Tag: scalablecapital

---

Update after over 3 years of experience with Scalable Capital please click here!

Update after more than 2 years of experience with Scalable Capital as well as quirion please click here!

This month, my investment at Scalable Capital celebrates its first birthday; Time to take a closer look at the performance so far. I have already reported on initial experiences with Scalable Capital and the situation surrounding Brexit. Since then, I have looked in from time to time, but saw no reason for action, even though the news on the stock markets had almost come thick and fast since then and the worst was expected. But it didn’t turn out so badly, on the contrary, the stock markets celebrate price gains without end.

The DAX 30 is up 27.6% in this one year, the Dow Jones 30 is up 18.7%. And Scalable Capital?

• Time-weighted yield: 4.40%
• Simple Return: 3.56%

With an equity component of 33%, the result is at least surprising. The lion’s share of my investment was pushed by the Scalable Capital algorithm into corporate bonds (41%), more than 1/3 of my money is in corporate bonds in Europe. A defensively but actively managed fund such as Allianz Kapital Plus had a return of 4.1% in that year, although fees would still have to be deducted here. Another product from the same company, also an actively managed fund, but much more aggressive, Allianz Global Insights, manages 21.5%. Of course, this is not comparable.

With an investment strategy of 10% VaR, it was clear to me that this was not an aggressive strategy. But I would have liked a little more in the current environment, the equity component would have had to give that “felt”.

By the way, I was also at an event of Scalable Capital here in Hamburg, and I already had question marks about some of the professor’s slides (EDIT: These could be cleared up at another meeting). On the other side, a pensioner sat next to me who said that he couldn’t get the grin off his face, even though he had invested in the most aggressive investment strategy.

For me, this means that I will stay with Scalable Capital, but I will withdraw some money again, because it can be a little more performance. A year is of course an extremely short time, depending on how you act on the stock market.

Here is the update with a comparison between Quirion and Scalable Capital.

By the way, if you sign up for Scalable Capital via this link, you and I will get a small bonus 🙂

Comments (since February 2020 the comment function has been removed from my blog):

Markus says 10. May 2017 at 12:50 Thank you for one of the few who post honest, self-made experiences here. With all the accessible Scalable messages, I thought I was the only one who got more and more doubts about the concept. Since the beginning of the year, I have been running a private competition with my own invested money and compare the following strategies in terms of risk and return:

• Scalable Capital, VaR 15%
• Funds ETF (i.e. similarly broadly diversified and ETF-automated concept, but with only one trivial adjustment: reset to initial allocation 1 x per year)
• Own stock picking with shares and bonus certificates

Current interim status: Scalable: 1.7% FundsETF: 3.57% Own picking: 9%

Even if I look at the volatility or mutual dependencies (e.g. by how much does Scalable fall/rise if MSCI or EuroStoxx or my umbrella ETF falls by x%), Scalable is currently far behind. I do not presume to have the best investor knowledge as a layman and to pat myself proudly on the back because of the interim status. Also, 5 months is not too long a time, my comparison ends at the end of the year. But Scalable is slowly allowed to “get going”, because the intermediate result is not convincing in any case.

Scalable Capital says 10. May 2017 at 18:23 Hello Mr. Alby,

Thank you very much for your experience report and the trust you have placed in us for more than a year now.

In order to be able to compare the performance of your investment, you should always put it in relation to the risk taken. Basically, risk is your “price” for long-term returns. Risk-adjusted, a good result was therefore achieved.

In the past, the risk category you have chosen 10% Value-at-Risk (VaR) corresponded to a portfolio that contained an average of 69% bonds, 23% equities, 3% real estate, 3% commodities and 2% overnight money, making it one of our lower-risk investment strategies. By comparison, German government bonds had a median VaR of 5% between 1997 and 2016 and the DAX had a median VaR of 39% (see https://de.scalable.capital/anlagestrategien/sicherer-als-der-dax/).

Of course, you could also have invested in a DAX ETF and “gone to sleep”, as you described in one of your blog posts. In reality, however, this is often not so easy. Especially when you consider that the DAX crashed by 73% from March 2000 to March 2003 and by 55% from July 2007 to March 2009. At the beginning of 2016, the DAX only needed a few weeks to lose almost 20% of its value. Hand on heart: Would you have been able to continue sleeping with such severe price slumps?

Active risk management pays off in such market phases in particular, as your portfolio is continuously monitored and dynamically adapted to the market environment in order to meet your risk target. The equity component you mentioned is therefore not an average, but your previous high. In the days before the EU referendum in the UK, your equity stake was just 9%, at the beginning of January it was 19% and now, as you described, it is 33%. That’s why a comparison with a fund like Allianz Kapital Plus is always difficult, as it has a higher average equity component (approx. 30%) and is also not managed according to your risk specification and thus fluctuates with the market risk.

Investors who are aiming for equity-like returns (7 to 8% p.a.) simply have to take higher risks and thus be able to withstand higher fluctuations and intermittent periods of loss at the same time. For example, our 25% VaR category corresponds to the long-term risk of loss of a broadly diversified equity portfolio, such as the MSCI World. Of course, you can adjust your risk category at any time and thus change your risk profile. We would be happy to talk to you.

Finally, we are of course sorry if our co-founder Prof. Mittnik did not leave a positive impression on you. But we can assure you that he is a very open and warm person. A little academic social incompetence should not be confused with arrogance in professors.

Best regards, Your Scalable Capital Team

Tom Alby says 10. May 2017 at 19:41 Dear Scalable Capital Team,

Thank you very much for your reply. I already knew most of it and had also mentioned it in this or the other articles about my experiences. Risk and opportunity cannot be had without each other, of course, I’m not a complete beginner, and such a marketing answer doesn’t really help me. I had “felt” expected something in the higher single-digit range of performance. It is also clear to me that a double-digit value is not realistic. The question that arises to me is, how is the average prediction of performance ever to be achieved if the highs in the markets are not at least somewhat taken along? Because if I do the math, even the average value is extremely optimistic.

Academic social incompetence, that’s probably a cliché… Maybe Prof. Mittnik still remembers my wife and me when the lecture took place in Hamburg at the Riverside, because we had gotten him a beer after his lecture, but let all the other participants take precedence in the questions. And then I was ironed out a bit when I asked my question about the statistical procedure, especially the low correlation coefficient (something below 0.3 if I remember correctly, of course I’m not a statistics professor, I work with statistical methods, and the statement, “yes, that already fits with the question” was a bit unsatisfactory for me). But I didn’t want to argue academically in front of the other participants, I just wanted to understand. It doesn’t matter what impression someone leaves, for me only results count. And I can interpret them better if I understand more.

By the way, I’m still convinced of the idea. I had also searched for the possibility to change the investment strategy in the app, but did not find it. Or is the expectation that I will open a second portfolio and choose a higher risk there? Anyway, trust has suffered after a year. My financial advisor competed against Scalable Capital, same briefing, minimize risk, wanted only 1%, let’s see what results he presents. Man against machine.

Best regards

TA

Dr.Frank Billand says 13. May 2017 at 16:50 Very interesting discussion between Mr. Alby and Scalable, which I can understand well as someone with also one year of experience! My first portfolio since April 2016 is a defensive one with a VaR factor of 10, i.e. mainly bonds. The performance here with a time-weighted 4.4% is acceptable. At the beginning of the year, however, I decided to tighten the risk screw to the maximum of 25% and invested 20 thousand EUR here on 10.1.17. This includes an equity component of 80%, so one would think that in view of the despite Trump & Co (or because of it?), such an investment should perform decently. The MSCI Global has gained 6% since the beginning of the year, UniGlobal, a global equity fund, 6.4%. And my Scalable VaR 25% portfolio? Time-weighted and simple return: 2.7%, in Euro 490.00. And 4 months is of course too short for the assessment of an investment strategy. However, for me, the competence of the roboadvisor, especially in equity-dominated portfolios, is now under increased scrutiny. By the way, at the same time as the presentation of Scalable in Hamburg, that of a competitor took place: Liqid, where the participants were treated very friendly …

Tom Alby says 13. May 2017 at 16:58 Please don’t get me wrong, overall the colleagues from Scalable came across as sympathetic, it was only about the situation with the content question, where I was disappointed.

