CLEC Investment & Wealth Database00662 and QQQ Performance Question
00662 and QQQ Performance Question
Related Materials
- Previous presentation: Asset Allocation for People Still Some Time Away from Retirement rev2.0
Document Text
We have answered this question many times. Just pull up a chart yourself and compare.
00662 performed poorly when it was first issued because the fund size was small and it had to use a larger portion of assets for futures hedging, so efficiency was lower. Now the fund size is much larger, so trading volume is larger and the futures hedge is smaller relative to total assets, making it more efficient. The recent two-year performance is below. Do not listen to nonsense from outside. Some people only look for data to prove what they already said before. When someone only sees nails, they keep looking for nails to hammer. If they have already decided that 00662 has a problem, they only use information that supports them and ignore information that does not. Do not pay attention to people pretending to understand. Not all outside information is correct.
Information You Have Not Thought Through Yourself Is Garbage; You Must Be Able to Verify Truth Before Believing It
The disadvantage of sub-brokerage is that you cannot pledge the assets, and you may be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Once your assets grow, you may need to pay 20% tax on overseas income. You also have the Taiwan dollar / US dollar exchange issue, which is not as efficient as holding the financial asset 00662. You must pay exchange-rate spreads and fees.
Many people do not understand that 00662 actually does not have much tracking error. Just look at the performance comparison below. The larger tracking error at the beginning existed because the fund was small and its futures operation was relatively large. Now that its market value is larger, the futures hedging position is relatively small compared with total assets, so efficiency is already high. The performance chart makes this clear.
We have discussed this many times in our videos, and I do not want to repeat it again.
It is very simple: compare performance yourself.
Three-Year Performance Comparison: 00662 and QQQ
00662 was less efficient at the beginning because its market value was small. The article author is completely ignorant, and many readers only repeat what they hear.
This is a past performance comparison chart I made; I do not want to make it again. I did not read your long message, not a single word. It is a waste of time. Make a simple comparison yourself and it becomes clear. There is no need to argue.
00662 and QQQ three-year performance comparison.PNG
Recently pulled data. Verify everything yourself; do not just repeat others.
2 years 00662.TW (http://00662.tw/) Interactive Stock Chart Fubon NASDAQ-100 Index ETF Stock - Yahoo Finance.jpeg
3 years 00662.TW (http://00662.tw/) Interactive Stock Chart Fubon NASDAQ-100 Index ETF Stock - Yahoo Finance.jpeg
Disclaimer
All emails, video content, and replies are for reference only. I am not a professional investment adviser or tax professional. All information is only personal experience sharing. Invest carefully, and take responsibility for every investment decision and action yourself.
Draft: James.