Reddit Posts
Please can someone here review my 401k selections.
Public service announcement: VXUS is outperforming VTI so far this year
Go Ahead and Ignore It if You'd Like....US Markets are Losing Their Outperformance
why do banks offer loans instead of investing themselves?
How to find similar index funds to consolidate in my account?
Is there a difference between international ETFs like VXUS and emerging markets ETFs like ACWI? Is one way more risky or is the term “emerging markets” just another way to say international?
Leveraged Smart-Beta - When is it Flair-Worthy? (Up +$385K, 97% Return)
Worldwide ETF portfolio to avoid excessive exposure to US stocks (especially GAFAM+T)?
Mentions
The standard recommendation is FTSE All-World (Vanguard version: VWCE, IE00BK5BQT80) or MSCI ACWI. US only is too risky.
The U.S. has the popular best performing iShares ACWI which traders love as it tracks well at a 0.32% er. There’s also the Vanguard VT which has many more global small cap at 0.06% er. In between there’s SPDR’s SPGM at a 0.10% er.
I guess nothing is risk free, but if you go for an MSCI ACWI (global index fund), you should be well diversified.
Geographic diversification is usually a good idea if you simply want to have wide exposure. But ACWI is heavily weighted towards US equity at \~60% - so you aren't actually gettiing away from US exposure. If you are already in VUSA and you continue to invest into VUSA - a better approach is to invest into an ex-US fund instead. Also - 100% equity portfolio isn't as diversified - if you are considering a dividend allocation, you can also look at different asset classes like debt/bonds instead of equity-based dividend fund.
I need an opinion on my portfolio I started with Vanguard S&P 500 Dist ETF - VUSA and now started putting 40% into Amundi Prime ACWI Dist UCITS ETF - WEBG, to get away a little from full american exposure I am thinking abt investing in Vanguard FTSE All-World High dividend yield Dist ETF aswell when i can afford a few of it, so im thinking about putting some of VUSA into it once its big to get an stable income. Opinions?
There’s so many pro- and cons- to US vs non-US markets, .. it’s like trying to predict a cat’s behavior after it’s free-based a Rick James-sized bong hit of crack cocaine. I’d figure out a US/non-US ratio you want to stick with like 70/30 to 80/20 (which many, including Fidelity, think is the optimum) and then find a couple low-cost broad-based index ETFs to rebalance every year or 2 (in the U.S. should be able to find these ETFs at 0.02%-0.04% if looking hard enough). Could also pay a little more expense ratio (0.06%) for the global ETF, Vanguard’s VT, and have “the market” do it continuously. There’s also, in order of concentration, State Street’s SPGM (0.09%), iShares ACWI (0.32%), and, for an added bennie fo the companies saying nice things about the environment (“I promise..”) Invesco’s fairly new KLMT (0.10%). > AI The US is the leader in “Big AI”, but it’s also hypothesized that EM will benefit long term as language barriers come down. That said the US has a big advantage that stocks are a larger share of GDP % wise versus major competitors. There’s also the 2 ocean defensive shield for most sectors as geopolititriskw increase
> BTC has been highly correlated with tech stocks for some time now. I see this a lot, has anyone done an analysis on how much exactly is the correlation between Bitcoin and "tech stocks"? Because the correlation between Bitcoin, and global equity overall (MSCI ACWI) is only 0.32 as per an analysis I saw yesterday. And from a casual watching of price movements in recent times, Bitcoin just doesn't look to be too highly correlated with tech stocks either. For example, just look at the trends from the past 6 months or so.
Global will include US such as Vanguard’s VT, State Street’s SPGM, and iShares ACWI etfs, unless it’s clear the U.S. isn’t included (ex-U.S.), such as the ACWX etf. Probably to take advantage of the dollar acting differently as the iShares products track very well for traders. It’s not just the U.S., as there’s a developed global ETF without Japan (iShares Kokusai etf ..TOK), due to some wanting to avoid it due to underperformance since the early 1990s (or maybe adding a cheaper Japan etf and maybe an emerging index ETF) . Most of the time there’s an “x” like VECX .. Vanguard’s new emerging mkt etc ex-China.
You have a lot of tech stocks where you are double dipping b/w individual stock holdings, and their inclusion also in your $QQQ and $SPY/$VOO holdings. I do like that you are adding to $AVDU and $AVUV. You have chosen those 2 where I am investing in $EWY and $EWJ. I would increase your $AVDU & $AVUV percentage or just buy a non USA world EFT like $ACWI and sell the individual stocks or your $QQQ holdings. Your individual tech stocks and $QQQ holdings likely will go up or down at the same time. I am also moving towards ETFs over individual stocks due to time & life. But the industries & indices matter more than just stocks vs ETFs. I would add non USA indices ETFs. Or at least all world ETF like $VT over holding both the $QQQ and $SPY/$VOO). Pick either the $QQQ or $SPY/$VOO, one or the other and buy $ACWI or $VT for the other indices holding. My worthless unasked for 2 cents.
You should care about TER but only within reason. Over 30+ years, a 0.07% difference compounds. But asset allocation and consistency matter far more than shaving a few basis points. If the ETFs track similar broad indexes (FTSE All-World vs MSCI ACWI), the structural differences are minimal for long-term investors. What matters more than 0.12% vs 0.19%: –tracking error –fund size & liquidity –replication method –tax efficiency –your ability to stick with it for decades Trying to optimize TER while adding single stocks like TSMC usually increases concentration risk far more than it improves returns. For a simple long-term strategy, broad diversification + low cost + behavioral discipline wins. Fees matter. Behavior matters more.