How could you turn up the risk screw? Manually or through support contact?

Frank Billand says 13. May 2017 at 17:43 Opening of a 2nd portfolio !

Scalable Capital says 15. May 2017 at 08:32 Hello,

You can change the risk category of your existing portfolio at any time, just send an e-mail to our service team. The opening of a second portfolio is not necessary for this.

Best regards and have a nice week Your Scalable Capital team

OutPerformer says 10. August 2017 at 12:07 Hallo,

I found this forum in search of meaningful, credible, comparable statements from investors at Scalable Capital on the performance of their portfolio there and would like to submit my personal experience report, as of 09.8.2017

Opening time: approx. Beginning of Mar 2017 VAR: 20% Investment amount: low 5-digit range Time-weighted return: – 3.46% Days with positive return achieved: none

This performance is simply subterranean in view of a VAR of 20% chosen from the beginning – after all, the sixth highest risk class – a consistent equity component of 75-80% and against the background of repeatedly reached record highs for the Dow during this time, a temporary record high for the Dax and an otherwise not negative stock market environment from March to August 2017.

I have therefore already stopped making ongoing payments. At the moment, I am monitoring the portfolio very closely in the hope of being able to minimize or completely eliminate the loss generated, but in view of the stock market environment, which is currently deteriorating for political reasons, and the miserable performance so far, I am skeptical whether this will be feasible in the near future. If it is foreseeable that this cannot succeed, I will pull the ripcord.

Conclusion: Despite a high risk class and moderate to good stock market performance, none so far! of over 150 portfolio days, an overall positive return in the Scalable portfolio. Only losses, costs and fees.

Disappointed investor says 23. August 2017 at 11:12 Thank you very much for the really interesting discussion.

The advice on the part of Scalable Capital, but taking a higher risk seems to be correct in theory. However, if you look at Scalable Capital’s performance in this area, you unfortunately have to conclude that it is very disappointing.

I’ve been with Scalable Capital for about 9 months now. To do this, I chose the highest risk category: 25% VAR. This results in an equity allocation of approx. 85%. One would now think that I was able to achieve a very good return here because of the risk I took.

Unfortunately, as of today, with a portfolio of a good €14,000, I’m up no less than €84! In the last few days even in the red. And this with the supposedly riskiest and most profitable variant. This corresponds to a time-seen return of approx. 1.5%. In part, I contributed to this return myself by using up a decent part of the tax exemption for this.

Whether you compare SC with the DAX, MSCI World or even with other roboadvisors in the real money test: Scalable Capital simply performs significantly worse.

Of course, one can / will argue that the observation period is too short. I’m not sure if I really want to try this though…

You can be a test winner, you can have great people on board and you can win over interesting shareholders: in the end, the truth lies in the performance!

I look forward to a continued interesting discussion.

Tom Alby says August 23, 2017 at 12:08 I am in the plus with my first portfolio, as I said with 10% VaR, but also a longer period of time. I have now also opened a second portfolio with 20% VaR, so the period is too short to say anything about it, not to mention that the environment is nervous right now thanks to Trump & Co. Opening a second portfolio was easy, only for shifting from portfolio 1 to 2 you have to sell first and get the money on the current account, which then has to go back for portfolio 2.

I’ve now also started a portfolio at Quirion, it’s just a shame that they don’t have an app…

SuperPerfomer says August 23, 2017 at 21:14 I’m in the same situation as OutPerformer. I’ve also been there since March, with 20% VaR and even (unfortunately) with a higher five-digit amount. Result so far: minus 3.6 percent. That’s really bitter. Especially since Scalable still charges me almost 50 euros every month. In my opinion, the n.m.E. should rather only do this when the portfolio is in the plus overall. Debiting fees for burning money is somehow not so confidence-building I will probably reduce my deposit to the minimum amount now. And then it’s better to replicate Scalable’s ETF weighting on a custody account with a low-cost online broker and adjust it monthly. There hasn’t been much restructuring so far anyway.

Tom Alby says 23. August 2017 at 22:07 I think a commission only on a success basis is an interesting, but probably not very viable idea. And let’s imagine that possibly more money would have been lost without Scalable Capital, then that would also be worth money, wouldn’t it?

The few months are too little time to really form an opinion.

By the way, with a fee of €50 per month, you can calculate what money SuperPerformer has invested

Frank says 31. August 2017 at 14:57 I also invested there and will cancel my account again. As a safe part of the portfolio, I have 33 percent bonds. But nothing is more capital-destroying than bonds in the next few years with rising interest rates. My largest bond item consists of iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF dis . No normal investor would buy long-term bonds in times of rising interest rates. If at all, then with a short term. No wonder the portfolio performs so poorly. I also have raw materials in my depot. Another loss-maker. I have now made -3.7 percent in half a year with a risk of 15%. Unfortunately, I don’t see any advantage over a purely passive portfolio so far, such as the Arero fund. It has only managed a minus of 2.8% in the last 6 months. So as a conclusion I would say, a lot of marketing and not much behind it.

Diego says 10. September 2017 at 12:38 Hallo Frank,

Note that the “iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF dis” is also an ETF. Like all other ETFs, it is also traded on trading days. Therefore, the maturities of the bonds on which the ETF is based are actually irrelevant. Ultimately, only your desired risk is mapped in the portfolio here.

For a meaningful evaluation, 6 months is probably not enough. And 3.7% loss is still well below the 15% accepted value at risk.

Diego

lex says 14. September 2017 at 16:41 .. it would be interesting to see the portfolios, or the reallocations in the time expiration — for me as a pot. attachment this would be essential – but this is deliberately concealed – a great marketing department, but basically only all wine in new skins is produced with gig. Advertising effort tries to bring to the “customers”

Tom Alby says 14. September 2017 at 17:30 I can’t confirm that, what’s old wine about it? The reallocations can be seen completely transparently in the app. In the second portfolio, which I opened at the beginning of August, for example, 4 positions were sold again from the initial stock and 2 new ones were bought, and I can see exactly what it was. Where did you get your information that this would not be the case?

Lieschen Müller says 27. September 2017 at 07:06 Isn’t it primarily a matter of determining the right weighting between high-risk (equities, HY, EMD, commodities) and low-risk (government bonds, cash) investments? What exactly does Scalable do during the year? This year you are inevitably lagging behind, because there were no big volunteers/slumps.

