Comparison of SPX 500 vs Nasdaq 100:
Like Nifty 500, which covers 95% of NSE,
SPX500 is a broad based index with market cap coverage of 80% vs Nasdaq 34%, a tech heavy index.
Entirely upto investor's risk appetite in choosing between the 2 indices.
#investing
img motilal
More from India ETFs & Index Funds
Important.
Whenever you invest in Fund of funds, check the expense ratios of both the local fund & the global fund which is investing into.
e.g., Nasdaq FOF ER is 0.1%, but you have to add the ER of ETF which 0.54%, total 0.64%
Good to see AMCs like @EdelweissMF mentioning it.
Whenever you invest in Fund of funds, check the expense ratios of both the local fund & the global fund which is investing into.
e.g., Nasdaq FOF ER is 0.1%, but you have to add the ER of ETF which 0.54%, total 0.64%
Good to see AMCs like @EdelweissMF mentioning it.
When you invest in a global fund, and compare expenses across funds:
— Radhika Gupta (@iRadhikaGupta) June 22, 2021
1. Compare \U0001f34e to \U0001f34e: Total cost includes offshore fund cost plus what local AMC charges.
2. Get this data from the AMC website. Many 3rd party websites don\u2019t include underlying fund costs.
1/3
More from Etf
Important.
Whenever you invest in Fund of funds, check the expense ratios of both the local fund & the global fund which is investing into.
e.g., Nasdaq FOF ER is 0.1%, but you have to add the ER of ETF which 0.54%, total 0.64%
Good to see AMCs like @EdelweissMF mentioning it.
Whenever you invest in Fund of funds, check the expense ratios of both the local fund & the global fund which is investing into.
e.g., Nasdaq FOF ER is 0.1%, but you have to add the ER of ETF which 0.54%, total 0.64%
Good to see AMCs like @EdelweissMF mentioning it.
When you invest in a global fund, and compare expenses across funds:
— Radhika Gupta (@iRadhikaGupta) June 22, 2021
1. Compare \U0001f34e to \U0001f34e: Total cost includes offshore fund cost plus what local AMC charges.
2. Get this data from the AMC website. Many 3rd party websites don\u2019t include underlying fund costs.
1/3
You May Also Like
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.
Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.
6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices
https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x
PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.
735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices
https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ
The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.
The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.
6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices
https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x
PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.
735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices
https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ
The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.
The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.