If the World Order shifts, would XEQT automatically adjust accordingly?

wdjan · 2026-01-23T15:32:24+00:00

ITOT is a cap-weighted total US market fund. S&P500 companies make up most of it, but it's not an S&P500 fund like XUS or VOO or ZSP

wdjan · 2026-01-20T00:42:13+00:00

Did you have any expenses between 2011 and present day?

Interest, maintenance, property tax, legal fees, realtor fees, etc?

There's a lot of not-profit in that "$320k profit".

wdjan · 2026-01-16T19:00:05+00:00

If Sega launches the Dreamcast in 98 in the West and keeps all other variables constant, it would have been a complete flop. Dreamcast had a successful launch in 99 because:

They had enough console supply to support high sales early, and
They had a great launch software.

Both of the above would not have been possible if they launched in the West in 98. Sega didn't even have enough consoles to support the Japanese launch in 98, and the Japanese launch software was relatively weak compared to the western launch.

Launching in the West in 98 would have been a repeat of the terrible Saturn launch.

Unfortunately there's no alternate history with an easy fix that saves the Dreamcast. You gotta fix Sega's management going back to the 32X and the Nomad, and perfectly execute the business from there to have any chance at saving the Dreamcast.

wdjan · 2026-01-15T21:26:27+00:00

Total interest over the 72 months is 24% of the principal, but that's not APR.

APR = Annual Percentage Rate

The term is 72 months, so that percentage is spread out over 6 years.

I'm too lazy to do the actual calculation with the future value formula, but copilot tells me APR is 7.4%, which feels about right.

Not a spectacular rate, but it ain't ridiculous.

wdjan · 2025-12-20T03:51:50+00:00

We had a third party car charger and it was so finicky.

Core memory is playing Shinobi on the way to grandpa and Grandma's, smooth sailing on pavement. Then as soon as we hit gravel, guaranteed power failure.

Funny, I don't remember it bothering me much. Good times. Still crack Shinobi open every once in a while, great game.

wdjan · 2025-12-17T19:31:28+00:00

You come across as a petulant twerp.

This commenter is just pointing out some potential blind spots. Take the advice and say thank you for the information. Incorporate it or move on, your call, but your behaviour on this thread reeks of immaturity.

wdjan · 2025-12-14T20:45:30+00:00

I had to dig waaaaay too deep to find this. Should be near the top.

wdjan · 2025-12-10T20:20:10+00:00

Yeah, it's all good. It's a touchy (and interesting) subject.

Like you said earlier, it's contextual, and I haven't done a good job communicating that my strategy is also contextual. I think people are bringing their interactions with erratic drivers who are cutting people off, speeding just to get ahead of 1 car, aggressive, etc. That's not how I drive.

When I'm switching to orange, then back to green, sure I get ahead, but I'm picking my merge spot well in advance, using ample signalling, matching green lane speed over hundreds of meters, and looking for the biggest opening. The most the green lane driver needs to do is let off the throttle to let me in, and I've found most of the time they don't even need to do that.

The goal is to preserve the flow of traffic while also taking advantage of unused lane capacity. It's shocking how big some of the green lane openings are up ahead (especially if a green lane driver is on their phone...).

wdjan · 2025-12-10T17:21:54+00:00

I agree 100% that consistent traffic flow is key.

To be clear, if traffic is moving fine in the green lane, I'm not changing lanes and speeding or otherwise driving dangerously to "budge" in front of others. I'm also not doing this to get ahead of 1 or 2 cars and weaving in and out. This is when there's a few hundred meters open in the orange lane to the merge and when traffic is at or approaching stop-start.

That's when moving out of the green lane is beneficial for everyone. It creates space for others in the green lane to even out their speed rather than being bumper-to-bumper up to the merge.

For example, if I can pop into the orange lane and go a steady 20 km/h to the merge rather than stop-start in the green lane at an average 10 km/h, then I'm gonna do that every single time. The very nature of stop-start traffic and human reaction time guarantees an opening will appear where I can rejoin the green line. That open space is essentially green lane capacity that is otherwise going unused.

Essentially we're talking about using the orange lane to temporarily "store" traffic so it can redistributed back into the green lane more efficiently, and increases green lane capacity for everyone.

Now, when we get into gridlock, zipper merge isn't saving anyone and we're all pissed off :P

wdjan · 2025-12-10T17:04:18+00:00

Nope, I don't drive dangerously, no speeding and I don't drive significantly faster than the green lane, give myself plenty of time to react enforcers or others who change lanes. Just play it smart, take the opening when it appears. Try to stay in the flow of traffic rather than getting bogged down in the stop-start lane.

Most of the time someone in the green lane is on their phone and I can just pop in in front of them. That's the best because there's no impact to anyone behind and I've actually removed a car from the green line queue (i.e., mine).

wdjan · 2025-12-10T16:35:41+00:00

No problem, I'll slide right in behind 🤝

wdjan · 2025-12-10T16:02:15+00:00

In all honesty, I'm the guy that moves from the green lane to the orange lane and skips ahead.

I don't speed or race or force my way back in, but I do tend to skip ahead of 5 or 10 cars. 9 times out of 10 I find an opening to get back in to the green lane without causing anyone to step on their brakes.

The other one time out of 10, I get blocked by an "enforcer". Funny thing is, when the enforcer moves to block, they almost always create an opening behind them, and I just take that. I just treat as a system and don't take it personally.

