pyguysf's comments

This is what angers me about current tech companies. They spend billions of dollars and thousands of man hours to make sure I see ads that are relevant to me (why the @#$@ have they not figured out I have never clicked on one?) I've got a glorified taxi cab service that I can order from my phone (omg!) and will be here in 5 minutes. My phone just notified me that my friend took a pictures. All while a gov that spends unknown billions monitoring all of these rather useless, non-quality of life enhancing companies.

Imagine what we could accomplish if capital/compute/mindpower resources were reallocated from showing me ads to solving something I cared about. Can we not have another cab/delivery/ad/food delivery/message/social text/video/short video/music network?

My deepest condolences to the Meyer family, I can't begin to fathom the pain and loss you must feel.

calculating ROI= (sell_price / buy_price -1 ) *100 does nothing to account for beta

congrats on launching, yet another flashy site with an unoriginal idea. been done before (and better) elsewhere, yet you failed to tackle anything that your predecessors have failed at. Investing is not just about return; the other side of the coin is risk, and you fail to mention that anywhere.

investing is more than just a buy or sell. what about position sizing? what about position risk? portfolio risk? portfolio beta? how do you benchmark? what kind of drawdown do you incur? what's your sharpe ratio? why are you not adjusting returns for at least the market, and moreso common factor returns?

rank(total_return) != investing success

Your "metrics" should be educational and make people more aware of the financial decisions they are making. By boiling it down to buy/sell recommendations, you make investing into gambling with a 50% chance of being right.

your "transparent" ranking algorithm is not disclosed anywhere - do you have any documentation that your algorithm does more than just show who made the most "money" historically? (past performance is not indicative of future performance!) are your rankings stable? how do you identify persistence?

The small cap effect has nothing to do with sectors.

If the sector is big because it has a lot of medium/small sized constituents you gain from this implementation because a cap weighted index would under allocate to these smaller names.

In the broader topic of portfolio management, equal weighting will outperform cap weighting due to the small cap effect (read up on Fama-French three factor model). tldr: historically small caps outperform large caps.

In this case, the equal weighting is abstracted away by 1 layer - each ETF is already cap weighted, so you aren't getting the full effect of equal weighting. Instead, you're reallocating to the ETF that has underperformed relative to all others, so as already pointed out, you are betting on reversion rather than momentum.

Yes, the rationale is to maintain equal sector exposures across your portfolio.

You are correct that it is basically recreates an S&P index fund, but so is the EQL etf, and people have put $125M in it and pay 0.5%/year. I think this is more proof of a) how to recreate something that is already out there for cheaper, and b) the framework for customizing something to your own investment strategy. Maybe you don't need all 11 ETFs under there, maybe you just want Tech+Energy+Fin and you equal weight those - they're giving you the framework you just have to customize it to your needs.

I'm in the same boat as you. Mail on my phone hardly even shows up at this point...

because pictures of ocean must be otherwise incredibly popular.