You have to consider that if you want a financial product that represents the market as a whole, including all sectors and all countries, cap-weighted, then the ETF *has* to hold a lot of s "smaller" companies. Also, ACWI or FTSE All-World *are" rather cheap already, so fees really shouldn't be the worry. Simplified, but just to illustrate: The US is more than half the index, around 60%. It also has major companies in every sector - which you would all want to have in ACWI, since the goal is to have a representative group of stocks for the whole market, so many companies turn out to be less than 1% of the index. If a country is "only" 5% of the market as a whole - but you also want to have a representative group of stocks - I think it becomes clear that then the individual holdings of that country would have to be " miniscule" on an index-wide basis. But - the point, the goal of something like ACWI is to represent all sectors and all countries. The current make-up is just how it is right now - if say Europe or Asia outperform the US over the next couple of years, the weights will shift.
Can look at it vs the performance Invesco’s KLMT which holds the top 500 large cap global stocks. ACWI (with mid caps) and KLMT have 77% overlap with KLMT having 99% of the stocks that ACWI has. ACWI still has a bit of advantage performance wise. There’s likely tracking, but also the mid-caps will show their own strengths globally (in just the U.S. mid caps now lag the S&P 500 … thought to be temporary btw). ACWI tracks very well but don’t think that’s a long term factor. However, if you look at popular VT at ~ 10,000 stocks and the similar ~4000 stock SPGM, .. SPGM usually does better than VT in most time frames. Think there can be too many small caps.
this comes down to what the fund is trying to do. something like ACWI isn’t trying to maximize impact from every single holding — it’s trying to capture the global market as it actually exists. a lot of those tiny positions barely move the needle individually, but collectively they reduce concentration risk and help match overall market returns. also the fund isn’t really “trading” all 2k stocks constantly, so trading fees aren’t as big of a drag as it sounds. most of the tiny positions just sit there and adjust gradually as the index changes. and the funny part is that the big returns usually still come from the top holdings anyway, because of market-cap weighting. if a small company becomes huge, its weight naturally increases over time without you needing to guess it beforehand. so it’s less about “too many stocks” and more about whether you want broad market exposure vs a more concentrated strategy. neither is wrong, just different goals.
>he median holding size is 0.01% of the assets... a company that size would need to grow 100x to give you a 1% return... yes, on the level of an individual company. no, on the level of broader sectors or trends. e.g., ACWI holds about 0.64% of the portfolio in Brazilian stocks. If Brazil's market goes to the moon and becomes 1.8% of the portfolio, it will boost overall performance. same for sectors, ACWI holds 6.5% in basic materials, so if that sector has major gains you'll see it reflected in overall performance.
The point of ACWI is not for each holding to move the needle. It is to own the whole global market efficiently. The tiny weights are just part of capturing the full opportunity set without stock picking risk. If a small company 100x’s, its weight grows naturally over time. The bigger questions are fees and diversification, not how many positions it holds.
You can’t reason with Bogleheads but if you’re a FIRE person you ideally would/should want private markets plays *especially* in an IRA! My venture capital fund (which has positions in Anthropic, SpaceX, xAI, Open AI, Anduril you name it) in my Roth did 39% last yr net of fees. My tech focused hedge fund did 33% (also in my Roth) net of fees. Remind me what the indices did last yr? Even the tech spyder which was in the 20’s I believe was trounced by my ‘lowest’ performing funds from my alternatives assets sleeve. All i can say is, you don’t know what you don’t know until you talk to someone. And while it might not be “every yr” that Xx fund outperforms the S&P et al. You can extrapolate the returns of *most* professionally managed portfolios [on any rolling 5 or 10 year timeline] that incorporate alternatives and they will beat the index by anywhere from 500-800 basis points *while reducing the overall risk* you’re exposed to. (That’s what you don’t get for free doing it yourself or Bogling. You’re *always* at the mercy of the market). And FWIW, the liquid portion (managed by the FA’s) of the portfolio beat both the S&P and ACWI net of my fee which i gladly pay 110 bps for (because i get way more than “just stocks.” I get tax guidance, estate planning, insurance planning, lending/premium mortgage pricing, and quite honestly a trusted to voice to use as a sound board when i want to evaluate risk outside of my wealth management relationship. i.e. I am throwing some money into DLS’s for data centers which is basically the Wild West right now).Full transparency: the alts due cost more but you’re getting paid handsomely for it and in most cases they are not available to retail/DIY shops so you’re basically paying cover at the door (one time).
Literally the exact opposite is true. Non-U.S. stocks outperformed in 2025, with the MSCI ACWI ex-USA rising 29.2% in 2025 vs. a ~16% gain for the S&P 500. International stocks attracted roughly 50 times more capital than U.S. equities in the opening weeks of 2026, according to Bank of America flow data tracking developed market funds. Not sure what you're looking at, but the US market while still dominant is becoming less so rapidly.
Given that you are the breadwinner and that you have a steady income, I am targeting my advice to you and not your parents. First, money market funds and bonds are nearly identical since most money market funds invest in bonds then take a cut. Bonds will keep your income generally just above inflation with fluctuations. Given current trajectories, bonds will deliver relatively small returns over the next year or two. In your shoes, I would dump all the money into a diversified index fund. $ACWI seems to be slightly better positioned than $IVV in our current geopolitical environment, but the two mostly overlap each other. If you do not like iShares, most other ETF and mutual fund purveyors have analog funds with equally small fees ($SPY, $VTI, etc.). If you do not want to own, I agree that real estate and the associated mortgage would not be a good idea. Real estate is illiquid, comes with huge fees, and tends to disappoint on returns.
