/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>21106325
>So what's your counter to this?

TQQQ is exceptional in that it tracks an index (the Nasdaq) which happens to have had stratospheric growth through 2010-2020. It's a sampling bias, basically. That's not to say tech is going to stop growing through the 2020s, just that bagholding TQQQ is assuming that the Nasdaq's growth spurts will outpace its selloffs in the long run.

I would just rather hold stocks.

>>20686544

The dotcom bust would have brought it from like 7 or 8 million back below the initial investment of $10,000. It would have then gotten up to about $500,000 between the post-dot com bottom and now.

What this should tell you is that TQQQ does not recover through real crashes. This year it barely recovered to its earlier highs as the Nasdaq 100 went way higher.

>>20677213
>>20677625

Here's a good example of the risk with something like TQQQ. The NASDAQ 100 topped out at around 9750 before the crash. Its ATH post-crash was around 11000.

Meanwhile, TQQQ topped out at 119 before the crash, and only reached 125 at its highest after the crash. You were looking at a ~13% upside in the N100 and like a ~5% upside in TQQQ.

Now, neither the Nasdaq nor TQQQ are done moving for the year, and it's almost a certainty the Nasdaq will see higher highs before the election. However, it's not clear whether TQQQ will. If the Nasdaq slows, or has more tumultuous days due to troubling news and investor apathy about tech, TQQQ can see significant depreciation.

People here were posting JUST edits of Mohamed El Erian before the February/March crash. Doomposters were a laughing stock. We're not going to see another big market crash, but TQQQ's run might be over.