10Mon
•
33
•
10Mon
@Kronos_ @Kronos_ yes, that's what I mean. Especially if you have a $VWCE and are therefore broadly positioned in terms of countries, you could use the $FUSD as a pure US admixture to increase the return a little.
If you have the $VWRL, you would "not" need a second global or an s&p500 that is also US only. But many do 😅.
I'm currently considering which one to add myself, and I'm wondering why $FUSD is so unpopular here.
If you have the $VWRL, you would "not" need a second global or an s&p500 that is also US only. But many do 😅.
I'm currently considering which one to add myself, and I'm wondering why $FUSD is so unpopular here.
••
10Mon
@PaFl I think that's because they're looking at something different than you are. You look at the 10-year return in the past and decide in favor of the US from there. The others look to the future, are agnostic and want to diversify across all markets.
If you choose ACWI and quality, you obviously want to diversify globally across two factors: size and quality.
Whether this makes sense or is just a lukewarm strategy soup remains to be seen.
If you choose ACWI and quality, you obviously want to diversify globally across two factors: size and quality.
Whether this makes sense or is just a lukewarm strategy soup remains to be seen.
•
11
•
@PaFl I suspect that those who prefer an All-World to an MSCI World are those who prefer an All-World to an MSCI World because the All-World also covers the EM and therefore the US share in the ETF is lower. Why would they then choose a second ETF that increases the US share again? The MSCI World has also performed better than the All-World in recent years - why do so many people still invest in it? In my opinion, the answer is broader diversification. That's why the $FGEQ instead of the $FUSD as an addition to the $VWRL
•
11
•10Mon
@Epi I hadn't even considered that the decision comes from a two-factor strategy. Thank you
••