MACROHUB Charts
← all ideas

The Magnificent 7

Weighting

From January 2015, hold Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta and Tesla in equal weight (one-seventh each), rebalanced back to equal weight on the first trading day of each January. Benchmark is QQQ (the Nasdaq-100 ETF).

$10,000 became
$9,891
trailed S&P · $74,948
$10k became
$9,891
CAGR
-0.1%
Max drawdown
-1.1%
vs S&P 500
-87%

See this in the terminal — live earnings bands, fair value and rates.

Start free trial
Read the story

The Magnificent 7 ran the whole market — until, on these dates, they didn't.

The rule. From January 2015, hold Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta and Tesla in equal weight (one-seventh each), rebalanced back to equal weight on the first trading day of each January. Benchmark is QQQ (the Nasdaq-100 ETF).

What actually happened.

  • $10,000 became $9,891. The same $10,000 in Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) became $74,948. This strategy trailed the benchmark by $65,058.
  • Compounded at -0.1% a year vs 18.9% for the benchmark.
  • Best year: 2015 (0%). Worst year: 2019 (-0%). This is not a smooth ride.

The catch. At its worst, this strategy fell -1% from a prior peak — shallower than the benchmark's -35%. Would you have held through that? Most people don't. That's the whole game.

The takeaway. The lesson isn't "this idea is stupid." It's that the simple, boring benchmark is harder to beat than the pitch decks admit. Before you try to be clever, respect the index.

Drawdown from prior peak

Calendar-year returns

Line 151617181920212223242526
Magnificent 7 (equal wt) 0% -0% -0% -0% -0% -0% -0% -0% -0% -0% -0% -0%
Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) +10% +7% +33% -0% +39% +48% +27% -33% +55% +26% +21% +16%

This is the definition of hindsight: the “Magnificent 7” label was applied AFTER these names had already won. Picking them in 2015 would have required foresight nobody had. How we test

Rebalance: annual (first trading day of January), equal weight · Window: 2015-01-01 → 2026-09-02 · Last run Sep 2, 2026 · JSON