in a bear market, which perform better, QQQ or SPMO? Grok回答：

In bear markets, SPMO generally performs better than QQQ, experiencing smaller drawdowns and losses due to its momentum-based strategy, which can rotate toward more resilient stocks during downturns. This is based on historical data from the two major bear markets since SPMO's 2015 inception: the 2020 COVID-19 crash (a sharp, liquidity-driven sell-off) and the 2022 bear market (a prolonged decline driven by inflation and rising rates). While neither ETF is immune to losses, SPMO's volatility-adjusted momentum selection has provided better downside protection overall, aligning with its lower standard deviation (23.49% vs. QQQ's 24.11%) and higher Sharpe ratio (1.38 vs. 0.88). However, past performance isn't predictive, and momentum strategies can sometimes "crash" if market trends reverse abruptly.

Key Bear Market Comparisons

Here's a breakdown of performance during the relevant periods, using peak-to-trough drawdowns (maximum percentage decline) and full-year total returns for context:

 

Period/Bear Market	SPMO Drawdown	QQQ Drawdown	SPMO Full-Year Return	QQQ Full-Year Return	Notes
COVID-19 Crash (Feb-Mar 2020)	-30.95% (worst on Mar 23, 2020)	~ -30.4% (from ~$237 high to $165 low)	+28.26% (strong recovery)	+48.62% (stronger recovery)	Similar drawdowns, as the sharp reversal hit momentum stocks hard initially. SPMO recovered slower post-crash due to delayed rotation, but both ended the year positive amid tech rebound.
2022 Bear Market (Jan-Oct 2022)	~ -21%	-35.12%	-10.46%	-32.58%	SPMO significantly outperformed with much smaller losses, as its momentum tilt avoided deeper tech exposure during rate hikes and inflation pressures. This highlights SPMO's edge in prolonged bears.
Overall Max Drawdown (Since SPMO Inception, 2015)	-30.95%	-35.12%	N/A	N/A	SPMO's worst (COVID) was less severe than QQQ's (2022), reinforcing its relative resilience.

Why SPMO Tends to Outperform in Bears

• Momentum Strategy: SPMO selects ~100 S&P 500 stocks with high volatility-adjusted momentum, rebalancing semi-annually. In bears, it can shift away from faltering growth/tech stocks toward more stable or defensive names, reducing exposure to QQQ's heavy tech concentration (~50%+ in IT/comms). This helped in 2022, where SPMO lost far less than QQQ's tech-driven plunge.
• Lower Volatility and Better Risk-Adjustment: SPMO's design leads to shallower drawdowns and superior risk-adjusted returns (e.g., higher Sharpe ratio), making it "safer" in volatile periods.
• Limitations in Sharp Crashes: In fast reversals like COVID, momentum can lag as prior winners become losers quickly, leading to comparable drawdowns to QQQ. However, even here, SPMO matched rather than underperformed.

Considerations for Long-Term Holding

• SPMO's Edge in Bears: If bear markets are your concern, SPMO's track record suggests better preservation of capital, especially in drawn-out declines. It's not "defensive" like bonds but offers more protection than QQQ's growth tilt.
• QQQ's Vulnerabilities: QQQ's tech focus amplifies losses in bears tied to sector rotations (e.g., 2022), with higher beta (~1.2-1.3 vs. SPMO's ~1.0-1.1).
• Not Tested Extensively: SPMO lacks data from pre-2015 bears (e.g., 2008 financial crisis, where QQQ dropped ~50%). Momentum can fail in severe, multi-year downturns.
• Correlation and Diversification: The two have 0.75 correlation and ~13-37% holdings overlap, so blending them could balance bear protection with QQQ's bull-market upside.

For long-term holding, SPMO may be preferable if you prioritize downside risk, but assess your tolerance—bears can still cause 20-30%+ losses. This isn't financial advice; consult an advisor for your situation.