Why not use QQQ instead of VTI?

[zeke2020]

Noob here so please be kind.......like many people (I suspect) I've spent countless hours on portfoliovisualizer looking for some kind of holy grail. Now I am looking for less work and a good permanent portfolio. I stumbled upon http://www.lazyportfolioetf.com/ and saw the gyroscopic portfolio and was intrigued.

The portfolio they show is 60/30/10 [IEI/VTI/GLD]

But if I replace VTI by QQQ risk goes up just slightly with a much better cagr.

Indeed if I just do 70/30 [IEI/QQQ] I get a better cagr, about same risk and much lower draw down.

Am I missing something (well I know it is but what)? Why wouldn't someone do [IEI/QQQ/GLD] or [IEI/QQQ] ?

Thanks for any insights!

[Cortopassi]

Only obvious ones are yield

VTI: 1.29%
QQQ: .54%

Expenses

VTI: .03%
QQQ .2%

[mathjak107]

Qqq is to undiversified in faang for me to ever replace a diversified fund like an s&p or total market fund …I would use it the same way I may a add a bit of alpha with an extended market fund as an add on .

But never as a replacement

[zeke2020]

Thanks! So if I may what is the "optimal" permanent portfolio people are using? is it the 60/30/10 IEI VTI GLD or is there a better mix?

[EdwardjK]

zeke2020,

Read my post here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12069

[zeke2020]

Thanks. With R (free stat package) and google colab one could code what you have. There is an R package to download stocks form yahoo finance (quantmod) and calculate returns. Will try to do it over the next two weeks or so.