Wolfgang Ludewig says 17. October 2017 at 11:13 Dear people! I joined Scalable in June of this year. The 20,000 euros I used now stand at 20,008 euros. I will probably also get fees etc. deducted from this. Apart from the fact that I have been working for over 2 (sic!!) weeks waiting for the payout, the performance is subterranean. At the same time as using Scalable, I have an ETF for the MDAX and one for the TecDAX. The MDAX ETF is now up 6%, the TecDax is up 13.3%. In view of this experience, I can only say one thing: Stay away from RoboAdvisors! I should have let Naruto, the selfie monkey, choose the stocks…

Tom Alby says 17. October 2017 at 11:49 Wolfgang, since June is MUCH too short for an assessment! You also don’t say which VaR category you’re in. For example, I have had a plus of 3.15% in my 20% VaR portfolio since August. But see also my post about the comparison to others…

Wolfgang Ludewig says 17. October 2017 at 23:23 My VAaR portfolio was at 22%. And at the same time as I joined Scalable, I entered the TecDax and MDAX on 8.6. And this is only to make a comparison in terms of development. In addition, I have been in the business for years and with the exception of the Deutsche Bank share, my commitment is a unique success story. At Allianz, for example, there is a decent dividend per year and my ETF-Dax is also not accumulating, but distributing (four times a year). That adds up to a lot. The following article from the WELT is also interesting: https://www.welt.de/finanzen/geldanlage/article169586876/Dieser-Dax-haette-uns-alle-reich-gemacht.html If you are not impressed by the crash prophets, then you can assume a DAX level of 15000-16000 in 2020. I recommend everyone to make a comparison with their own portfolio and that of Scalable. Since I read the following article, I have entered two DAX ETFs: http://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/anlagestrategie/fonds-etf/indexfonds-buffett-bevorzugt-es-einfach-und-guenstig/10174932.html And Buffett is right. The market as a whole beats each individual stock. The hedge fund manager has no chance in the bet against Buffett. It’s that simple. But you also have to choose the right ETFs!!!!

Tom Alby says 18. October 2017 at 09:55 Dear Wolfgang, but that’s exactly what you can’t compare. Because Scalable is about making less loss when it goes down. Please don’t compare apples with oranges.

Skeptiker says 20. October 2017 at 07:35 Hallo,

I don’t understand why you use an (automated) “asset manager” at all. In my opinion, only unnecessary costs. Everyone can build up a portfolio according to their own risk appetite by combining different ETFs. Then just buy and hold. Simple and cost-effective. Why give away 0.75% of my assets to a third party every year? If you have read Gerd Kommer and take the magazine into your own hands, you can do without Scalable.

Tom Alby says 20. October 2017 at 11:14 Not everyone has read Gerd Kommer, and even if I did, I would still have to deal with the topic continuously. According to your argumentation, I would have to do a lot of things myself if I just kept myself up to date. But you can’t be an expert in everything

Wolfgang Ludewig says 21. October 2017 at 20:39 Dear Tom!

Now we are at the point. Scalable is good when it goes down. Yes!

But at the moment and continue to go up!!!

http://www.focus.de/finanzen/boerse/marktanalyse-dax-2020-22-067-punkte_id_6058159.html

And let it be 17000 from me in 2020. That’s still okay!

And now something very crucial: Take a look at the historical Dax!

http://www.finanzen.net/index/DAX/Hochtief

Let’s take the Lehmann bankruptcy: The Dax lost 40% in 2008, i.e. almost half of its value.

Year-end: 4810.

And 7 years later it stands at 10743 at the end of the year (2015).

In other words, in the long term, things are looking up!!!! And that is crucial.

And when I exit with my ETFs in 2020, I can only say one thing: The party is over for me and I have achieved much more than with Scalable.

I hope that’s okay with you!

Tom Alby says 23. October 2017 at 21:01 Dear Wolfgang,

so if Scalable is really good when it goes down, we don’t know yet, because it hasn’t really gone down yet, but if it works, and I assume it does, then that’s exactly what I need. I have respect for anyone who dares to sort it all out themselves. I know my limits

markus says 15. January 2018 at 16:12 Also my experiences briefly at this point: With 22%VaR (and in the meantime exit) I come to around 10% return. No reason for dissatisfaction, but also no reason for enthusiasm, because after all, the share share is 80%. A portfolio at Whitebox has yielded more with substantially lower trading activity. In the end, does the motto apply: Back and forth empties pockets? However, it will probably only become interesting when prices collapse.

Dorothe says 29. January 2018 at 16:05 Hi, unfortunately I also fell for the great recommendations (were probably faked). Have achieved a return of 3.97 so far, at 20% VaR, which I find subterranean. I have already reduced the capital and will probably withdraw the rest. The justifications are embarrassing, such as the weakness of the dollar. This should be compensated for by active management… I don’t see yet what I should pay the fees for. I don’t want to see the crash and Scalable’s reaction mentioned above

Tom Alby says 29. January 2018 at 17:16 Hey Dorothe, I can’t confirm that. 6.66% since summer last year.

SvenAbel says 2. February 2018 at 14:30 Hello bin after almost a year and deduction of the costs under 1% at 10VaR would like to exchange with 6.66% (-; Greetings Sven

Steffen says 3. February 2018 at 13:31 I also fell for it, invested 3 weeks ago and am already several thousand euros in the red. Then deducting the fees was the worst decision of my life.

Despite the loss, I will withdraw everything again and see what can still be saved.

Never again.

Julian says 5. February 2018 at 22:22 Hello, I’ve been here for 3 months now (in the highest risk variant) and quite disappointed, even if it’s probably too short to have a final opinion. With rising stock indices, my investment has laboriously increased by just under 3 percent, only to fall back to minus 4.8 percent in the last two weeks. It felt like there was a disproportionate profit during the stock market rise and a disproportionate loss of value when prices fell, without any countermeasures by the program being recognizable. I am particularly irritated by the fact that when funds flow into the custodial account during the downturn, the program is immediately invested in equity ETFs instead of waiting for a favorable time

Roman says 6. February 2018 at 12:35 It’s going down and right now it’s getting much more interesting for the Scalable residents, whether the roboadvisor really “advises” well.

Roger says 6. February 2018 at 16:17 Well, the crash is here now. My Scalable Depot is currently down 7%. No position has been sold so far and it continues to go down from hour to hour. I regret that I didn’t get out on Monday, so I would have minimized the losses more significantly. A year ago, the portfolio entered with 15%VaR, the portfolio has since been +2.5%, but not higher. If no significant profits are achieved in the positive stock market environment, how is Scalable supposed to manage to end up in the plus again from -7% now?

How has your portfolio developed in the last few days, has Scalable reacted to the current market development with any action?

Bernd says 8. February 2018 at 12:38 Hello

Have my portfolio since October 2016 15VaR to date Depot balance plus minus 0 Thought the strength of Scalable was sinking stock markets. As a layman, I would have reduced the stocks earlier. I have the impression that the timing and risk management doesn’t work that way.

Frank says 9. February 2018 at 15:58 Hello everyone,

I think the concept that exists on the part of the founders (a few failed(?) former Goldman Sachs employees) is brilliant.

I invest the customers’ money in different risk classes and collect my millions in fees every year, you can’t earn money easier and faster.

To those who have invested money here, my deepest condolences.

Verwundert says 13. February 2018 at 15:30 Before choosing a certain investment strategy, you should first think about what goals you are pursuing! Scalable is certainly not a strategy that should be judged or even phased out after three or six months. That’s ridiculous! What did you think, what kind of price developments you have with a manageable risk in the short time? Scalable should be seen as a long-term investment, e.g. for retirement provision, and not as a short-term money generation. My portfolio leaves a lot to be desired after 6 months, but that’s no wonder at the moment. I’m curious to see what it will look like in 3-5 years. I remain optimistic!

Liqui says February 13, 2018 at 21:27 the reasons why I chose a roboadvisor are simple.

– Low costs for ETFs – An active managed custody account around the clock. – Fast reaction times to stock and index movements. – More time for other topics.

