude to the market. In my opinion, investing helps to avoid becoming a pauper rather than becoming rich.







                    share|improve this answer










                    New contributor




                    Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 3 hours ago









                    Bob Baerker

                    17.7k12653




                    17.7k12653






                    New contributor




                    Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered 7 hours ago









                    Michel_T.Michel_T.

                    1112




                    1112




                    New contributor




                    Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    Michel_T. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                        0














                        There are wide range of ETFs, in the context of your question, I assume you're talking about passively managed ETF that tracks an index (e.g. S&P 500).




                        Are index ETF fundamentally better?




                        The short answer is no, it's just a market average, but I will say it's one of the most amazing invention if you look at it from the historical context.



                        According to my quick google search, it was 1975 when John Bogle first invented low fee index mutual fund, and the first S&P 500 ETF (SPY) was not created until 1993.



                        Imagine you are a small investor in 1975 and wanted to invest in stock (in a diversified way), what were your choices? Discount electronic brokers were not available (Etrade was founded in 1982), human brokers commission were expensive, shares were mostly traded at multiple of 100 shares (and it didn't make sense to trade less because of the commission anyway). All of these were barriers to you, as a result, your only reasonable choice was probably put your money to a mutual fund, accepted whatever fee they charge, and pray for the manager doing a good job for you. Low cost index fund offered you a second simpler and likely better choice at that time.




                        Are index ETF still better than individual stock nowadays for the reasons you list?




                        Let's see.




                        "You can't beat the market";




                        Although I cannot be completely sure, if "the market" means S&P 500 imo it's easy to beat by screening off some bad companies from S&P 500 (Use an online screening tool, cross out companies that have low revenue growth & no dividend & low historical return & whatever reasonable criteria you want to use) and diversified your portfolio among others.



                        The simplest examples are DIA and QQQ (ETF that tracks Dow and Nasdaq), they both beat SPY by about 1% a year (Use this to check) on average for 20 years, both are indices that track fewer number ( and therefore slightly higher average quality) of companies.



                        I am confident that you can do even slightly better by picking stocks yourself rather than following another index.




                        Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;




                        Yes these are main reasons I use ETF to invest in foreign equities and junk bond market.




                        Lower risk;




                        This is a common misconception. Because most stocks are positively correlated with correlation coefficient about 0.2~0.5 (Use this to check). As a result diversified yourself in 500 companies is not going to lower the variance of the portfolio by much compare to diversify in 20~30 companies.




                        Historically better than individual stock investments.




                        This is not well defined, depends on which stock you compare to.




                        Why not make my own portfolio?




                        I am using almost exactly the strategies you describe with my little ~$10000 portfolio in a 0 commission brokerage account now, so yes imo it's at least worth a try. :)



                        Keep in mind though,



                        1. Bid-ask spreads, and exchange clearing fees are still small hidden fees.


                        2. When you re-balance portfolio by selling something for a profit, you have to pay tax.


                        3. It might be more valuable to put time into work, career development, etc. instead of researching how to beat S&P500 by a few percent on a small size portfolio. :)


                        Cheer!






                        share|improve this answer



























                          0














                          There are wide range of ETFs, in the context of your question, I assume you're talking about passively managed ETF that tracks an index (e.g. S&P 500).




                          Are index ETF fundamentally better?




                          The short answer is no, it's just a market average, but I will say it's one of the most amazing invention if you look at it from the historical context.



                          According to my quick google search, it was 1975 when John Bogle first invented low fee index mutual fund, and the first S&P 500 ETF (SPY) was not created until 1993.



                          Imagine you are a small investor in 1975 and wanted to invest in stock (in a diversified way), what were your choices? Discount electronic brokers were not available (Etrade was founded in 1982), human brokers commission were expensive, shares were mostly traded at multiple of 100 shares (and it didn't make sense to trade less because of the commission anyway). All of these were barriers to you, as a result, your only reasonable choice was probably put your money to a mutual fund, accepted whatever fee they charge, and pray for the manager doing a good job for you. Low cost index fund offered you a second simpler and likely better choice at that time.




                          Are index ETF still better than individual stock nowadays for the reasons you list?




                          Let's see.




                          "You can't beat the market";




                          Although I cannot be completely sure, if "the market" means S&P 500 imo it's easy to beat by screening off some bad companies from S&P 500 (Use an online screening tool, cross out companies that have low revenue growth & no dividend & low historical return & whatever reasonable criteria you want to use) and diversified your portfolio among others.



                          The simplest examples are DIA and QQQ (ETF that tracks Dow and Nasdaq), they both beat SPY by about 1% a year (Use this to check) on average for 20 years, both are indices that track fewer number ( and therefore slightly higher average quality) of companies.



                          I am confident that you can do even slightly better by picking stocks yourself rather than following another index.




                          Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;




                          Yes these are main reasons I use ETF to invest in foreign equities and junk bond market.




                          Lower risk;




                          This is a common misconception. Because most stocks are positively correlated with correlation coefficient about 0.2~0.5 (Use this to check). As a result diversified yourself in 500 companies is not going to lower the variance of the portfolio by much compare to diversify in 20~30 companies.




                          Historically better than individual stock investments.




                          This is not well defined, depends on which stock you compare to.




                          Why not make my own portfolio?




                          I am using almost exactly the strategies you describe with my little ~$10000 portfolio in a 0 commission brokerage account now, so yes imo it's at least worth a try. :)



                          Keep in mind though,



                          1. Bid-ask spreads, and exchange clearing fees are still small hidden fees.


                          2. When you re-balance portfolio by selling something for a profit, you have to pay tax.


                          3. It might be more valuable to put time into work, career development, etc. instead of researching how to beat S&P500 by a few percent on a small size portfolio. :)


                          Cheer!






