TQQQ는 생각보다 위험하지 않습니다. 오히려 대박 종목입니다.

요약 보기

TQQQ는 나스닥100 3배 레버리지 ETF로 위험이 과장됐다는 주장. 상위 종목(애플·마이크로소프트·아마존 등) 비중이 높고 최근 5년 수익률이 상위권이라 장기 투자 시 큰 성과가 가능하다고 설명. 변동성은 부담이지만 방향성이 중요하며, 여유자금으로 적립식 장기 투자를 권장. 자막 오인식이 많아 종목 수치 일부는 부정확할 수 있음.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. Hello, this is "Buja Panda." You all know about TQ these days, right? I see a lot of mentions of TQ in the comments, and I'm sometimes surprised myself. I personally invest in TQ as well, and since the stock price has dropped quite a bit lately, I've been noticing a lot of negative comments. However, in my view, the risks are greatly exaggerated, and it seems many people view it negatively simply because of the 3x leverage.

02. So today, I would like to share my personal thoughts on TQ. First, we need to understand what TQ actually is. It estimates the NASDAQ 100 at a positive 3x leverage. However, it is n't just limited to 3x leverage; there are also QLDs that estimate 2x leverage and QQs that estimate 1x leverage. Then, what is the NASDAQ 102?

03. It is a fund that focuses on investing in the top 100 companies on the NASDAQ, excluding financial stocks. Simply put, it is an elite group composed of the world's best companies. Let's take a look at the specific stocks: Apple at about 12.8%, Microsoft at 10.6%, Amazon at 7%, Tesla at 4.5%, and Alphabet.

04. Google Class C is non-voting stock at 3.6%, and Alphabet Class A is existing stock with voting rights at approximately 3.4%. Combined, Google accounts for about 7% of the investment. Then there is Nvidia at 3.2%, Metacritic at 3%, Costco at 2%, and PepsiCo. Thus, about 52% of the investment is made in the top 10 companies, while 48% is invested in the remaining 90 companies.

05. Due to time constraints, it would be difficult for me to look at the remaining 90 companies individually, but even just looking at the top 10, you can see how impressive it is. Just combining Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon, the global market alone accounts for 30% of the investment. On top of that, there is a large concentration of truly massive stocks like Tesla, Google, Metacritic, and Nvidia.

06. I believe we need to pay attention not only to volatility but also to the underlying index. If the underlying index itself is solid, we cannot conclude that it is unconditionally risky simply because of high volatility. On the contrary, there are many cases where highly volatile stocks like Tesla hit the jackpot.

07. High volatility implies a high expected rate of return. We all have money We invest in stocks to make money. There is nothing more attractive than a high expected rate of return. If you have to watch the market even with low volatility, it can never be called a stable stock; it must unconditionally trend upward.

08. If high volatility shows an upward trend and extends upward, it means there is a high probability that it will become a top-performing stock. Nevertheless, the volatility associated with this generation is certainly a burdensome factor. However, considering that the underlying index, the NASDAQ 100, provides stability, I do not see it as a significant issue.

09. What matters is not volatility, but direction. The NASDAQ 400 is universally acknowledged as one of the world's best indices. Its performance has been sufficiently historically proven, and it is highly likely to continue performing well in the future. What is the use of words? Let's actually look at the performance over the past five years.

10. The stocks being compared are Apple, Microsoft, QQ, SPY, Meta, and Plex. Surprisingly, TQ ranks first with a performance of 332%, followed by Apple with 319 %. Then, Microsoft ranks third with 300%. These three stocks have shown exceptionally good performance, and QQ is 100 It stands at 26% for SPY, 70% for Placebook, 35% for Netflix, and 22% for Netflix.

11. Even though it has plummeted nearly 60% this year alone, it ranks first in performance. This indicates that it is not as dangerous as we think, and the returns are surprisingly good. I believe it is time to discard our prejudices. Just because it is 3x leverage does not mean it is inherently dangerous, nor does tracking an individual stock with a 1x leverage guarantee its safety.

12. Looking at the recent Matt and Flex, they plummeted drastically—to a chilling degree—despite being ultra-blue-chip stocks with 1x leverage. While whether it is 3x leverage or not is certainly important, it is more crucial to understand the underlying strategy and the composition of the stocks. I do not agree with the assertion that Cake is inherently dangerous and should not be invested in the long term simply because it is 3x leverage.

13. If you invest long-term using pure surplus funds and dollar-cost averaging, I believe it will definitely lead to a huge success. Stocks are inherently high-risk, high-return investments, and Q, in particular, falls into the high-risk category. To put it nicely, it means the expected rate of return is very high; to put it negatively, if you are unlucky...

14. It means that you might be putting on airs. If you are seeking out and watching my video right now, I believe you are certainly not a child. We are fully grown adults, and I trust that you are all investing cautiously after careful consideration. Of course, you must make all decisions yourself. If you decide to invest heavily, you can simply keep it to yourself.

15. You do not have to share it with me. However, since I must bear the full burden of any losses, I ask that you consider the timing of your investments within a range you can handle. No matter which stocks you invest in, I hope you achieve good results. I will wrap up the video now. Thank you.