I opened the securities account with a 20% risk at the end of the month, 01.2018. The DAX was just before 13500 points. By the time the account was opened and the deposit was received, the Dax was already below 13000 points. Scalable Capitel began to buy heavily on Friday 02.02 or to invest the full amount. (Why the full amount is invested in this environment, well who knows) Ok I thought to myself, the Dax has fallen by 600 points and the signs are still in the red, I wouldn’t have done it but the professionals will know. How the DAX developed in the following week should not have escaped anyone’s notice. The DAX has lost another 700-1000 points. At the time of investment and at the present time 13.02, the DAX has lost 800 points, which in my case would correspond to a theoretical loss of 6.2%. Ok, now the portfolio is actively managed and spread over bonds and stock ETFs, so the losses should be limited?

“Dada” the portfolio even manages a 6.8% loss.

Sure, I’m aware of the relationship between loss and risk, but the fact that an actively managed portfolio performs even worse than the reference indices really makes me smile. I wanted to get to know Scalable Capitel and gain experience of how Scalable acts and acts, but the fact that my opinion is completed so quickly surprised me.

P.s: Anyone who followed the opinions and assessment of the “experts” last week has heard again and again that electronic trading is responsible for the strong price fluctuations because they sell on certain indicators. Well, now I wonder where the roboadvisor belongs, because in my case it has not carried out a single transaction and thus took the full setback with it and in the event of a recovery of the markets, there is now no cash available that can be used again.

All very strange 

Tom Alby says 13. February 2018 at 23:35 I see it exactly the same way as “Surprised”. And I actually see differences in the movements of my two portfolios.

Gerald says 24. February 2018 at 16:54 Similar experiences, as expressed in this blog, are probably made by everyone who has his money managed by others. They charge a fee for investing our money in funds that also charge their fees/surcharges. If you want to do better, you have to take care of it yourself! So make up your own mind, e.g. the exhaust gas discussion at the moment (» who offers solutions? Not everyone wants to sell their car…) or the fact that there is an abundance of money in the market, but hardly any returns can be achieved (“Dividends as shares or funds are in demand”) or the increasing fear of war worldwide (“Defense technology is increasingly in demand”). These are only mental examples, not recommendations! Those who act according to such own specifications will almost always have better results than asset management.

Erik Podzuweit says 25. February 2018 at 19:23 Hallo Liqui,

My name is Erik Podzuweit and I am one of the founders of Scalable Capital.

Your assumption “Fast reaction times to stock and index movements” is not correct. Risk management is not day trading. Rather, the risk is managed in the medium and long term, i.e. the investor should achieve a better risk-return ratio with the strategy over an investment period of several years (i.e. the same return as equivalent investments with lower risk).

The Scalable system deliberately does not react to enormously short-term risks and price slumps. This would lead to the fact that larger positions would have to be liquidated immediately after each correction. Such trading is equivalent to a stop-loss strategy, but it has been proven to be disadvantageous for a long-term investment strategy (as it is enormously path-dependent). It is always sold as soon as a short-term loss has occurred. Immediate, hectic trading is not risk management but is also referred to as “noise trading”, i.e. nervous, daily trading not due to recognizable changes to another risk regime, but due to undifferentiable “noise”. We only act when there is a real risk trend. This was simply not (yet) the case with the correction at the beginning of February, because at its peak, the VIX volatility index rose abruptly to 37.3 points, but then fell back below the 20-point mark. This roughly corresponds to its historical average. The rapid recovery in the weeks that followed therefore proves this approach rather right.

In addition, a general point that is often misunderstood when investing in the capital market: no investment method and no algo can predict developments with certainty – especially not short-term ones. It is always a matter of determining probabilities and deriving sensible investment decisions from them. In the capital markets, a good, sensible strategy is one that offers me an advantage with a probability of over 50% (e.g. 60%). However, this in turn means that – even if you do the right/sensible thing – you can look worse in 4 out of 10 years (e.g. compared to a simple buy & hold strategy). That’s just the game we are in.

Best regards Erik

MarcelHH says March 16, 2018 at 14:16 @ Tom Alby first of all thank you for the post and also the discussion about it. Since Scalable is currently being advertised by Diba, I was interested in experience.

I think the hint of “surprised” is decisive, you should just be aware of your strategy. The attempt to optimize the risk is not new in theory, even if questionable in my eyes. Markets simply react rationally to a limited extent. But of course you can try.

If you want to get there with 10% fluctuations, you should not have any illusions about generating large returns in phases of low interest rates. Especially not after deducting 0.75% management fees. Even ETFs on the DAX have a volatility of over 10%, the Deka DAX Ucitf is just under 20% over 10 years!. Even MSCI World ETFs are around 10%.

Basically, I think risk optimization makes sense to preserve value. Especially if you already have a high fortune. However, this is contradicted by the relatively high fee of 0.75%. If the return is low, there is hardly anything left after taxes.

Without risk, there is currently 0.4% on overnight money. That makes about 0.3% after taxes. If you add the 0.75% fees, you are at 1.05% after tax. So 1.4% before taxes. And this in comparison to overnight money, which is available at any time and does not fluctuate in value. If you are looking for long-term value retention, you can get 0.75% for 12 months or even 1.46% on fixed deposits (Crédit Agricole Consumer Finance, 84 months). For this, Scalable would have to generate an average of 2.46%, which is possible, but not guaranteed. Right now. If interest rates rise again, it remains the case that you have to earn at least 1% more. Actually, much more, because it is more volatile.

If you follow Mr. Potzuweit, you tend to change portfolios in the medium to long term. Which certainly makes sense. But it also makes it easy for investors to replicate this completely and buy ETFs themselves.

When it comes to the highest possible performance, the question is whether risk optimization really makes sense in the medium to long term if you pay 0.75% after tax for it. So far, there is no long-term proof of success. How well mathematical risk optimization works in case of doubt remains speculation. In hindsight, it’s always easy to see what could have been optimized. How meaningful is it for the future? Good question.

The basic idea certainly sounds good, that you rely on very cheap ETFs is a big plus. This means that even with your own fee, you are still well below the costs of many funds. Whether you can really achieve an advantage over self-investment remains to be seen. In my opinion, you pay primarily for the convenience of having to take care of unsuitable ETFs yourself. Which is ok.

Due to the high minimum deposit, I as an investor would find it sensible to cap the fees, and it would also be desirable to divide them into fixed fees and proportionate to the return generated.My personal conclusion is that I would prefer to invest directly in the ETFs used by Scalable. In addition, there is still some thrill with stick picking.

But I’m curious to see what the medium-term experience is in terms of returns.

Tierfreund says 27. March 2018 at 20:01 Hello investors, I have also entrusted Scalable with part of my money, invested for many years and I look occasionally. Anyone who has ever looked at a self-managed portfolio every day knows that this is exhausting and if every day why not at the start of the Nikkei and then 9 a.m. Dax and then the Americans and then ? Read Thaleb to find out how this can disrupt the quality of life. So only invest money that you can really do without, take sleeping pills … Kostolany or Buffet doesn’t matter, if you don’t understand the return forecast, which is nicely presented in a graph, you should keep your hands off Scalable, you will be disappointed. Then it’s better to finance a great experience and reap the mental return.

Hunter says 17. May 2018 at 21:20 I am now also invested for 1 year. Result [minus] –1% at 10% Var. The equity allocation is currently around 30%. While the rest was mainly invested in bonds. I also don’t want to jump to conclusions after 1 year, but I still find the performance weak. At the time, I opened another portfolio at Fintego for comparison (in a comparable risk class) and is now at 4.5%. Fintego is certainly not comparable, because it is not actively managed. Apart from the rebalancing, they don’t do much. But maybe that’s sometimes more than the approach taken by Scalable? Happy 2 discuss.

