원문 보기
Hello, this is Rich Dad. I have uploaded several videos about "Rich Stocks" in the past, but perhaps because recent viewers haven't seen the old ones, I've noticed a lot of comments asking me to cover them. So, today, for the first time in a while, I would like to share my thoughts on "Rich Stocks" again.
First, let's start with the basics. There is an ETN, which can be described as a bond-based product based on a new type of issuer, but I will skip that part. There is some argument that ETFs are less risky because even if they are delisted, the money is returned based on the liquidation date, whereas ETNs are riskier because you lose everything if the issuer goes bankrupt.
However, I do n't really think that way. Honestly, if something is delisted, is n't it correct to consider it a failure regardless of whether you get your money back or not? So, I don't think it has much meaning to argue about that; what matters is which stocks it is composed of. Uniquely, "Rich Stocks" invest in 15 stocks using an equal-weighted method, with each holding 6.67%.
For example, in the case of TQQ, which we generally invest in a lot, the weighting of high-market-cap stocks like Apple and Microsoft is very high. For instance, regarding Apple... With percentages of 13.58% and Microsoft 10.46%, the figures are quite high. On the other hand, Nvidia is only 2.46 % and Meta is 2.67%, so the gap is quite significant.
Moreover, since TQ is based on the Nasdaq 100, it invests in nearly 100 stocks. Because it has such a large number of stocks and a relatively high weighting of stable stocks like Apple, Microsoft, and Google, it is generally evaluated as being quite stable. Compared to 3x leverage, it is ETN-based, which many people find somewhat off-putting, and since all stocks are weighted equally at 6.60%, the presence of Apple, Microsoft, or Amazon is not that significant.
Since Apple and Netflix are weighted equally at 6.67%, Apple defended its position very well when Netflix dropped sharply this year. In the case of TQ, Apple played a very reliable role because its weighting was much higher than Netflix's; however, since this "bull stock" is weighted equally, it inevitably receives less of a boost from blue-chip stocks.
Furthermore, there are only 15 stocks. Naturally, it can be said that the volatility is much higher than that of TQQ. Looking at the stocks, we have Apple, Adobe, AMD, Amazon, Broadcom, Salesforce, Alphabet, and Google. Next are Intel, Meta Platforms ( formerly Facebook), Microsoft, Micron, Netflix, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and Tesla.
Since these 15 stocks each account for 6.67%, it is correct to view the overall scale as somewhat smaller. However, a notable point is that nearly 6 out of the 15 stocks are semiconductor companies. So, in a way, it could be said to have a deep correlation with the surge of 3x leveraged semiconductor funds.
If we narrow down the semiconductor companies here, they are AMD, Broadcom, Intel, Micron, Nvidia, and Qualcomm—the six stocks. The "3x semiconductor" portfolio consists of about 30 stocks in total, and 100% of them are semiconductor companies. Therefore, to briefly summarize the most popular 3x portfolio, it is composed of 100 TQQ stocks, with a relatively high weighting of ultra-blue-chip stocks like Apple, Microsoft, and Google.
Since there are many stocks and stable stocks account for a high percentage, the volatility is naturally somewhat lower. It might feel stable. Next, regarding the semiconductor triple leverage theory, since it consists of 30 stocks that are 100% semiconductor companies, it is very sensitive to the economy and has quite high volatility.
As for today's main subject, "Bulju," it consists of 15 stocks, and all 15 stocks are equally up 6.67%. The number of stocks is good, but since it receives less of a boost from companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, or Amazon, it might feel a bit unstable. Now, but basically, 3x leverage is just all risky.
It is correct to view them all as risky. Whether it is an ETF or an ETN, if delisting or stock splits are being discussed, it is correct to assume they have all failed equally. Looking at actual returns year-to-date, TQ is -77%, Sok is -89%, and Bulju is -91%. To put it bluntly, they all failed equally.
Well, TQ failed less because it dropped 77%, and it failed a total disaster because it dropped 91%. Well, in my view, they all failed equally. That is, if you had gone all-in with a lump-sum investment at the peak, right? If you invested 10 million won and got 2.2 million won... Whether it's what's left, the 1.1 million won remaining, or the 900,000 won that came out, they all basically failed just the same way.
I feel like I've focused too much on the downsides, but the fact that it has high volatility and dropped significantly from its peak also means, conversely, that the gains could be even greater if a major bull market arrives. Therefore, if you judge that the current point is the bottom, I believe investing in "Bulju" rather than TQ would yield a higher expected return.
Since it is composed of such good stocks, I personally don't think it is too burdensome to invest long-term with spare funds through dollar-cost averaging. However, the choice may vary depending on individual preferences; although I personally hold a small amount of Bulju, if I had to choose just one, I would probably pick TQ.
Also, because I really like semiconductors, I am investing in Soksul due to my personal tendencies. However, in the case of Bujo, it is a somewhat awkward mix of semiconductor and big tech companies, and since it has the highest volatility relatively, I think I will continue to focus my investments on TQ and Soksul in the future.
I think my views have been conveyed enough, so I will wrap up the video. Thank you.
Comments 0