I did move from a 100% port in just US stocks, to nearly 70% in a MSCI ACWI fund, some gold, and just my position in ASTS. The past 24h have been a breeze compared to staying invested a 100% in the US. The allocation is something like 63% US, and this feels waaay better with your stock market manipulator as president
ACWI IMI already went from, oh shock, oh horror, -1.05% to -0.86% and the market is only open for 20 minutes. It's a nothing burger.
MSCI ACWI ex USA (Net MA Tax)
yeah those 3 are honestly a solid “keep it simple” mix, just be careful with the word *safe* because the EM piece can move a lot more than people expect. what you’re really doing is building a global portfolio by hand (US + Europe + Emerging), which is totally fine, it just means you should be mindful of how big each slice is and how much overlap you end up with over time. if you ever want the same idea but even cleaner, a single global UCITS ETF (ACWI / FTSE All-World style) basically gives you US+EU+EM in one go, and then you only add an extra EM fund if you actually want that extra volatility.
You didn’t account for the dividends, which were much higher in international markets. That works out to about 33.29% for ACWI ex-USA vs. 17.88% for S&P 500.
FTIHX is a broad coverage index fund. The MSCI ACWI (All Country World Index) ex USA Investable Market Index is a broad coverage index. The category the index follows can basically be called "international" as one of a few names it could take.
Should have separate line for MSCI World. It's different from MSCI ACWI since it excludes emerging markets.
I share your sentiment on information overload. There is a SwissPersonalFinance sub Reddit which seems to be relatively helpful. You should join that one. Do you already have an IKBR account? Or another broker? If not, you need to get one. There are a lot of conversations on just going for VT, WEBN, ACWI, SSAC etc etc. A lot of comments on including bonds, so something like a Vanguard LifeStrategy 80 or 60. Could be relevant as you seem to have already reached the end of your earning years. Good luck.
My Portfolio with massive turnover and active trading: +30.56% MSCI ACWI ex USA (Net MA Tax): +30.6 Kind of embarrassing tbh, europe put up some good numbers this year. I only held due to AI infra exposure this year
Some of them may also leave the USA. Then owning them through an US-focused index is pointless too. A lot can indeed happen. That is why I mostly own an ACWI ETF. :)
Not UK / EU / Japan, which leaves only about 15% (emerging markets) of an All World / ACWI tracker.
Your plan is coherent for a young, high-risk-tolerance investor who’s already used to volatility, but here are the main things you’re either under-weighting or could tweak: 1. 100% Mag-7 long-term is still a massive concentration bet The Magnificent 7 are only \~30% of the S&P 500 today and \~45-50% of the Nasdaq-100. Putting 100% there is materially riskier than “100% Nasdaq” and way riskier than 60/40 Nasdaq/ACWI. If the AI trade reverses or regulation/anti-trust hits hard, you could easily lag the broad market by 10-20% per year for multiple years (see 2000-2010 when the biggest tech names underperformed horribly). 2. Waiting on the sidelines with $24k for a “big correction” is classic performance chasing in disguise Statistically you’ll do better just getting the money to work now in something you believe in long-term. The Mag-7 have corrected 15-30% plenty of times in the last 3 years and still ended much higher. Cash has an opportunity cost, especially at your age. 3. Reasonable middle-ground that keeps the spirit of your plan but reduces single-theme blowup risk * 70-80% in QQQM or a Mag-7 proxy (there are single-ticker funds that are literally just the 7 now) * 20-30% in a semi-equal-weight Nasdaq-100 (QQQE) or broader growth (VUG, IWF, SCHG) so you still get AI exposure without everything riding on AAPL/MSFT/NVDA etc. This still feels aggressive (way more than 99% of people your age) but survives a 2022-style growth crash much better. 4. The 20% high-conviction AI/Nuclear/Quantum bucket is fine That’s basically your “reddit stock” fun money — just keep it to 10-20% max so one zero doesn’t nuke the whole portfolio. 5. Monthly $600 DCA starting now is perfect Do that regardless of what you do with the $24k lump sum. Bottom line: 100% Mag-7 forever is unnecessary to stay “risk-on.” You can still be very aggressive (80% Nasdaq-100 + 20% moonshots) and have dramatically better diversification and downside protection than pure Mag-7. If you truly won’t flinch watching it drop 50%+, then sure, send the 100% Mag-7 plan — but most people (even ones who survived meme stocks) discover they have limits when it’s their biggest pile of money ever. Otherwise deploy the $24k into something like 80% QQQM + 20% thematic over the next 3-6 months and keep pounding the $600/month. You’ll sleep fine and still capture almost all of the upside you’re chasing.
I did the math and that's unfortunately not true. If you factor in reinvesting dividends, you end up with a CAGR of 1.60% during that time period. In other words, $10,000 invested in S&P 500 at the start of 2000 would get you to $12,287 by the end of 2012. What's damning though is that that CAGR underperformed inflation - factoring that in, you'd have an effective end amount of $9,007. International diversification would not have saved you then either - MSCI ACWI would have returned a similar amount (1.87% or $12,727).
I very explicitly stated as much in my reply, while also refuting the person I was replying to, who explicitly said that Burry has beaten the overall market every year, which is extremely wrong, because almost anyone would interpret the overall market to mean the S&P 500 or MSCI World/MSCI ACWI, all of which Burry has lagged. Thank you for lacking the most basic of reading comprehension, and contributing nothing to this conversation.