Micha says 29. May 2018 at 20:28 Well, my experiences with Scalable are also “mixed”. I started at the end of January 17 and increased within two months. VaR 20 it is. Before the Mini Crash in January 18, I had achieved a return of max. 5 percent. In the meantime, I’m at 3.5 percent over the entire period. My second portfolio with VaR 15, which I closed in April 17, was only positive for a short time, so I have now canceled it. I will invest the money on my own in what I consider to be suitable ETFs with a buy and hold strategy and save the fee. Somehow I had expected more and the trade press also rated others better in comparisons with other Robos. I’ll let the VaR 20 run for now. If necessary, I will also change it to “manual”. Thank God there is a lot of good and understandable literature on the subject, so you can do it yourself to some extent. I don’t know whether this risk strategy brings any real advantage after deducting the fees.

Tom Alby says 31. May 2018 at 23:16 I think that this period is a bit too short to really draw conclusions…

Behrens says 7. June 2018 at 07:56 I invested 50,000€ with 15% risk just under a year ago. The comparison with my own Portofilio with approx. (1/3 non-valued tangible assets) 1/3 private loans/ international bonds, 1/3 shares is very much in favor of my investments. Scalabel return: minus 1.53% Return on own investments in solid international equities/bonds over the same period: +8.9%. Result: I take care of my assets completely myself again, Scalabel terminated and continue to invest in solid countries outside the euro. I am now curious how long the transfer from the Scalabel account to my reference account will take.

Sven says 14. June 2018 at 05:08 Yesterday, as expected, the FED raised interest rates. Not quite expected, but certainly anticipated or feared: It was also indicated that there will be a total of four instead of three increases this year. SC is shifting into US real estate on such a day. As a result, this ETF immediately loses significantly, almost 3%. Any halfway experienced investor would have simply waited for the decision. Why doesn’t the algorithm take such decision days into account? Seems to me to be an annoying weakness (VAR 25),

Jürgen says 16. June 2018 at 14:48 I’ve been with SC for exactly one year now. This has just led to the dismissal. With a VaR of 23%, a time-weighted return of 1.49% after 12 months. Pretty skinny in my opinion. It was said that a robo has its strengths in turbulent times. At the end of Jan/beginning of Feb, this turbulence then occurred with a significant correction worldwide. My portfolio at SC has taken this correction with it without damping. Only when a bottom was formed was there a massive shift from equities to government bonds (up to 27%). The subsequent upward phase was then abandoned, as it was only gradually shifted back into equities. Among the major indices, only the EuroStoxx is slightly negative in terms of annual performance. With the exception of the Dax (only approx. +2.7%), the MDAX, SDAX, TecDAX, Dow, Nasdaq, S&P500 are at approx. 15% to 27%. I will rather invest the money in selected ETF ́s that focus on future topics.

Jürgen says 16. June 2018 at 18:21 I’ve been at SC for exactly one year now. This has just led to the dismissal. With a VaR of 23%, a time-weighted return of 1.49% after 12 months. Pretty skinny in my opinion. It was said that a robo has its strengths in turbulent times. At the end of Jan/beginning of Feb, this turbulence then occurred with a significant correction worldwide. My portfolio at SC has taken this correction with it without damping. Only when a bottom was formed was there a massive shift from equities to government bonds (up to 27%). The subsequent upward phase was then abandoned, as it was only gradually shifted back into equities. Among the major indices, only the EuroStoxx is slightly negative in terms of annual performance. With the exception of the Dax (only approx. +2.7%), the MDAX, SDAX, TecDAX, Dow, Nasdaq, S&P500 are at approx. 15% to 27%. I will prefer to invest the money in selected ETF ́s that focus on future themes.

Walter says 20. June 2018 at 08:46 I have also been with SC for almost a year now and can only agree with my “previous speaker” Jürgen. For my term, there is indiscriminate restructuring here. Apparently, you have never heard of the old stock market rule “back and forth empties pockets”. Now some of the recently purchased government bonds have just been sold. At a loss, of course.

Capote says 24. June 2018 at 16:11 I am amazed again and again! The two largest German banks, DIE DEUTSCHE BANK and COMMERZBANK, which have everything you can imagine in terms of skilled personnel, computers, risk management and do not have to pay “management fees”, “custody fees”, “issue fees” and whatever it is called, and only make losses, losses and more losses. Then three people come along, set up an asset management company and claim that you can do that, unlike the big banks. Everyone is allowed to think his part.

Tom Alby says 26. June 2018 at 18:12 I would like to intervene. Just because something has always been done that way doesn’t mean it’s good in today’s world. We see that in many other industries. AirBnB does not have a single bed of its own, but it does have an immense number of beds. See also Spotify, News, etc. Something is changing. And even though I’m not enthusiastic about everything SC does, I still have confidence in the founders.

Micha says 6. July 2018 at 07:48 So, now I would like to talk about my post from the end of May. In the meantime, Scalable has made another restructuring of my VaR 20 portfolio. The equity component has increased again by almost 10 percent. Whether this makes sense in times of higher volatility I leave open to question. The total return for the last 17 months is now an exorbitant 0 percent. Taking into account the past return development and a direct comparison with a smaller amount at Growney (which is a 2 percent return), I ended the Scalable savings plan a month ago. It’s all running in ETFs at Onvista now. I will consider by the end of the year whether I want to withdraw completely from Scalable. The 0% total development from the end of January 2017 until now does not make me optimistic in this regard. Even if the founders of Scalable seem trustworthy, it is more important what comes out in the end.

Mike says July 11, 2018 at 16:50 I’ve been with SC for exactly 9 months now and my “return” (VAR 24%) is currently MINUS 2.6% (!). This is really an absolute joke. The only thing that always works well is the debiting of the fees for this outstanding service. The ever-present “wealth planner” on my homepage is also a sheer mockery, in the meantime I would be happy if I could get back to 0% returns…

Julian says July 12, 2018 at 18:55 After I expressed my dissatisfaction here in February, I have now pulled the ripcord and, after analyzing the individual positions, removed Scalable’s management of the ETF. The following example, which is incomprehensible to me, was particularly decisive (security: ISHSIII-EO COV. BD EO DIS): on 12.06.2018 3 shares of Scalable were sold at a price of 153.753686 EUR at a loss and the next day 1 piece was bought back at 154.019576 EUR at a higher price.

Micha says July 23, 2018 at 14:21 And another addition to my thoughts from July 6: After careful consideration and review of the movements, I will not wait until the end of the year. However, I don’t commission Scalable with the sale, but with the transfer to my public transport account. There I can decide for myself how to proceed, probably I will restructure and replicate one of the 2018 Kommer portfolios. In this context, there is an advantage of “robos” in general, as you can create savings plans there at any time. This is not possible with the “Kommer-ETF” at OV, i.e. you have to buy more manually. However, this should be feasible without any problems with the saved scalable costs. You may have to choose a broker that offers exactly these desired ETFs as savings plans. Otherwise, I’m done with Scalable. 55 thousand € in 17 months with zero return. Weak.

Burkhard says July 26, 2018 at 12:24 I also lost money last year: vaR 9%, yield -1%. Every postal savings account with 0.01% or cash deposit is more value-preserving. Too bad, I was really convinced of the idea. But the back and forth of the transactions seemed to me to be less related to the current market situation. It gave an arbitrary impression and often drove a delicate return back below zero.

Franz says 4. August 2018 at 00:52 I would like to post my personal facts about my investment with “Scalable Capital (SC)” here: I have been invested with SC since 01/18 – as of the end of 07/18: My return so far: -5.11%

Sure, maybe the return there may look different in “30 years”, but if I had left my money invested there so far, e.g. in some “0.01% call money account”, then I would still have it fully available today (without inflation consideration) Conclusion: The SC offer therefore does not really convince me and I will not continue to invest with SC in the future. To generate a positive return here (after deduction of the SC costs) seems very unlikely to me at the moment.

Tom Alby says 5. August 2018 at 16:48 Is the case with me, however, in two portfolios… half a year is really extremely short for such a consideration!!

Jürgen says 8. August 2018 at 19:24 I have already given my point of view here on June 16, but I would like to say something about the last posts: The comparison of SC to overnight or fixed deposits is limping. Returns are only possible at the expense of risk. That should be clear to everyone. With a fixed interest rate, we have no risk. We know how much income the interest brings (or how much we cushion from the real destruction of money). I think SC can only be compared with similar risk classes. And I expect a robo advisor/artificial intelligence to perform better on average (over positive and negative market phases).

Rolf Beyer says 14. August 2018 at 13:13 I joined Scalable Capital in January 2017 and have only deposited the minimum amount for the time being. I wanted to observe how this fund develops. In the last 20 months, he has currently achieved a return of 1.7% (with 20% VAR), so at the moment there are 169 euros more than were paid in 20 months ago. But as I could see in time, this will not stay that way. Often the available amount slips below the minimum amount paid in and if it does get into positive areas, then only minimally. The fund shows this behavior both at times when the stock market is “buzzing” (there it goes minimally beyond the investment amount), but in “bad times” the return becomes negative faster than “caution” can say. Conclusion: the fund always bobs around +/- around 200 euros around the deposit amount. So far, there can be no talk of an increase in value! I will observe this until January 2019 and (since I no longer believe that this will improve) probably get my money back, probably with a few hundred “disappeared” euros.

Marc says August 22, 2018 at 11:18 In September I will be at SC. VAR 20% for a year, currently +1.4%, my completely unmanaged mixed portfolio with stocks, funds and ETFS at least at +2.3%, not great either, but that’s not the point. Despite reeds, which I don’t care about at all and which have been bobbing around for years out of laziness, the return is higher without costs. In addition, the marginal profit-taking eats up my exemption order, which means that I have to fear that I will also have to pay 25% capital gains tax on my meager interest income. I, too, have observed the buying and selling behavior, which is incomprehensible to me and contradictory to the stock market development. Especially in the recovery phases, one should have reacted differently. Thanks to Trump and Twitter, I think this year’s stock market activity is predictable and, due to the high volatility, a good time for profits with active management. I’m disappointed. Question: If you cancel Scalable, how can you transfer the items to the DIBA Depot without selling? Has anyone ever done this before or does it happen automatically?

M. Wühler says 24. August 2018 at 17:33 Very interesting discussion. The following key points as a small contribution.

– If I had … 1000 euros invested in Bitcoin…

– Does it perhaps make a difference whether you look at the topic against the background of a “pocket money” investment or against the background of a relevant investment amount? If you imagine – as an income-dependent employee like most of us, possibly a little passive income – 1 net monthly income, the answer to the question “What loss am I willing to accept?” is certainly a little or significantly different than an amount corresponding to 3, 12, 50 or 100 net monthly income.

– Do it yourself vs. mandate an administrator: even if you assume for the sake of argumentation that you can achieve a higher return through self-study and with your own selection of securities (which has actually been refuted tens of thousands of times), you should not ignore the opportunity costs.

– If I have 4 to 5 net monthly salaries available for risky investments, is it really worth taking an intensive look at the (alleged) laws of the financial markets that are open to the general public? You just achieve an additional 2-3% return (how not). This is of no consequence at all with such investment sums. The objection: in the long term, because of compound interest, does not catch on in my opinion – put it in relation to the income from employment, the effect of a salary increase associated with a promotion and/or perhaps from time to time the fact that every day can be the last, health can become a serious issue, etc. I’m not saying that this necessarily gets lost, what I mean is that the attention you pay to a topic should perhaps be proportional to the relevance to your life. In other words: if 10,000 euros is an amount that makes your pulse rise, then you have lost nothing on the securities markets, neither “directly” (that’s a topic in itself), nor “indirectly” via Baader Bank and scalable capital or whoever. The very low minimum investment amount may sometimes lead to a distorted perception.

– This is intertwined: Hypothetical A: I exchange money for securities or credits to securities accounts, have them managed according to halfway consistent rules, think to myself, I can’t get better rules than the people I see on the website anyway, hopefully there will be a more or less positive return in the medium term, and I can take care of something interesting until then, B: I invest an amount corresponding to 25 times my active and passive net monthly income myself; I probably get a stress problem, a good part of the return goes to the costs of stock market letters, etc., but above all I spend precious life time processing this information, my perception narrows significantly – how likely is it that I will end up coming to different conclusions than the people on the website?

Tom Alby says 24. August 2018 at 17:38 Very nice thoughts, thank you very much for that!

Nibi says 7. October 2018 at 05:11 Hello to the round,

I have been invested with SC since mid-February with risk category 15%. I still wrestle with myself a bit but want to get out.

The list of investments that I cannot understand and that are actually clearly loss-making is getting longer and longer. There are currently 16 positions in the portfolio, only two can be described as a success. Since these two positions currently only cover about 28% of my investment amount, about 72% of the investment amount is neutral at best but mostly clearly loss-making.

The currently most successful ETF (Nikkei, +12%) was only bought in February and March and has not been touched since. For months I have been waiting for my further transfers for his success to be recognized (plus a hefty dividend) and expanded, but no. To my great irritation, the last investment decision was to invest in American corporate bonds. Judging by what I have read, a completely incomprehensible decision. What does the market think about this? Probably sees it the same way. Crashed to -5.2% at present.

The Trump administration is in a clinch with China or more or less linked to the EM? SC invests and invests four times in a row in an ETF Far East excluding Japan. The ETF is steadily expanding its deficit. At the same time, I received government bonds from EM countries in my portfolio, which have only been quoted in red since the beginning.

In between, SC seemed to be completely in love with real estate funds, which were weakly positive at times, after all, now with -4.7%.

Conclusion: Diversification in itself is not a value. Two goals under 16 positions should be able to come about by chance alone. Otherwise, an impression of dispersion and dispersion for the sake of dispersion. What has not yet made me quit is only a lack of my own competence to be able to judge how I should try to fix the mess that has been made in a meaningful way.

Peritus says 7. October 2018 at 23:14 After a year of experience, I have also pulled the ripcord. VaR 10% yielded a return of -3%. I am not an investment professional, but the seemingly haphazard buying/selling behavior and the at times 17 small-scale positions in my portfolio do not speak for a professional way of working or a well-programmed algorithm. SC’s explanations of performance are all the more flowery and rambling the lower the investment success. The pretty graphics are of little help if the gradient only points to the southeast. Now, one experience richer and 500 € poorer, I will probably have to take the systems into my own hands again. What a pity!

Bernd says 10. October 2018 at 19:02 I have since January 18 2 portfolios that are saved monthly, with VAR 15 and VAR 19, both continuously in the basement. Both have about 20 positions. In VAR 19, 3 items show small amounts in the plus, the rest are negative, in total about 520€ loss. With VAR 15, 6 are in the plus with small amounts, the rest negative in total about 780€ loss. Somehow I don’t understand how professional investors are so…. and that others with comparable risk structures seem to be at least slightly in the plus. It is always written about the short period of time, which does not yet allow for a reasonable valuation, and about the compound interest effect. But if you’re just in the basement and dig deeper and deeper, nothing can come out. I had thought that because of the advertising and the experts in the team, it would pay off in the medium term, the clientele that is addressed I can identify with, i.e. people who want to worry as little as possible about it and want to put their capital in the hands of experts at a reasonable cost. Smart business idea, but it should also be profitable for investors and not just for Scalable.

I still have a simple savings plan in the MSCi World, which also has minor fluctuations, but the overall direction is steadily upwards.

Mike says 11. October 2018 at 18:27 I am now after exactly 1 year with 6% in the red. Scalable is just incredibly bad and incompetent.

Patrick says 20. October 2018 at 13:15 Dear readers, I decided to invest in January. Currently today, 20.10.18 minus 5.23%. Not that I would get nervous or that the loss of about 2,500 euros would be a big drama, BUT I doubt the system overall. In the case of occasionally fluctuating markets, the technology reacts with sales, losses are realized and then a re-entry takes place. At the next minor fluctuation – the same reaction of the technique. This is how the losses are increasing. This is my interpretation of the destruction of money within 9 months. I’ll look at it until the end of the year and then I’ll probably get out, even at a loss. Honestly, almost everyone who knows something about investments should give this type of investment a wide berth. A good mix of stocks with dividend payments is the safer and more promising way.

Micha says 23. October 2018 at 13:49 In July, I pulled the ripcord and after 18 months completely exited Scalable with +- zero (mixture of two portfolios VaR 15 and 20). The transfer of the ETF to its own portfolio took almost five weeks. In retrospect, I am richer by one experience. S.C. has not eaten wisdom with spoons either. The whole hype about the company by means of glossy brochures and advertising films is completely exaggerated (from my point of view). Of course, it is also crucial which target group you feel you belong to. Those who are looking for the “all-round carefree package” can also be happy with the robos – whether it has to be S.C. now remains to be seen. I can only advise anyone who feels attracted to an investment to examine the individual robos closely and not automatically choose the industry leader.

Personally, I am now pursuing a buy and hold strategy with some selected ETFs, hit savings plans and leave it behind. Sure, at the moment it’s also blatantly in the red, but I no longer feel helplessly at the mercy of S.C.’s algorithm, which in the past triggered incomprehensible purchases/sales. Personal responsibility is a blessing and sometimes a curse at the same time.

One more thing: On Trustpilot, S.C. has always pointed out in negative reviews that the returns of the VaR strategies offered achieve good returns on a risk-adjusted basis. Interestingly, the benchmarks provided by S.C. from Morningstar have been far undercut in almost all cases for me personally. It is written in black and white on the bills. Their marketing department seems to be worth its weight in gold.

Nibi says 25. October 2018 at 20:27 Addendum to my post from 07.10.2018:

After I had trumpeted my dissatisfaction with SC into the world, thought about it and landed on the same points of criticism over and over again, the only conclusion that remained was that in the end I had almost no confidence in SC’s decisions and thus no more will to descend into a “valley of tears” with SC with the increasingly looming upheavals. Therefore, shortly before the recent, bitter crash, I made the decision to pursue a two-pronged strategy by reducing my investment in SC to almost the minimum amount of 10,000 EUR. So a way back is not blocked for me, I see how the matter continues and gain freedom for my own approaches. So far just went well again!

In my view, the previous points of criticism have been confirmed in the recent crisis and I also think that SC’s algorithm does exactly what it is based on: The last 10 years or so of overall positive development. The fact that the European Championship since Trump is no longer a good idea for an entry is probably lost because Trump has only been rumbling for about two years and the 8 previous years outweigh the Trump factor.

In any case, my EM ETF at SC is now at -15%, the other East Asia ETF without Japan (which I criticized and which SC bought again and again) is at -9%. The European government bonds, which I didn’t like because of the euro crisis, which in my opinion was only hidden but not healed, but were bought heavily by SC, are at -4%. The double-bought EU-600 ETF, at times I had two different ones in my portfolio, is -8%. The real estate funds that SC liked so much at times are -6% in relation to the EU. In addition, there is a lot in the range of -5% to -2%.

And now it comes: The Nikkei ETF, which has been strong since I joined SC in February, which was only bought twice at the very beginning and then never again, has never gone into the red with the current upheavals and has already recovered today to currently +4%. Now I realize that it would be nonsense to have bet only on the Nikkei, but the ETF in my SC portfolio, which is still the strongest ETF in my SC portfolio even now in the current correction, has not been paid attention to by SC since March 2018.

The second successful fund of two successful funds in total at 16 positions are US 10-year government bonds with +7%. Unfortunately, this ETF is by far the smallest in relation to the SC portfolio, which is why its +7% increase – attention Tusch – brings me a return of 9.93 EUR. If I had had to decide, I would have bet on American government bonds and not European ones, precisely because of the euro crisis, which I only consider postponed and suspect that the USA can bend everything more with the still world currency dollar than the EU, which in my opinion is increasingly being causally divided by the EURO.

I will now build up something for myself at lower costs with the capital cleared in time or check whether I do that. The timing might not be good right now or what do they mean here?

In any case, what I’m planning is to invest in topics and not “regions” as SC does. I don’t care if the main thing is that I’m invested something on every continent for the sake of investing. I’m thinking more of thematic ETFs such as health/medicine, infrastructure, automation, aging population, digitalization, environmental technology, renewable energies, etc. Topics that seem to be formative for the future.

What do they think of this concept?

Hope dies but says 29. October 2018 at 13:00 I say hands off, 25T€ 10% risk and after 2 years -1T€, would also like to be in the plus but I pull the ripcord more minus I can not afford.

Tom says 29. October 2018 at 13:49 If you can’t afford to end up in the red, it’s generally better to keep your hands off stocks. I’m not exactly thrilled with the current performance either, but you can’t expect the current correction phase to pass here without a trace.

Marc says 31. October 2018 at 15:19 I had once criticized the performance and the incomprehensible buy and sell behavior in August, when I was still slightly in the plus, because my unmanaged mixed portfolio showed a higher return. Although I am not convinced of SC, I must honestly admit that my SC portfolio is absolutely “only” 3.77% in the red, 5.9% since the beginning of the year, while my dormant mixed portfolio has lost 8.93% since the beginning of the year. For lack of an alternative, I’ll stay with SC for now.

Nibi says

1. November 2018 at 22:13 Addendum to my addendum from 26.10.2018

Hello everyone

my new strategy is in place and under construction. After intensive research, SC is terminated.

My research showed that my first plan to work with thematic funds showed that you are very selective and have problems with diversification. In addition, thematic funds usually have comparatively higher TER’s, apparently swap a lot, are often either rockets or flops.

My portfolio is now stocked with broad funds, left lying around and successively restocked that meet the following criteria:

• Clear low TER
• Physical/Optimized replicating, no swaps
• Large fund size
• Favorable P/E and KCF
• Capitalizing

I have already narrowed down some but only make the purchase decisions after several days, leave everything behind and then look again to check again with a clear head. The package currently being considered will have an average TER of 0.14. No comparison to summasummarum 1.0 to 1.1 for SC (contribution for SC, for ING DiBa and TER’s). EM are not yet included, as I assume that they will continue to lose feathers. So far North America, Europe, Japan. I keep enough capital to add EM’s when I see fit.

Final conclusion about SC, you are always wiser later:

• You don’t need SC to diversify, there are many broad-based ETFs for all tastes (MSCI, ARERO, Kömmer portfolio, slipper portfolio, S&P 500, etc.)
• To invest without a claim to timing, as SC apparently does, you don’t need a service provider. See e.g. entry into (US) corporate bonds when an interest rate hike program of the Fed is announced or continuously invest in the EM’s while Trump escalates and they start to fall or invest massively in European government bonds AFTER the Italian election and trouble is guaranteed to be imminent.
• You don’t need a service provider to be presented with what’s going on in the depot via app. At ING DiBa, the portfolio overview or the watchlist is more than good enough or, alternatively, register for free with justetf, because enter everything and get it analyzed better than it happens in the SC app.
• To first buy an ETF, then sell it again at a loss and then buy it again immediately afterwards, you don’t need a service provider.
• To get two different ETFs for the same index into your portfolio, you don’t need a service provider, mind you, the second, double, with almost twice as high TER as the existing one.

