I took the profit with me.
The shares had just been lying around for almost two years and hadn't been saved anyway.
It was my first contact with investment vehicles apart from savings accounts :)
The money is invested differently via Scalable.
Postes
4I took the profit with me.
The shares had just been lying around for almost two years and hadn't been saved anyway.
It was my first contact with investment vehicles apart from savings accounts :)
The money is invested differently via Scalable.

Recently I have been looking a little more closely at the $UI4L (+0,01 %) and compared it with a classic world index like the $VWRL (-1,24 %) especially in terms of costs.
Performance in comparison (approx. values, cost-adjusted)
1 year:
3 years:
5 years:
Meaning: Despite active management, the $UI4L (+0,01 %) slightly behind the broad market (and even relatively consistently).
If you look at the overall picture, it quickly becomes clear that the cost structure in particular plays a decisive role. While the $UI4L (+0,01 %) comes with running costs of around 1.8% (plus a possible performance fee), an ETF on the FTSE All World is usually only around 0.15-0.25%. This difference has a massive impact on returns in the long term and explains a large part of the underperformance.
Nevertheless, I do not see the $UI4L (+0,01 %) as a "bad" product across the board. Especially for investors who do not want to actively manage their portfolio or deliberately opt for active management, a fund like this can make perfect sense. The psychological factor also plays a role, you give up some of the responsibility and have the feeling that someone is actively steering you through market phases.
It was exactly the same for me: the $UI4L (+0,01 %) is currently my core position and has given me a certain sense of security, especially in my first few years on the stock market, thanks to active management. At the same time, however, I am noticing more and more that I am becoming increasingly critical of the high costs and am thinking about at least partially reallocating the position.
In the end, the comparison shows me one thing above all: there is no clear "right or wrong" here. One $VWRL (-1,24 %) is the more favorable and efficient solution from a rational point of view, while an active fund such as the $UI4L (+0,01 %) may well be justified for certain types of investors - especially at the beginning.
How do you see it? Do you consistently invest in ETFs or do you also consciously hold active funds in your portfolio? If so, why?
~ No investment advice ~
A bit of reallocation again. So now I've also got rid of my last fund. Performance was okay so far, but the costs are extremely high...
$N/A (+0,01 %) increased by 15tsd,
6% interest annually since 2017, monthly savings plan €150
I'm sure some people will say there's better, but I feel comfortable with it. 😊😊
Meilleurs créateurs cette semaine