Clever head on to invest, but he should take the time to learn investing himself. Why does he want to invest it? Short term or long term aspirations? Long term? Pick a world tracker etf (ACWI is competitive) or fund (HSBC All World Index Fund), deposit the cash and forget about it. He'll hopefully thank himself in the future when he comes back to it.
FTSE All World or all country is best bet for that amount. T212 is good as no fees. Invesco FTSE All World is a good one. ACWI slightly cheaper but all country rather than all world. I prefer invesco personally and for your £300 the fee difference is nothing.
The S&P 500 in GBP £ is up 9%, the Nasdaq 100 12% and an All world ACWI fund over 13% the FTSE 100 20% The dollar decline has hurt returns in GBP It's actually paid to be diversified such as ACWI
Correcting for devaluation of the dollar, MSCI ACWI ex USA is where it was in Q3 2021.
If 80k is your 6-month salary, you'll be fine. You just paid the stupid tax. Now go put your invesment into diversified index fund like VTI, ACWI, INDY, FXI, TLT/BIL, GLD and IBIT.
What exactly did you put your money into? If you invested in S&P500 or some ACWI index, just chill out, you'll be fine in the end.
You're going to be saying the same thing about the spy in 15 years, while ex us grows >International stocks outperformed US stocks during several extended periods: the late 1970s, the mid to late 1980s, and most notably from 2002 through 2007. >The 2001-2010 period was particularly strong for international markets, with the MSCI ACWI ex-US index delivering a cumulative return of 71.5% compared to just 15% for the S&P 500.
I reccomand you to invest 70% of your savings in well-diversified etf like VOO, ACWI, URTH. And you can decide where to invest the rest of savings. It could be bonds, commodities and crypto. Doing so, you can generate more return
Chat disagrees Short answer: the S&P 500 has outperformed the rest of the world over the last 5 years. • S&P 500 (IVV) 5-yr average annual total return: ~16.6% (USD, dividends reinvested, to Aug 31, 2025).  • Rest of world (ACWI ex-U.S., ACWX) 5-yr average annual total return: ~10.1% (USD, dividends reinvested, to Aug 31, 2025).  • Cumulatively, that’s roughly ~111% for the S&P 500 vs ~62% for ACWI ex-U.S. over 5 years. 
No worries at all, I've been nerding it up on this stuff a while now. With the world index you need to check if they are equal weighted or not, if they aren't then you will have heavy exposure to the Mag7, some of which you will already own etc. Looking at MSIC World ACWI its 62.54% weighted to the US. If you are worried about too much exposure to USA then you can go equal weighted on a fund instead which will be less heavily invested in USA.
Yes. YTD the MSCI ACWI ex US is up 25% to the S&P’s 14%. The MSCI EM index is up 27% YYD after the recent china tech rally.
Yeah, it's tough to say, most of the emerging market countries (China, Taiwan, India, South Korea) which make up the vast majority of most EM funds are already captured in most international indices anyways, so to me it's like weighting your portfolio for potentially more risk. The current return on investment since 2000 has been abysmal compared to World/ACWI but as you said, that might change. I guess the attractive thing is that EMs trade at a lower P/E, higher yield, and aren't correlated as much with domestic funds? https://www.msci.com/www/fact-sheet/msci-emerging-markets-index/07149641
I have some emerging marktets in a ACWI etf I own. At some point i stopped investing into that particular one and started investing in msci world, which only includes developed world, instead. I don't like emerging markets. I find them to be unreliable and I don't see it as beneficial to my portfolio. If you think emerging markets will outperform, I think you can safely invest into them through an ETF.
Looking at the ETFs that use the indices, and for the first dividend fund .. LCOW Is pretty new snd at a glance, invests in 100 of the S&P 100 for free cash flow + dividend history. Its top holdings are some of the regular S&P index top stocks, but arranged via the FCF/dividend screen so Broadcom is its top holding (as of this post).. If you’re good with expense vs dividend it’ll pretty much follow the tech sector for awhile. Global quality has been around and, in iShares versions of “quality” funds, a couple of the top 10 US stocks get the boot as they don’t pass sales/accounting, plus other screens. That said, you have to be good with watching those deleted stocks go up anyways. Looking at a non-US UTICs/ETF iShares version, it’s the top 300+ screened stocks in the world at 0.25% ER (vs their ACWI product at 0.32% with their 1000+ biggest stocks). My theory is there are indeed “stinker” companies out there, .. but I pare them out anyways during annual rebalancing with bonds>>gold stocks.
> 33% of the S&P index is mag 7 s 20% of the world index. You might argue that that's not much better, but the world index should be your comparator. You wouldn't sell your Amazon and invest the money in the S&P 500 (if you had any sense of caution), you would sell it and invest in the MSCI ACWI.
iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF is already diversified, you don't need to diversify into more ETFs and it doesn't get you anything. It already contains the entire S&P500 at market weight. Buying a S&P500 ETF on top actually reduces your diversification as it's a tilt to US large cap. This isn't necessarily wrong, you just need to understand it isn't diversifying you. ETFs hold hundreds or thousands of companies. S&P500 ETF holds 500 US large cap companies. iShares Core MSCI World holds 1,323 companies, *including* those 500- plus more. So you have all of the S&P500 already in that ETF, and if you buy more you have what's called "overlap" which is concentrating your holding in US large cap. If you wanted to diversify, while still in equities, you would be better off adding an emerging markets ETF like [iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF](https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00BKM4GZ66) (at market weight- so no more than 10%) as that specific iShares ETF is developed markets only. This gives you an additional 3,044 companies that *aren't* already in the developed markets ETF. Alternately, and it would be my preference, you could buy an "All World" ETF like [Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF](https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00BK5BQT80) (3,592 holdings) or [iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF](https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B6R52259) (2,318 holdings). Note all of these are 100% equity and that's risky. Much less risky than holding single stocks, but you could have as much as a 40-50% drop easy in a crash, so you need to be prepared for that and accept it could happen. Diversification beyond equities would involve bond funds but I don't feel you really need this at age 30, particularly not if you also have two properties and the equity portion of your overall net worth is only 30-40%. On average, over the long run, equities have better performance. But you really need ask do you accept a possible drop of 40-50%. Accepting that *risk* is what gets you the long-term average returns of 7-10%, rather than the 2% you are getting now (with capital 100% protected).
Great questions. For long-term diversification, I'd lean towards the global ETF (ACWI or VEA) over gold. Gold doesn't generate returns like equities and is more of a volatility hedge. A world index gives you broader exposure and potential growth. As for timing, trying to time the market is usually a losing strategy. If you're truly planning a 10-year hold, dollar-cost averaging now might be smarter than waiting for a perfect pullback. Your QQQ is tech-heavy, so a global ETF would provide nice sector and geographic balance. Personally, I'd do 10-20% in ACWI and keep the rest in QQQ.
Vanguard’s VEA is actually “international” which is defined as “non-US”, while IShares ACWI is truly global large-mid cap (at 0.32% ER). Vanguard has their all-cap global etf VT at 0.06%, while State Street has a less popular all-cap global SPGM at 0.09% that’s more concentrated than VT but usually has better returns (price and dividend). I’d love ACWI at a VT expense ratio, but one reason it’s more expensive reportedly is it tracks its index better = attracts traders. Now iShares URTH is global developed, so it will invest in an index with the US, Europe, Japan and other long term capitalists countries, but leave off China, India, and smaller recent capitalistic coin. It does have some stocks that support the emerging mkts but are domiciled in the U.S. ~ less than 1% last I checked. Vanguard’s VEA is all caps developed ex-US with a cheap er but their VEU is all world ex-US large-middle cap with still some small-cap stocks. Another possibility if wanting to leave off China, India, etc.. but keeping South Korea is Schwab’s SCHF at just a tad more er for a large to mid-cap etf. There’s VXUS or IXUS with more small caps, but personally having only 100 mostly U.S. stocks in QQQ vs 3,400 to 4,400 in IXUS or VXUS kind of seems unbalanced to me (but YMMV). Also Fidelity offers an all-cap version of QQQ with the symbol ONEC.
Honestly, putting 100% in QQQ is super concentrated, so thinking about adding diversification makes sense. If you’re planning to hold for a decade, I’d personally lean toward adding a global ETF like URTH or ACWI, it gives you exposure to markets outside the U.S. and different sectors that might outperform at different times. Gold (like GLD or IAU) is more of a hedge; it won’t grow much, but it can reduce volatility and help during market stress. You don’t have to go all-in at once, maybe start with 5-10% into the global ETF and see how it feels. That way you’re not trying to time a perfect pullback but still start building balance into your portfolio
The US is 60+% of the total by market cap. VT is 63.4% US. https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/vt MSCI ACWI is 64.6% US. https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/8d97d244-4685-4200-a24c-3e2942e3adeb
>The reason for this choice was to have some apples in the big companies more classic basket and the rest on small opportunities around the world I see two issues here. First, your "classic basket" is not very representative of the world economy or indeed the US economy. It's a bet on a handful of big tech companies. This has been a great bet in recent years and maybe it will continue to be a great bet. But what if it isn't? Your investments in that basket are highly concentrated with very little diversification. Second, I'm not convinced that the average small cap deserves to be called an "opportunity". There are three types of small caps. Those that always stay small (or go bust) because they are lame. Those that have fallen out of the mid cap category because they are in decline. And those that quickly outgrow the small cap index to become mid caps or even large caps. It's that last group of stocks that you want to own. But what do you do? You sell them. You sell them exactly when they are successful and outgrow the small cap index. And because you don't own any mid caps in your portfolio, you completely miss out on exactly this group of companies that you really wanted to own. That's why I think the broad ACWI IMI (IE00B3YLTY66) that contains small, mid and large caps makes more sense if you want to own small caps at all. My personal opinion is that the small cap category contains too much crap, in some cases bordering on the dodgy. I don't want to own small caps at all, which is why I'm putting the globally diversified part of my portfolio into the regular ACWI (IE00B44Z5B48) that doesn't contain small caps.
Pull the index data and calculate yourself. EAFE growth goes back to 1974, ACWI ex US growth to 1996.
ACWI already includes everything in the nasdaq 100, as well as emerging markets. We don't know what am optimal balance is, but if you go with the market weighting approach, you're overweighting those two categories and could simply eliminate those funds.
Hey, can you take a look at my portfolio and tell me if it looks too complicated / unbalanced? Current ETF allocation: * Core MSCI EM IMI – 12% * Physical Gold – 5% * Nasdaq 100 – 32% * MSCI ACWI – 51% I’m a bit worried about being too heavy on Nasdaq (AI bubble fears). I’m thinking of cutting it down from 32% to around 20%, but I’m not sure where to put the extra. Should I increase MSCI EM IMI or just add more to ACWI? Or should i cut it down even lower ? Any advices? What would you do?