                          share|improve this answer

























                            0












                            0








                            0







                            There are wide range of ETFs, in the context of your question, I assume you're talking about passively managed ETF that tracks an index (e.g. S&P 500).




                            Are index ETF fundamentally better?




                            The short answer is no, it's just a market average, but I will say it's one of the most amazing invention if you look at it from the historical context.



                            According to my quick google search, it was 1975 when John Bogle first invented low fee index mutual fund, and the first S&P 500 ETF (SPY) was not created until 1993.



                            Imagine you are a small investor in 1975 and wanted to invest in stock (in a diversified way), what were your choices? Discount electronic brokers were not available (Etrade was founded in 1982), human brokers commission were expensive, shares were mostly traded at multiple of 100 shares (and it didn't make sense to trade less because of the commission anyway). All of these were barriers to you, as a result, your only reasonable choice was probably put your money to a mutual fund, accepted whatever fee they charge, and pray for the manager doing a good job for you. Low cost index fund offered you a second simpler and likely better choice at that time.




                            Are index ETF still better than individual stock nowadays for the reasons you list?




                            Let's see.




                            "You can't beat the market";




                            Although I cannot be completely sure, if "the market" means S&P 500 imo it's easy to beat by screening off some bad companies from S&P 500 (Use an online screening tool, cross out companies that have low revenue growth & no dividend & low historical return & whatever reasonable criteria you want to use) and diversified your portfolio among others.



                            The simplest examples are DIA and QQQ (ETF that tracks Dow and Nasdaq), they both beat SPY by about 1% a year (Use this to check) on average for 20 years, both are indices that track fewer number ( and therefore slightly higher average quality) of companies.



                            I am confident that you can do even slightly better by picking stocks yourself rather than following another index.




                            Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;




                            Yes these are main reasons I use ETF to invest in foreign equities and junk bond market.




                            Lower risk;




                            This is a common misconception. Because most stocks are positively correlated with correlation coefficient about 0.2~0.5 (Use this to check). As a result diversified yourself in 500 companies is not going to lower the variance of the portfolio by much compare to diversify in 20~30 companies.




                            Historically better than individual stock investments.




                            This is not well defined, depends on which stock you compare to.




                            Why not make my own portfolio?




                            I am using almost exactly the strategies you describe with my little ~$10000 portfolio in a 0 commission brokerage account now, so yes imo it's at least worth a try. :)



                            Keep in mind though,



                            1. Bid-ask spreads, and exchange clearing fees are still small hidden fees.


                            2. When you re-balance portfolio by selling something for a profit, you have to pay tax.


                            3. It might be more valuable to put time into work, career development, etc. instead of researching how to beat S&P500 by a few percent on a small size portfolio. :)


                            Cheer!






                            share|improve this answer













                            There are wide range of ETFs, in the context of your question, I assume you're talking about passively managed ETF that tracks an index (e.g. S&P 500).




                            Are index ETF fundamentally better?




                            The short answer is no, it's just a market average, but I will say it's one of the most amazing invention if you look at it from the historical context.



                            According to my quick google search, it was 1975 when John Bogle first invented low fee index mutual fund, and the first S&P 500 ETF (SPY) was not created until 1993.



                            Imagine you are a small investor in 1975 and wanted to invest in stock (in a diversified way), what were your choices? Discount electronic brokers were not available (Etrade was founded in 1982), human brokers commission were expensive, shares were mostly traded at multiple of 100 shares (and it didn't make sense to trade less because of the commission anyway). All of these were barriers to you, as a result, your only reasonable choice was probably put your money to a mutual fund, accepted whatever fee they charge, and pray for the manager doing a good job for you. Low cost index fund offered you a second simpler and likely better choice at that time.




                            Are index ETF still better than individual stock nowadays for the reasons you list?




                            Let's see.




                            "You can't beat the market";




                            Although I cannot be completely sure, if "the market" means S&P 500 imo it's easy to beat by screening off some bad companies from S&P 500 (Use an online screening tool, cross out companies that have low revenue growth & no dividend & low historical return & whatever reasonable criteria you want to use) and diversified your portfolio among others.



                            The simplest examples are DIA and QQQ (ETF that tracks Dow and Nasdaq), they both beat SPY by about 1% a year (Use this to check) on average for 20 years, both are indices that track fewer number ( and therefore slightly higher average quality) of companies.



                            I am confident that you can do even slightly better by picking stocks yourself rather than following another index.




                            Easier and cheaper to invest in foreign countries or specific sectors;




                            Yes these are main reasons I use ETF to invest in foreign equities and junk bond market.




                            Lower risk;




                            This is a common misconception. Because most stocks are positively correlated with correlation coefficient about 0.2~0.5 (Use this to check). As a result diversified yourself in 500 companies is not going to lower the variance of the portfolio by much compare to diversify in 20~30 companies.




                            Historically better than individual stock investments.




                            This is not well defined, depends on which stock you compare to.




                            Why not make my own portfolio?




                            I am using almost exactly the strategies you describe with my little ~$10000 portfolio in a 0 commission brokerage account now, so yes imo it's at least worth a try. :)



                            Keep in mind though,



                            1. Bid-ask spreads, and exchange clearing fees are still small hidden fees.


                            2. When you re-balance portfolio by selling something for a profit, you have to pay tax.


                            3. It might be more valuable to put time into work, career development, etc. instead of researching how to beat S&P500 by a few percent on a small size portfolio. :)


                            Cheer!







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 4 hours ago









                            gammagamma

                            17017




                            17017



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106547%2fare-etf-trackers-fundamentally-better-than-individual-stocks%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

                                Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

                                Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar