Investment Research

VTI 5Y return: +78.9% vs VXUS +51.1% — but VXUS leads on 1Y at +33.5% vs VTI +27.6%, a reversal worth interrogating.VXUS yields 2.69% vs VTI 1.03% — 2.6x higher income generates greater annual tax drag in taxable accounts.Valuation gap: VTI P/E 28.5 vs VXUS 18.7 — a 52% US premium, historically wide by post-2000 standards.Foreign tax credit from VXUS dividends is recoverable only in taxable brokerage accounts; permanently forfeited inside Roth IRA or 401(k).AUM: VTI $2,202.6B vs VXUS $629.1B — scale gap reflects US home bias more than quality difference. The Performance Split — And the 1-Year Flip That Challenges the Narrative Monthly $30K investment 20-year compound growth simulation The 20-year DCA simulation chart above — modeling $1,500 monthly at 4%, 7%, and 10% annual returns — illustrates how the VTI/VXUS allocation decision quietly reshapes terminal wealth over decades. The multi-year data gives VTI the unambiguous edge. Five-year cumulative: +78.9% vs VXUS’s +51.1%. Three-year: +86.1% vs +66.7%. That 20-30 percentage point spread is not noise — it compounds into a materially different retirement outcome.[Yahoo Finance] ...

Over a five-year period, SCHD demonstrated a cumulative return of +47.6%, slightly exceeding JEPI's +44.3%. JEPI currently offers a significantly higher dividend yield at 8.29%, compared to SCHD's 3.29%, reflecting distinct income generation strategies. In the most recent one-year period, SCHD's return of +24.8% substantially outpaced JEPI's +8.4%, highlighting performance divergence in specific market conditions. The higher yield of JEPI is primarily derived from selling covered call options, introducing a unique premium cost dynamic not present in SCHD's traditional equity holdings. Analyzing JEPI and SCHD: A Five-Year Performance Overview Monthly $30K investment 20-year compound growth simulation Investors frequently evaluate exchange-traded funds (ETFs) like JEPI and SCHD for their distinct approaches to income and growth. A five-year review of their performance and underlying strategies reveals critical differences in total return, income generation, and risk profiles. Focusing on the period up to May 2026, both ETFs have delivered positive cumulative returns, yet their paths to achieving these outcomes vary significantly. SCHD, primarily a dividend growth fund, achieved a 5-year cumulative return of +47.6% [Yahoo Finance: SCHD]. In parallel, JEPI, which employs an equity-linked note (ELN) strategy involving covered calls, posted a 5-year cumulative return of +44.3% [Yahoo Finance: JEPI]. The proximity of these long-term figures often belies the fundamental differences in how these returns were generated. A twenty-year simulation of monthly 300,000 KRW investments at varying annual returns (4%/7%/10%) would illustrate divergent wealth accumulation paths, a critical consideration when evaluating these ETFs. ...

JEPQ's recent quarterly dividend was $0.5910 per share, marking a 2.6% increase year-over-year. JEPQ has shown strong short- to medium-term performance with a 1-year return of +27.4% and a 3-year cumulative return of +79.1%, closely tied to the volatility of its underlying asset, the Nasdaq 100 index. Its current dividend yield is 10.35%, but this largely depends on option premium income due to the nature of the covered call strategy, implying inherent dividend variability based on market conditions. Comparative analysis with JEPI shows JEPQ recording higher returns and dividend yields, attributable to differing exposure to technology-driven growth momentum. The attractive yields of high-dividend covered call ETFs come with risks, including vulnerability to price declines during market downturns and the potential for unexpected dividend cuts. JEPQ Quarterly Dividend Announcement Analysis: Returns and Volatility Perspective Monthly $30K investment 20-year compound growth simulation 20-Year Compound Growth Simulation of Monthly Dollar-Cost Averaging JEPQ recently announced a quarterly dividend of $0.5910 per share, drawing investor attention. This 2.6% year-over-year increase underscores the appeal of covered call ETFs that pursue both growth and income. Currently, JEPQ’s share price stands at $59.66, with a dividend yield of 10.35%, an attractive figure for those seeking high-yield investments. However, a deeper analysis is warranted regarding the stock price volatility accompanying such high dividend yields and the sustainability of these returns. ...

The statutory filing window for Korean comprehensive income tax runs from May 1 through May 31 of the following year, with weekends and public holidays rolling to the next business day. In 2026, May 31 falls on a Sunday, so filing and payment continue through June 1.Retirement account tax credits apply up to KRW 9 million, or about $6,500, at 15% for total compensation below KRW 55 million and 12% above that line. An IRP contribution of KRW 8.4 million, or about $6,100, can therefore generate a tax credit of KRW 1.26 million or KRW 1.008 million.When annual interest plus dividends exceed KRW 20 million, or about $14,500, the comprehensive taxation switch turns on. For US-listed ETFs such as VOO, SCHD, and DGRO, the account wrapper matters more than the ticker label.Failure-to-file penalties are 20%, underreporting penalties are 10%, and late-payment interest runs at 0.022% per day. Delay carries a measurable cost.Rolling ISA maturity proceeds into a retirement account can add 10% of the converted amount, up to KRW 3 million, or about $2,200, to retirement-account contribution creditable amounts. What the chart says first Monthly $30K investment 20-year compound growth simulation 20-year compound-growth simulation for a $220 monthly contribution The chart below shows how wide the gap becomes after 20 years when a $220 monthly contribution compounds at 4%, 7%, and 10%. In this range, compounding and contribution duration create larger numbers than tax optimization alone. Saving about $75 in tax may matter less than keeping the contribution schedule alive for one more year. ...

A 0.47 percentage-point fee gap means 6.97% net versus 6.50% net on a 7.00% gross-return assumption.With $1,500 invested monthly for 30 years, total contributions reach $540,000 and the projected ending balance is roughly $1.74 million at 0.03% versus $1.60 million at 0.50%.The spread is about $143,000, or roughly 8% of the lower-fee ending balance, before taxes and slippage.As of Apr. 15, 2026, VOO traded near $640.44 with a 1.11% dividend yield and a 27.19 P/E, while COWZ traded near $63.02 with a 2.05% yield and a 16.77 P/E.Over the latest 5-year window cited by providers, VOO was at 12.81% annualized, SPLG at 11.42%, and COWZ at 14.61%, showing that fee alone does not explain every outcome. The fee gap that looks small until time does the math Monthly investment 20-year compound growth simulation Expense ratio is one of those numbers that looks harmless in isolation. Three basis points. Fifty basis points. That sounds like rounding error. It is not. Vanguard’s own explanation is direct: the fee is pulled from fund returns, not billed separately. That matters because the deduction happens every year, on a balance that keeps changing. ...

As of 2026-04-21, TQQQ’s five-year total return was 120.40%, with a CAGR of 16.57%.As of 2026-03-31, TQQQ’s five-year maximum drawdown was 81.65%, versus 35.12% for QQQ, or 2.33x deeper.Five-year annualized monthly volatility came in at 61.28% for TQQQ, 20.23% for QQQ, and 40.61% for QLD.Over the same five-year window, QLD outpaced TQQQ with a 137.48% total return and an 18.77% CAGR.Dividend yield was roughly 0.53% for TQQQ, 0.15% for QLD, and 0.43% for QQQ, which is why the real story in leveraged ETFs is path dependence, not cash flow. The Two Charts Say It First Monthly investment 20-year compound growth simulation Comparison of how ETF fee differences affect long-term wealth The first chart shows the 20-year wealth gap between a 0.05% ETF fee and a 1.0% fee. The second shows how monthly investing of $300 compounds very differently at 4%, 7%, and 10% over time. In a TQQQ discussion, those charts are not background material. For leveraged ETFs, costs and path shape the capital curve faster than the return table suggests. Even when TQQQ rallies hard between 2020 and 2026, the first question is how much damage a single 2022-style crash can do to the long-term line. ...

QQQ sits at $651.42 with a 1-year return of +44.0%, while SPY sits at $708.45 with a 1-year return of +33.8%.The 3-year cumulative gap is 30.2 percentage points: QQQ at +108.0% versus SPY at +77.8%.The 5-year cumulative gap is 15.4 percentage points: QQQ at +98.1% versus SPY at +82.7%.SPY still pays more income, with a 1.04% dividend yield versus QQQ at 0.43%, or 2.4 times as much cash yield.On an implied 5-year CAGR basis, QQQ is roughly 14.6% and SPY roughly 12.8%, which means the spread exists, but it is not huge enough to ignore regime risk. Why the 20-year savings curve matters more than the share price Monthly investment 20-year compound growth simulation The first mistake in comparing QQQ and SPY is to stare at the price tags. QQQ at $651.42 and SPY at $708.45 look like two expensive symbols, but share price is not the signal. The return path is. The 20-year monthly 300,000-won simulation inserted below this section makes the same point in a cleaner way: at 4%, 7%, and 10%, the ending values do not rise in a straight line. They accelerate. That is the compounding effect that turns a small annual edge into a large decade gap. ...

As of 2026-04-21, TQQQ’s 5-year total return was 120.40%, with a CAGR of 16.57%.As of 2026-03-31, TQQQ’s 5-year maximum drawdown was 81.65%, compared with 35.12% for QQQ.5-year annualized monthly volatility was 61.28% for TQQQ, 20.23% for QQQ, and 40.61% for QLD.Over the same 5-year window, QLD outperformed TQQQ with a total return of 137.48% and a CAGR of 18.77%.Dividend yield sat at 0.53% for TQQQ, 0.15% for QLD, and 0.43% for QQQ. For leveraged ETFs, the core driver is not cash flow but path dependency. The Two Charts Say the First Thing Comparison of how ETF fee differences affect long-term returns The first chart shows the long-run asset gap between 0.05% and 1.0% ETF fees over 20 years. The second shows how monthly $300 contributions diverge over time at 4%, 7%, and 10% annual returns. In the TQQQ discussion, those two charts are not background noise. For leveraged ETFs, cost and path shape the equity curve faster than the headline return table suggests. Even if TQQQ posts a strong 2020-2026 run, a single 2022-style collapse can damage the long-run profile in ways that are hard to reverse. ...

VOO sits at $651.54 with a 1-year return of +36.3%, a 3-year cumulative return of +79.0%, a 5-year cumulative return of +85.0%, and a dividend yield of 1.09%.SCHD sits at $31.03 with a 1-year return of +26.8%, a 3-year cumulative return of +41.5%, a 5-year cumulative return of +49.8%, and a dividend yield of 3.4%.Across the provided windows, VOO beat SCHD by 9.5 percentage points over 1 year, 37.5 points over 3 years, and 35.2 points over 5 years on cumulative return.The chart below tests monthly KRW 300,000 DCA over 20 years at 4%, 7%, and 10%; the gap between those paths shows how sensitive long-horizon outcomes are to small return differences.The biggest mistake in a first-year DCA window is treating a strong 12-month run as a permanent feature of the market instead of a regime that can change fast. What the 20-year DCA chart is really saying Monthly investment 20-year compound growth simulation The chart beneath this section is the cleanest reminder that monthly ETF investing is about time, not drama. A monthly KRW 300,000 plan over 20 years looks modest in year 1, then starts to separate sharply when the assumed return moves from 4% to 7%, and again from 7% to 10%. That is the core lesson. The later contributions matter less than the early contributions once compounding starts doing real work. ...