> ACWI Probably the returns large cap has given, while it takes a lot for a small cap in VT (with over 9000 stocks) to register its gains. SPGM has outperformed VT as well in the past 10 years by almost 1%, with only a modest increase in ER, with less overall stocks (SPGM is a little more “concentrated” to the developed large caps). Was looking at it last night and ACWI may track a little better which is good for trading,
I hold ACWI which tracks a diffeent index but it’s very similar -‘what’s your thoughts on it?
Mango made Spy moon while ACWI remains flat. That is some 4D market chess
-Global (Blackrock MSCI ACWI IMI Index Non-Lendable Collective Investment Trust; Class F shares): 0.06% -International: 0.08% -Small cap: 0.03% -Large cap: 0.02% -Market Money Funds: 0.08% There’s also a portfolio which included Gobal equity 75% allocation, Real return fund 15% and US intermediate bond index fund 10% for a 0.06 expense ratio These are basically it. Also, it looks like I can split my allocations between Roth and Traditional.
Global (Blackrock MSCI ACWI IMI Index Non-Lendable Collective Investment Trust; Class F shares): 0.06% International: 0.08% Small cap: 0.03% Large cap: 0.02% Market Money Funds: 0.08% There’s also a portfolio which included Gobal equity 75% allocation, Real return fund 15% and US intermediate bond index fund 10% for a 0.06 expense ratio
Global (Blackrock MSCI ACWI IMI Index Non-Lendable Collective Investment Trust; Class F shares): 0.06% International: 0.08% Small cap: 0.03% Large cap: 0.02% Market Money Funds: 0.08% There’s also a portfolio which included Gobal equity 75% allocation, Real return fund 15% and US intermediate bond index fund 10% for a 0.06 expense ratio
You can invest in stocks anywhere in the world, therefore your benchmark is a world or all world index. MSCI World or ACWI; FTSE Developed World or All World. If you buy a tracker of one these indexes then you are guaranteed to meet your benchmark - you're getting the world average, with no effect, which is better than about 8/10 or 9/10 of people who pick their individual stocks. When you pick individual stocks, you're saying that you're smarter than everyone else - you're smarter than the collective intelligence of the world's professional investors, who buy the stocks that move markets and define the returns of the index. You're on here asking a bunch of randoms "what should I invest in?" If it was that easy to beat the average, don't you think everyone would be doing it? How come the majority of professional active managers fail to beat this average, when accounting for costs and fees?^[1](https://archive.is/V6AyL),[2](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/90-of-fund-managers-beat-the-market-but-their-shareholders-dont-2015-01-21),[3](https://www.justetf.com/uk/news/passive-investing/the-proof-that-active-managers-cannot-beat-the-market.html) It's pointless doing this unless you believe that you can make more money than you would by investing in an index fund (if you expect to lose then that would mean you're actively choosing to piss money away), but what if you don't? What are yoiu going to do if your picks are bad, like [that guy who put his whole inheritance into Intel at $30 a share last year](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/1ehjuzj/i_bought_700k_worth_of_intel_stock_today/)? Are you really going to hold onto a dog for 10 or 20 years? Do you have the fortitude to hold on and underperform everyone else, in the belief that your portfolio will beat the market in the end? NEST pensions: > It is possible for people to be risk seeking and also strongly loss averse. People may be comfortable in the abstract or under experimental research conditions with the notion of investment risk. When confronted with the reality of an investment losing value, they may have a negative reaction that could not be anticipated from their self-reported level of risk tolerance. The research found this to be the case most strongly among younger people. Young people self-report higher levels of risk appetite, research shows they may be the most loss averse in practice and most likely to take action if confronted with loss. > … > Findings from this suggest that the target group are often strongly loss averse. They displayed quite emotional responses to loss during the research: disappointment, anger, helplessness and often surprise and incredulity being typical. When participants’ hypothetical pension lost value, they wanted to know where the money had gone and who to blame for losing it. > Pension loss was also felt with a sense of immediacy and was not considered within the context of a long term savings vehicle. Participants talked about the loss as if it they had less in their current account or wallet than they expected to have, given what they had put in. It was commonly thought that pensions grew slowly but steadily in value, in line with their contributions and with a modest amount of gain. A loss was seen as an anomaly or a fault, particularly by those who were un-pensioned, as they did not understand the difference between pensions as a form of investment and savings accounts that accumulated with interest.^[PDF](https://web.archive.org/web/20170705214114/http://www.nestpensions.org.uk/schemeweb/NestWeb/includes/public/docs/member-research-brief,PDF.pdf)
MSCI ACWI, cant predict the market, buy the market
The best advice would probably be to go for rather diversified stocks etf…if you want some world exposure go for MSCI world (70% USA), if you also want to include emerging markets you can also go for MSCI ACWI (60% USA). If you want to just have USA - as others have mentioned just go for an S&P 500 ETF Also check TER (totals yearly costs) and personally I would recommend one with physical replication and not swap based. Also you can choose between accumulating and distributing. As you probably want your returns to compound, in your case an accumlating one makes sense. Most important: just start doing it! You are super early in your life and will be thankful later.
i keep my Nio stocks (luckily a minor amount invested) as a reminder to never stock pick and only index invest. Im happy with an annual return close to the average of MSCI ACWI.
Emerging markets (ACWI) carries a risk premium, supposedly.
