ETFs

[Scarfinger68]

I think most people would consider the word "best" to mean "performance over a reasonable time compared to other funds of the same category"
Pretty sure that would be a universal definition.

As Dave Ramsey says focusing on just the expense part of a fund matters less if that fund has the best performance year in and year out. That seems pretty good advice to me. Of course you always look for the lowest cost with the best performance.

Best of luck to you .

10 year, 20 year, 30 year, 50 year or 100 years. Best performance year in and year out is more the Prince Charming fund. It doesn’t really exist because past performance isn’t guaranteed. The only thing guaranteed is your expense ratio. The best over the longest time frame would be small cap value fund. But can you stomach the volatility. Or will it end up being the best in your life time. Maybe not. So, diversify even with subpar low cost funds could be the best funds in the next 20 years. There is no guarantees. So invest in what you are comfortable with. In my mind there is no absolute best fund. But I do understand the pursuit of that Prince Charming fund. What I would say to you if you find the fund, invest in it, and it actually ended up being the best fund… you just got lucky.

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

I think most people would consider the word "best" to mean "performance over a reasonable time compared to other funds of the same category"
Pretty sure that would be a universal definition.

As Dave Ramsey says focusing on just the expense part of a fund matters less if that fund has the best performance year in and year out. That seems pretty good advice to me. Of course you always look for the lowest cost with the best performance.

Best of luck to you .

Well, to be fair, you DID ask us for our THOUGHTS:

I am new to this site and just retired a few months ago. I have done a lot of research on ETFs and the are the ones I found to be the best:
XLK
SCHG
VGT
SCHD.....for dividend only
FSELX......a semi conductor mutual fund because I can't find any ETF semi conductor fund as good as this.

What are your thoughts?

For many of us, our thoughts are well-summarized by scarfinger's post #51 just above.

 

[Rjhasti]

Well, to be fair, you DID ask us for our THOUGHTS:




For many of us, our thoughts are well-summarized by scarfinger's post #51 just above.

absolutely I asked of your thoughts and I appreciate them. Thank you.

 

[OldShooter]

10 year, 20 year, 30 year, 50 year or 100 years. Best performance year in and year out is more the Prince Charming fund. It doesn’t really exist because past performance isn’t guaranteed. The only thing guaranteed is your expense ratio. The best over the longest time frame would be small cap value fund. But can you stomach the volatility. Or will it end up being the best in your life time. Maybe not. So, diversify even with subpar low cost funds could be the best funds in the next 20 years. There is no guarantees. So invest in what you are comfortable with. In my mind there is no absolute best fund. But I do understand the pursuit of that Prince Charming fund. What I would say to you if you find the fund, invest in it, and it actually ended up being the best fund… you just got lucky.

Yes, the Prince Charming fund. I like it. Actually index funds are the ones that reliably outperform the stock-picking herd over five or ten years. There is a tiny fraction of stock-pickers whose luck holds over a long period like that but no one knows how to identify them ahead of time. So, again, we are back to fees as a means to differentiate among the winners. Morningstar has reported multiple studies showing that low fees are the only known predictor of performance and (guess what!) it is the index funds that have the lowest fees.

The OP believes that past performance is predictive over the long haul. Most of us did, too, when we were young and naïve. This is also what the stock-picker fund salespeople desperately want us to believe.

 

[Rjhasti]

Yes, the Prince Charming fund. I like it. Actually index funds are the ones that reliably outperform the stock-picking herd over five or ten years. There is a tiny fraction of stock-pickers whose luck holds over a long period like that but no one knows how to identify them ahead of time. So, again, we are back to fees as a means to differentiate among the winners. Morningstar has reported multiple studies showing that low fees are the only known predictor of performance and (guess what!) it is the index funds that have the lowest fees.

The OP believes that past performance is predictive over the long haul. Most of us did, too, when we were young and naïve. This is also what the stock-picker fund salespeople desperately want us to believe.

I use to think that way also that low or lowest fees were the best indicator until I retired and was able to compare ETS's or MF's in any analyzer comparison tool and found that was not the case.
Example: S&P 500 ETF's SoFI (SFY) has an Expense Ration of Zero compared to SPY which has an ER of .09.........yet SPY has much better performance
So ER is just one indicator all things being equal of course

 

[OldShooter]

I use to think that way also that low or lowest fees were the best indicator until I retired and was able to compare ETS's or MF's in any analyzer comparison tool and found that was not the case.
...

https://sg.morningstar.com/sg/news/154499/how-fund-fees-are-the-best-predictor-of-returns.aspx

 

[Rjhasti]

So did you not even read my post and do the comparison.........compare for yourself........morning star has a place but if you read that article they were speaking in general terms.........gave no specific funds...........go ahead and you compare the 2 funds I mentioned in the post............and if you want more funds of the same asset class I can show many for instances..................

 

[Scarfinger68]

So did you not even read my post and do the comparison.........compare for yourself........morning star has a place but if you read that article they were speaking in general terms.........gave no specific funds...........go ahead and you compare the 2 funds I mentioned in the post............and if you want more funds of the same asset class I can show many for instances..................

I would say that either fund is ok. If low cost is your thing than SFY. SPY at .09 expense is still very low cost though but has a longer tract record. The best fund would be the one you are comfortable with and would stay invested in. SFY my guess is just weighted differently than SPY and has a shorter time frame as a new fund. It could be very plausible that SFY could out perform SPY the next 3 years.

 

[Harris4crna]

ETFs:

TSP: C Fund 70% & G Fund 30%-->30%

Vanguard: VTI & GBTC--> 35%

Tesla, BTC, ETH & SOL--> 25%

Cash in VMFXX--> 10%

And a good old military pension, woo hoo...

 

[Rjhasti]

With your military pension no need to be conservative ........go for it and have fun