Non trouvé

Utilisateur supprimé

1Année

Le commentaire a été supprimé

Papa@Papa8

1Année

@Seebi Why counterproductive? I don't see a problem.

•

Tütenraudi@Tuetenraudi

1Année

@Michi8 I don't see one either. It's latte

•

Utilisateur supprimé

1Année

Le commentaire a été supprimé

Julian@MoneyISnotREAL

1Année

@Seebi TER is a percentage.

Whether you have 2x €50,000 at 0.2% each or
1x €100,000 at 0.2% doesn't matter 😉.

There is nothing wrong with having both MSCI & FTSE.

•

Utilisateur supprimé

1Année

Le commentaire a été supprimé

Utilisateur supprimé

1Année

Le commentaire a été supprimé

niemalsinsolvent@niemalsinsolvent

1Année

@Seebi It is a shift from one to the other, they should not run in parallel.

••

Julian@MoneyISnotREAL

1Année

@Seebi Actually, he did. He first saved in the FTSE, i.e. with emerging markets.
Due to the performance and his own requirements, he is no longer satisfied with this and is saving in the MSCI (i.e. without emerging markets).

Simply leave the old ETF where it is, otherwise #Steuern = less capital = destruction of interest.

In addition, he can avoid the FIFO principle (i.e. sell the most recent shares first => lowest profit => lowest tax burden) when deconsolidating later.

I have it the same way.

First saved in the FTSE, but have now switched to the MSCI. Let's see later, maybe everything, so ACWII. 😉

•

Julian@MoneyISnotREAL

1Année

@Seebi If he also thinks that NASDAQ is doing better than the world ETF, then he can of course add that.

But then you have a higher cluster risk. With the world ETF, you are simply satisfied with the average market return.

He has to decide that for himself. I don't know the future either, which will be better in 30 years' time.

••

Julian@MoneyISnotREAL

1Année

@niemalsinsolvent Then switch if you think you don't want any emerging markets.

There's no point in waiting until there's more return. Both will perform very similarly.

Just note: profits => tax => less capital than if you just leave the old ETF in place

••