How about ACWI World. almost the same as MSCI World but even more internationally diversified
SPY, ACWI, VEA, IBIT, ETHA and the glorious BRKB, not an ETF though.
MSCI All Country World Index, tracked by $ACWI ETF A really famous index consisting of both developed and emerging markets. Similar to the FTSE All world index, tracked by the $VT ETF Guys, you are on a stock subreddit...
Was looking at the US products (SPDR SPGM and iShares ACWI) and found a bit of better performance difference .. vs. Vanguard’s VT (which has many more “small to micro caps” than the other 2),.. though SPDR at a slightly higher ER and the iShares at a much higher ER. Probably a large cap premium plus DFA’s finding a lot of EM small cap just sit there. SPDR can use sampling here in the US, though not sure if that’s significant returns-wise.
So VT follows an all-world (DM + EM) all caps index eh? I reckon that’s what I’m doing DCAing into an ETF replicating the MSCI ACWI IMI index.
> can’t see it beating a Chinese/Indian .. AI/robotics No one knows for certain though India is likely prime for “growth”. Also consider that the U.S. has 62% to 66% of global market cap despite only 4% of the global population (80% if talking about the “‘mega-caps”). Market standards and the American worker kowtowing to Milton Friedman style capitalism [perhaps not that willingly but anyways..] do matter. One idea may be a “global” portfolio or even fund/ETF. Vanguard’s all-cap VT or for just large/mid caps .. iShares ACWI for a pure market cap play. There’s also dividing up VTI (US) and VSUX(non-US) …or ITOT and IXUS for iShares. Another interesting twist would be Vanguard’s new environmental/social all-cap funds .. ESGV (US) and VSGX (non-US); “feel good” stuff especially if there’s an eco-disaster in the future, .. plus DFA research noted some sectors, like emerging small cap value, have large stocks that just sit there; a firm going after environmental certifications the company may be more proactive in all aspects imho.
I‘d argue for an all country ETF based on MSCI ACWI or FTSE all world. And maybe have a look at a renewable energy ETF. Although being „the future of power supply“ their performence is absolute garbage. Maybe this can cure robotics/AI fomo.
You can replace your ACWI ETF with an ACWI IMI ETF instead to get all world all cap.
You're missing out on the whole rest of the world. If you want to diversify further you might prefer the FTSE All-World or the MSCI ACWI. Or a combination of the MSCI World and the MSCI Emerging Markets. Or other products. (Yes, I know that big companies listed in the S&P 500 do a lot of their business worldwide).
This is a 5m old post but thanks! I am already almost 100% invested in MSCI ACWI, for me was the best answer to have mental peace and be diversified
This is heavily concentrated imo. VTI or ACWI at the very least, even if you're young. Look to gain some small/mid/all world exposure. Even than, beware being tech heavy.
I try to avoid complexity unless there is a significant benefit. I have seen many portfolios managed by financial advisors that are complex combinations of both growth and value funds, in addition to blended funds. When I do a backtest on them they end up being essentially the same return as a basic low expense ratio total market fund. [Portfolio Visializer](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio) is good for backtesting, although free accounts are now limited to 10 year maximum backtests. For the portion of my portfolio that are ETFs I just default to the old reliables of VTI/ITOT/SCHB (total US stock market) and IXUS/VXUS (total ex-US stocks). I use the multiple ETFs for total US and total ex-US for tax loss harvesting. In your Roth that is irrelevant, so the simplest and easiest and most effective thing to do is to simply figure out our US/ex-US allocation and buy VTI and VXUS, at both brokers. VXUS tracks FTSE Global All Cap ex US Index, with 0.05% expense ratio with a fairly large tracking error of 1.78%. It is also available as the mutual fund VTIAX at the slightly 0.09% expense ratio. IXUS has 0.07% ratio and tracks MSCI ACWI ex USA IMI with 1.59% tracking error. The overall returns of the two ETFs are essentially identical. Your 20% allocation to international is very reasonable. Although market cap weighting of international is higher, due to the extra volatility from exchange rate variations, the minimum volatility (in USD) is in the low 30% range of ex-US. I choose to apply a mild home bias and chose overall 80/20 US/ex-US. Because the individual stock portion of my portfolio (old, low cost basis shares in taxable accounts) are predominantly US, my ETFs are about 60/40 US/international.
A global index fund that covers both developed and emerging markets (e.g. ACWI or FTSE All-World) will likely outperform gold over time. That said, if your heart is set on gold, the St. George is a good choice due to the capital gain tax exemption.
Going 50/50 into exactly two *single* investments is an incredibly plan. You should *strongly consider* buying at least one broad market fund. Something with at least hundreds of stocks in it, if not thousands, will provide you with a ‘core’ position. It doesn’t have to be 80% or even 50%. I personally wouldn’t consider going lower than 50% but maybe 33% will work. If it’s only one it should be worldly. Think: SPGM, VT, ACWI, AVGE, URTH, etc. even IOO would be better than only two equities.
You’re going to go broke dummy. Correlation is high because SPX is catching up to ACWI-ex US. Fuck your puts
I see your point, and thanks for sharing your opinion few days ago i had basically the same question if i should go for a MSCI world + EM one or a FTSE World/ MSCI ACWI instead in the end i choose the 2 in 1 option due to lower costs Maybe in the future i might change it so i have the flexibility of allocation
I agree with other posters. If you're going to invest in the US + Europe you might as well simplify and just buy an MSCI ACWI or MSCI World instead of holding multiple ETFs. That automatically contains all (developed) markets. FTSE All World or Prime All Country World are comparable options also
I made my US part of my portfolio smaller because I hate “Mango volatility”. I sold Msci world and bought emerging market and India. I dont know it was a good decision, I know that you should DCA 40 years long the same etfs but I want less USA. I left some Msci ACWI with 60 % USA. Maybe I will sell that later too if Mango does more stupid things and put it in Msci India.