Nibi says 7. November 2018 at 20:44 Finally, a note for all those who are at SC!

While cleaning up my files to SC, I remembered that the reallocations by SC caused me some losses, which ended up in the billing pot at ING DiBa. I don’t remember seeing these losses explicitly mentioned in SC in the profitability calculation.

My recommendation: Look/ask where this is taken into account!

mic says 9. November 2018 at 11:48 I’m also excessively disappointed. After a year, it’s still in the red. I have increased the risk to 19% and hope that I will reach +-0 at some point to cancel. Escape is my self-made depot far more successful.

Tom says 9. November 2018 at 18:56 See above. If you only have a year’s patience, you’d better keep your hands off stocks.

Wali says 11. November 2018 at 11:38 Hello Tom, I’ve been here for exactly one year now and I have patience! BUT: I just took the trouble to count. A total of 79 buy and sell orders in one year. That is decidedly too much! And if you then look at when it was sold…….. There were several “small crashes” on the stock market in that one year. And whenever a bottom was formed, the focus was on selling shares and thus the subsequent falling prices were left behind. “Buy and hold?” Nothing. This back and forth only empties the pockets! Buying and holding a single globally invested fund brings much more than all this back and forth here. Conclusion: I, too, will leave SC if I ever get to + – 0% here again. I have patience, but other investment strategies are simply better

Micha says 10. December 2018 at 21:58 “If you only have one year of patience, you’d better keep your hands off stocks.”

The people who invest in Scalable don’t say that they don’t have patience, but they compare full-bodied glossy statements from Scalable with the competition, whether other robos or “self-made”. And when I see on Trust Pilot how negative reviews are always reacted to with the killer argument “compare our performance with the Morningstar Index”, even though I had a terrible performance against Morningstar for my portfolios before I pulled the ripcord, then that annoys me not inconsiderably.

And if they act as if it is unfair to draw a conclusion after a year, but you absolutely have to be there longer, then I wonder what you should wait for? Here’s to more lousy years in the hope that they will eventually discover the philosopher’s stone and suddenly everything will be fine? I like to be patient, but I don’t have to patiently accept how my money becomes less valuable compared to the competition. And if you can then see at what times they carried out certain transactions, then their VaR approach can really be stolen from me. Actually, I’m indifferent to S.C. by now, but if they obviously “don’t quite tell the truth” with their Morningstar benchmark index, then it just annoys me.

Micaela von Richthofen says 18. December 2018 at 20:09 Have just looked here again for the first time since my post on 9 Nov. I find it interesting that 2 posts similar to me have noticed. (Wali)” I just took the trouble to count. A total of 79 buy and sell orders in one year. That is decidedly too much! And if you then look at when it was sold……..” (Micah) “And if you can then see at what times they carried out certain transactions, then their VaR approach can really be stolen from me.” Exactly such an example has happened to me again now. Still, very disappointed.

Carsten says 2. January 2019 at 23:54 The ETFs, which were highly praised by the media in 2016 and 2017, have experienced a crash landing in 2018 as a whole, just like the stock market in 2018. You should take a look at it in the coming months and then decide for yourself.

Micha says 12. January 2019 at 12:43 Well, this is not about the general decision ETF or not ETF, but about Scalable. Personally, I am quite convinced of investing in stocks, but with little effort and manageable risks. It is a fact that the average consumer who does not want to engage in stock picking needs to diversify. And the best way to do this within the asset class of stocks is via funds. And if you want to save costs, you should avoid actively managed ones and orient yourself to the index. It is completely logical that you also have phases with ETFs in which you have to “pinch your ass cheeks”. Return and risk are correlated.

Nibi says 19. March 2019 at 01:22 Hello everyone,

I thought I’d report about my depot brand self-made.

It makes me very satisfied to have taken this into my own hands, which of course does not have to be everyone’s cup of tea. It also takes a lot of willingness to familiarize yourself intensively, to bitterly realize what (gross) mistakes you made before. At least so far, dealing with investments and, for example, averting poverty in old age has not exactly made me a happier person.

In the meantime, with emerging markets on board, my portfolio has reached a median TER of 0.17%. It depicts the regions of developed Europe, developed America and developed Asia as well as the EM’s in accordance with their importance in world economic performance. approx. 39% EM’s, approx. 9% developed Asia, approx. 24% developed Europe and approx. 28% developed America. The current level is +7.2%. After the renewed, bitter slump in November last year, it rose steeply in December, was relatively neutral in January and has since continued to rise steadily in February and now March.

With low costs, sensible distribution of investments over only four ETFs and broad diversification, I now have a good feeling and feel prepared to be able to stubbornly go through a 2007 crash of the stock market because I am convinced of the strategy. In total, the entire portfolio consists of about 4,500 stocks from the aforementioned economic areas, which are distributed in sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, industry, commodities, utilities, consumption, real estate, financial service providers, transport and logistics, etc.

A pleasant side effect: Three of the ETFs are part of the zero EUR promotion at ING, i.e. with a purchase price of at least 500 EUR, I do not incur any purchase costs, at least for the time being. Therefore, the construction of my portfolio has so far only cost about 50 EUR in order fees, because I was able to bring the EM’s into the depot quite cheaply in two large orders.

I don’t want to give more detailed information right now because I don’t want to pass on painstakingly and stressfully acquired knowledge (anymore). I used to do it and rarely got anything comparable back, quite the opposite.

What I may say: It is worth taking this (at the beginning) hard way. After a mentally stressful year since my first steps in November 2017, a point has now been reached since January 2019 where I have the feeling that I know what I am doing and that it stands up to critical questioning and no longer real craft blunders.

Christian says March 20, 2019 at 21:52 I am disappointed by the system at Scalable and have quit. Here are just a few of my data: 03.01.2018: EUR 10,000 one-time investment with Scalable (VaR 18%)

As of 20.03.2019: Scalable Depot + Account: EUR 9630 + EUR 69 = EUR 9709

This makes a loss in value of -3%. At the same time, I have achieved an increase in value of about 6% with my own ETFs in the same period. That certainly doesn’t speak for Scalable. In addition, I am now allowed to deal with 21 custody account positions after cancelling the investment …

Gerd Froschermeier says 18. August 2019 at 08:05 So my experiences with SC exceed my expectations. What were my expectations: Since I am about to retire, my ultimate goal is not to lose any money, the return should be slightly higher than inflation.

I invested 30.000.- with VAR 10% at the end of Sep 18. Between Oct18 -Dec 18, the portfolio went down only 2.1%. The MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF was down about 14.4% in the same period. Today, my portfolio is up 9.1%, the MSCI ETF is up 2.73% – at the reference price on 9/27/18. So my conclusion: Less heart palpitations when the stock market (= Trump) goes crazy and also a better return than a broadly diversified MSCI ETF.

User01 says January 2, 2020 at 23:02 I’ve been with SC for three years now and I’m actually satisfied so far. 2018, the year to which most of the comments here refer, was a tough stock market year. In 2019, things went up. I am currently at a high again. In three years, I had a return of just under 16% with a VaR of 20%. I am satisfied and felt safe. I experienced the flash crash in Feb. 2018 and the salami crash in autumn 2018. In 2019, the stock market recovered quickly.