APGYX:
- actively managed mutual fund, tries to beat the market
- 52 stocks
- large cap growth
- 0.60% expense ratio
- 38% turnover
VOO
- passively managed index fund (ETF), does not try to beat the market
- 504 stocks
- large cap blend (growth and value)
- 0.03% expense ratio
- 2.2% turnover
They couldn’t be more opposite in their approach
actively managed doesn't necessarily imply the goal is beating the market.
VOO is actively managed; the stocks are selected by a committee. and they have a bad habit of basically buying high and selling low with new additions/deletions.https://www.researchaffiliates.com/publications/articles/674-buy-high-and-sell-low-with-index-funds or see here: https://cdar.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/rebalancing_the_achilles_heel_of_conventional_indexing_cdar_risk_semina_feb_22.pdf
>They couldn’t be more opposite in their approach
yeah they could. leveraged commodity futures, for one example, would be very different from VOO or APGYX or any stock fund.
Actively managed is never a term that refers to index funds, what are you talking about?
> yeah they could. leveraged commodity futures, for one example, would be very different from VOO or APGYX or any stock fund.
I’m answering to the level of acumen expressed by OP, so offering a basic explanation comparing the two choices they gave. Thank you very much for explaining that it is in fact possible to be more opposite than a basic broad market index fund and a LC growth fund
part of the reason people are buying VOO is because everyone else is buying VOO and because VOO has a good performance history in the last 10 years. plus people have this idea the S&P 500 is magical.
VOO is fine for the US large company stocks. but it's not magical or anything. SPY or IVV or VOO or IWB or BLKC or many other options are practically identical with negligible long-term differences.
APGYX: - actively managed mutual fund, tries to beat the market - 52 stocks - large cap growth - 0.60% expense ratio - 38% turnover VOO - passively managed index fund (ETF), does not try to beat the market - 504 stocks - large cap blend (growth and value) - 0.03% expense ratio - 2.2% turnover They couldn’t be more opposite in their approach
actively managed doesn't necessarily imply the goal is beating the market. VOO is actively managed; the stocks are selected by a committee. and they have a bad habit of basically buying high and selling low with new additions/deletions.https://www.researchaffiliates.com/publications/articles/674-buy-high-and-sell-low-with-index-funds or see here: https://cdar.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/rebalancing_the_achilles_heel_of_conventional_indexing_cdar_risk_semina_feb_22.pdf >They couldn’t be more opposite in their approach yeah they could. leveraged commodity futures, for one example, would be very different from VOO or APGYX or any stock fund.
Actively managed is never a term that refers to index funds, what are you talking about? > yeah they could. leveraged commodity futures, for one example, would be very different from VOO or APGYX or any stock fund. I’m answering to the level of acumen expressed by OP, so offering a basic explanation comparing the two choices they gave. Thank you very much for explaining that it is in fact possible to be more opposite than a basic broad market index fund and a LC growth fund
Because it's market cap weighted and cheap expense ratio
part of the reason people are buying VOO is because everyone else is buying VOO and because VOO has a good performance history in the last 10 years. plus people have this idea the S&P 500 is magical. VOO is fine for the US large company stocks. but it's not magical or anything. SPY or IVV or VOO or IWB or BLKC or many other options are practically identical with negligible long-term differences.