Yes, I understood about the rates, but I didn't understand your strategy as a whole and the purpose of the box spread and its usefulness in general. Let me summarize (in the case of 100k$ PM account): 1- Buy about $100 k of smart-beta ETFs (Value / Quality / Momentum + ACWI) 2- Sell an **SPX box spread** (4 legs, same strike & expiry) to receive **N $** **3-** Use the N $ received to buy the same ETFs (Push total exposure to \~2–3× at low cost). 4- Check *Excess Liquidity* (Equity − Maintenance) daily to avoid margin calls My question is: do you use box spread for other strategies or just to buy smart beta ?
I think it's very likely that globally dominant US tech companies will continue to dominate. Network effects will make sure of it. The question is how much of that is already priced in and whether countries around the world will target these companies to retaliate against Trump's policies. Personally, I'm hedging my bets. Too much is changing in the US right now to put everything in that basket even if it's likely to outperform. The SPDR ACWI ETF has 62% US stocks and 38% from the rest of the world. The weighting gets adjusted automatically if fortunes shift. To me this seems like the safest way to own stocks unless and until you have formed your own opinions on more specific investment opportunities. To avoid disappointment I think you shouldn't expect too much from stocks in the coming years. It's highly unlikely that the incredible run they had over the past 15 years can be repeated. It's a historical anomaly.
Yes, That’s a good one relative to international category, which isn’t my cup of tea. ACWI is also better than VXUS.
>I saw that the safest place for it to be would be an isa since it's low risk You can choose between two types of ISA: (a) The cash ISA is just a tax free savings account. Your risk is that the interest paid is less than inflation so your savings could lose value (purchasing power) over time. Right now, I would not put my money in a savings account or cash ISA that pays less than 4% interest. (b) The stocks and shares ISA is a tax free investment account. You can buy stocks, bonds, money market funds or ETFs inside a stocks and shares ISA. The risk you're taking depends entirely on the investments you make. Many stocks and shares ISAs pay interest on uninvested cash (e.g Trading212 pays 4.35%). So what you could do is put your savings in a stocks and shares ISA that pays enough interest on uninvested cash and wait for the right time to buy stocks (maybe when the next crash comes along). If you're asking whether now is the right time to buy stocks then I don't really have a good answer for you. Stocks (US stocks in particular) have gone up a lot in the last 15 years and are now rather expensive. The world is highly unpredictable right now. So if you have no tolerance for losses then it may not be the best time to buy stocks. My own assets are currently 50% stocks and 50% money market funds. I used to hold almost all of it in stocks until the end of last year. If you don't need your money in the next 10 years or so then it doesn't really matter. You could just put everything in an index ETF and sit out any downturns. Statistically speaking this is a pretty good investment strategy over the long run. Or you could put half of it in an index ETF now and wait for the next crash to invest the other half. But if you're saving for a deposit or if you may need the money in emergencies then it's probably better to look for the highest interest cash ISA or buy a money market fund in a stocks and shares ISA (Ideally inside a flexible ISA where you can temporarily take money out without losing your ISA allowance) If you open a stocks and shares ISA and you plan to buy shares in foreign currencies, pay attention to the broker's forex fees. They are often egregious and far higher than the actual trading fees. If you buy ETFs, choose the ones that trade in GBP rather than USD. Here are some stock index ETFs if that's what you decide to buy: SPDR ACWI is a broad based ETF covering the whole world including developing and emerging markets. The annual fee is 0.12%: [https://www.justetf.com/uk/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B44Z5B48](https://www.justetf.com/uk/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B44Z5B48) SPDR SPXL is an S&P 500 ETF if you believe that the US will continue to outperform the rest of the world. The annual fee is 0.03%: [https://www.justetf.com/uk/etf-profile.html?isin=IE000XZSV718](https://www.justetf.com/uk/etf-profile.html?isin=IE000XZSV718) Both trade in GBP.
Thats what I use. ACWI is another with more US exposure.
Seriously ACWI prison ETF up 10% last month. As ICE ramps up it'll only grow.
Real talk: Next time divide your money into different portfolios: money you CAN'T loose into bonds, then majority just in some wide index (S&P 500/MSCI World or even ACWI), just a portion you can loose into options gambling... Sorry, but you probably aren't in this 2% that are above 0 trading options, especially 0DTE
My positions aren’t static and held in several different brokerages. The largest is the federal TSP I fund, which mirrors the MSCI ACWI IMI ex USA ex China ex Hong Kong Index. My main brokerage account is in Vanguard Developed Markets Index (VTMGX) and Vanguard Total International Bond (BNDX). Individual holdings are limited to BRK.B, GLD, SLV, and some AAPL that I’d owe huge cap gains on if I sold.
MSCI ACWI. Very low TER, good fund sizing. And please accumulation (unless you want to pay taxes over taxes). Second choice according to me is MSCI WORLD ETF, exactly like the First one but not including the emerging market (e.g. china)
MSCI ACWI. Very low TER, good fund sizing. And please accumulation (unless you want to pay taxes over taxes). Second choice according to me is MSCI WORLD ETF, exactly like the First one but not including the emerging market (e.g. china)