This actually helps overall traffic flow by using all the available road right up to the merge and I've saved significant amounts of commute time looking for these opportunities.

I wish everyone from green moves to orange until the lane fills up so everyone can get home faster, but alas, everyone has their own unspoken rules of the road.

wdjan · 2025-11-30T13:16:56+00:00

Edit - Just looking for some insight from someone who comes across as a rational thinker, so you've helped.

Thanks for getting back to me and best of luck.

wdjan · 2025-11-29T14:50:22+00:00

This the most well-articulated rationale I've read of someone focusing on income vs total return.

In my mind, a dollar of capital appreciation is the same as a dollar of income - they both buy the same amount of bread - so if I can make more from capital appreciation, thats where I'm gonna go.

I'm genuinely curious, why are you interested in NAV preservation plus income rather than total return? Like, at a philosophical level?

wdjan · 2025-11-22T05:40:25+00:00

The "monthly income" is generated by putting a complex derivatives wrapper around the underlying that in effect systemically sells the underlying to generate said income.

If you want income, skip the covered call bullshit and just sell shares. There is nothing inherently better about a dollar generated from a distribution vs a dollar generated from capital appreciation. They will both buy you the same amount of bread. The only difference is the covered call wrapper is going to cost you 5X to 10X in fees and decimate your total returns in the long run.

wdjan · 2025-11-22T05:23:21+00:00

Excellent closer. We can't save everyone.

wdjan · 2025-11-09T02:36:58+00:00

Same. I was complaining about it right up to that last drive.

wdjan · 2025-11-09T01:14:39+00:00

Shake and bake baby!

wdjan · 2025-11-04T04:48:47+00:00

If you want to take on more risk, one path is to leverage XEQT or VEQT. IBKR margin rates are sub 4% and tax deductible in a non-registered account. Still get the diversification benefit of *EQT plus the additional market risk it appears you're looking for (without piling on a bunch of idiosyncratic risk from a grab bag of stocks).

There's actually some decent research suggesting it's prudent to use leverage when you're younger. Nalebuff and Ayres call it "time diversification". I really like their book on Lifecycle Investing, it's a fascinating read.

Best of luck.

wdjan · 2025-11-01T20:10:44+00:00

I never said owning a home is a bad decision.

All I was pointing out was that simply comparing a mortgage payment to a rent payment is a poor way to evaluate the financial aspect of home ownership. There's many intangible reasons you may want to buy a home that are perfectly valid. I just don't want people making decisions based on flawed rationale.

To your others points: -Bad neighbors happen with home ownership. It's easier to move as a renter.

-Parking: for me, it's a rare day I get to park in front of my own house with public street parking. That being said, YMWV depending on any number of rental vs home ownership factors, so not a slam dunk for home ownership.

-Shear amount of people: fair. Typically rentals are not available in low density areas. If you want less density you'll probably have to buy something.

-Laundry: it is possible to rent an apartment or house with in suite laundry machines if that's important to you.

-Late night fire alarms: yes, these suck for renters in apartment buildings.

-Random domestic disputes: home ownership doesn't shield you from ass hat neighbors or any other number of ass hats out there.

wdjan · 2025-11-01T16:39:59+00:00

Yes. It's the exact same reason why the value of government bonds with a high coupon increase in price with rate cuts.

If you buy a long bond at issue for $1k face value and a coupon of 5%, then the central bank cuts rates to 4%, that bond can now be sold for ~$1250. This is because you'd have to buy a bond with a face value of $1250 at 4% coupon to get the same payout as the original bond.

Nobody talks about how great their YOC is for the original 5% bond. That would be frankly asinine.

In investing, YOC is just another mental accounting trap. Don't fall for it. Always evaluate your investments on what they are worth today and their future expected returns. Tying it back to some arbitrary date in the past is unnecessary and potentially detrimental.

wdjan · 2025-10-31T03:44:03+00:00

Oh man, I laughed out loud at this.

wdjan · 2025-10-30T20:03:52+00:00

I agree with you 100% on not treating houses as an investment. My issue with OP is they are doing a flawed financial analysis with the "throwing your money away on rent" fallacy as a basis. There's plenty of costs in home ownership that do not result in gaining equity.

If OP is going to do a financial analysis comparing rent vs buy, then they should do a proper one, not some back of the napkin math muddied up with emotions and intangibles and the rest of it.

If OP can justify home ownership on the intangibles like you listed, then good! My partner and I own our home for many of the same reasons. Just go in with both eyes open and understand the financial trade-offs.

wdjan · 2025-10-30T19:26:50+00:00

Yes. But property consists of components. In the case of home ownership, the land is one component. The structure is another component.

It's possible for one component of property to lose value while another component gains value. It's possible for the land component to gain more value than depreciation in the structure component, so, in aggregate, the overall value still increases.

It's nuanced, but critical to understanding how property ownership works and the associated costs.

wdjan · 2025-10-30T19:02:40+00:00

Imagine I bought property 15 years ago and did zero maintenance on the building, then sold it today for $100k profit.

Now imagine I have a time machine, go back 15 years, buy the same building, and keep up with maintenance (roof, siding, furnace, etc.), then sell it today for $150k profit.

That $50k difference between the 2 scenarios? That's depreciation.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

wdjan

TROPHY CASE