I have 2 questions about your portfolio: Why 2 World ETFs? And why do you invest in both? One is quite enough here. You have a lot of overlaps here. I also think a world ETF with 400 positions is very limited. A lot is filtered out and you lose performance. The same applies to Europe: why 3 Europe ETFs? You also have a lot of overlaps here. You sometimes have companies that are included in all 3. So you have overweighted them a lot. Are you aware of that? Do you want to do that? Why make the whole thing so complicated? 1 World ETF and 1 Europe ETF is enough.
•
11
•
@Snopy One could find a justification in the fact that he does not want to miss out on a possible esg influence. Or, conversely, that he actually prefers esg, but does not want to miss out on a possibly better performance of the "normal" etf?
•
11
•
1Yr
@Snopy Thanks for your comment. That's how the ETFs have grown. Originally I only wanted the "sustainable" MSCI World. However, in order to cover all areas, I recently added the normal one to the portfolio. However, my aim is to weight the "sustainable" companies more heavily. This may not seem obvious at first. However, I assume that sustainable companies will have it "easier" in future due to the fewer restrictions. While the other companies will still have to undergo a transformation. However, I am also aware that not all companies in ESG / SRI ETFs are "sustainable". As far as Europe is concerned, $EQDS is my dividend generator. I wanted to receive a few safe dividends to make more use of the allowance. The $MEUD, on the other hand, is very new to the portfolio and should become my basic EU ETF in future. $SAEU is still a remnant of my investment beginnings. It is no longer held in savings. Its purpose corresponds to "sustainable" investing, as with the MSCI World, but basically I also see it as something I can restructure to simplify the portfolio.
•
11
•