Subject: Re: OT: S&P versus T-Bills?
To me it's plain as the nose on your face that it makes no sense to buy a fund which is hugely overweight a few stocks unless you think you personally have a very good reason to be overweight those specific stocks at their current valuations.
...
I guess the current reason would be because that handful of stocks has been in a very strong trend. Remember: "The trend is your friend."

No argument at all. I own a few of the biggest zoomers for that very reason, which I would not plan to hold long term.

The emphasis in my post is "long term hold", which is the original reason I was suggesting QQQE for consideration. It's one main "leg" of what I suggest in my will for my spouse, for example.

The reasoning has to do with two perceived advantages
* Very low risk. The top 9 stocks are 9% of capital instead of 50% with QQQ: lower individual security risk and it can't overweight individual bubble stocks; and
* The historical data strongly suggest to me both high predictability and rapid growth of value based on trend real average earnings since 1997. Because of top heavy concentration (and arbitrary weightings and weighting changes), no such extrapolation exercise is meaningful for QQQ.

Perhaps it is just wishful thinking, but.....
The Growth Trend Timing that I use now (and didn't know about back then) had you sell on 1/7/2001 at S&P500 1318.55,...

It's true that a little bit of timing can go a long way, at least in big bears.
I put rather a lot of money into a bear fund, in both Sept and Oct 2000. That was six months after the real S&P 500 total return peaked in March 2000, but (not noticed by most people) 8 months before the real S&P 500 equal weight total return peaked in May 2001. It made me a lot of money by 2002. I was a bit slow closing it, I closed out the last bit of it in March 2003.

Jim