The solactive index which LGGG tracks is a ESG type index. It excludes arms manufacturers, fossil fuel companies etc.
Just pointing that out for anyone who may not be aware.
This is part of where the costs are saved on the OCF, by limiting the investment universe to the more developed, cheaper markets.
I think I would prefer a more diverse holdings set and pay a slightly higher fee. VWRP has over 3000 holdings for 0.22%
That said the below is making me want to revisit that thought, as the outperformance looks to be trending and more than the fee difference.
2 Likes
I used to include emerging markets for completeness. I was swayed by the logic in developing countries growing faster in the longer term, and I still am though to a lesser degree.
However, nowadays, I just buy a handful of stocks rather than a tracker or active fund for emerging markets. It’s cheaper and gives me greater control.
1 Like
I can see how holding a handful of stocks in emerging markets would be cheaper than an index tracker, but it is going to give you much lower returns unless you’re extremely lucky with your stock picks.
Although this post is not about showcasing the cheapest World ETF, I thought it might be helpful to analyse gaining global exposure on DM using a couple of ETFs or just one.
I have picked three ETFs that would do the job; however, comparable products ara available and suited to achieve a similar goal.
To compare the pros and cons of using a combination of Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating and Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C versus using the Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc, let’s look at the following aspects: geographical coverage, expense ratio, performance, and diversification.
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating and Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating (40%)
- ISIN: IE00BFMXXD54
- TER: 0.07%
- Coverage: Tracks the S&P 500 Index, providing exposure to 500 large-cap US companies.
- Type: Accumulating, reinvests dividends.
Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C (20%)
- ISIN: IE0006WW1TQ4
- TER: 0.15%
- Coverage: Tracks the MSCI World ex USA Index, covering developed markets excluding the USA.
- Type: Accumulating, reinvests dividends.
Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc (60%)
- ISIN: IE00BK5BQV03
- TER: 0.12%
- Coverage: Tracks the FTSE Developed World Index, providing exposure to developed markets including the USA.
- Type: Accumulating, reinvests dividends.
Pros and Cons
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF and Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF
Pros:
- Targeted Exposure: Allows specific allocation to the US and non-US developed markets, offering more control over geographic exposure.
- Low Expense Ratio for US Exposure: The S&P 500 ETF has a very low TER (0.07%), which is advantageous for cost-sensitive investors.
- Flexibility: Greater flexibility to adjust weightings between US and ex-US developed markets based on market conditions or personal preferences.
Cons:
- Higher Combined TER: When combined, the weighted TER of these two ETFs is slightly higher (0.07% for S&P 500 and 0.15% for MSCI World ex USA) compared to the single Vanguard FTSE Developed World ETF.
- Management Complexity: Requires managing two separate ETFs, which might involve more trading and monitoring.
Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc
Pros:
- Simplicity: Single ETF that provides comprehensive exposure to the developed markets, including the USA.
- Moderate TER: The TER of 0.12% is competitive and straightforward for broad market exposure.
- Balanced Exposure: Automatically balances exposure between the US and other developed markets, reducing the need for frequent rebalancing.
Cons:
- Less Control: Less ability to independently adjust the allocation between US and non-US developed markets.
- Moderate TER for US Exposure: Though still competitive, the TER is slightly higher than the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF.
Summary Comparison
- Expense Ratio: The combined TER of using the Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (0.07%) and Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF (0.15%) would be around 0.09% if allocated at 40% and 20%, respectively. This is slightly lower than the 0.12% TER of the Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF.
- Diversification and Control: Using two separate ETFs allows for more control over the geographical allocation between US and non-US developed markets, which can benefit strategic adjustments. However, it also involves managing two funds instead of one.
- Simplicity and Rebalancing: The single ETF (Vanguard FTSE Developed World) simplifies management and ensures a balanced exposure to developed markets without frequent rebalancing.
Conclusion
For investors who prefer simplicity and are looking for a straightforward approach to gain exposure to developed markets, including the US, the Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc could be a valid choice. It provides broad diversification with a moderate expense ratio.
For investors who want more control over their geographical exposure and can handle slightly more complexity in managing their portfolio, the combination of Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF and Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF could be more beneficial due to the slightly lower combined expense ratio and the ability to independently adjust allocations between US and non-US markets.
Your choice should align with your investment strategy, risk tolerance, and preference for simplicity versus control. I hope this was useful, and happy investing!
Why have you cherry picked those 3?
The problem with creating your own is the rebalancing.
Why not go with FWRG, HMWO or VWRP and be done with it?
Or as you’ve shown, check out the global reach of the S&P500, is it far enough?
Great questions, @Dougal1984 ! However, I believe there might be a bit of misunderstanding about the purpose of my original post. I understand the concern about rebalancing when creating your own portfolio, and the simplicity of using all-in-one ETFs like FWRG, HMWO, or VWRP is certainly appealing. Let me clarify the reasoning behind the original post and offer some insights on both approaches.
Why Cherry Pick Those 3 ETFs?
In the original post, I aimed to highlight two different strategies for achieving global exposure, each with its own set of advantages and drawbacks. The ETFs were selected to compare targeted exposure versus a single comprehensive ETF. Here’s a deeper look:
- Targeted Exposure with Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF and Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF
- Control and Flexibility: This combination allows investors to have more control over their geographical allocation. For example, if you believe the US market will outperform, you can allocate more to the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF.
- Cost Efficiency: The combined TER of 0.09% is slightly lower than some all-in-one options, providing cost savings.
- Simplicity with Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF
- Ease of Management: A single ETF that covers developed markets, including the US, simplifies the investment process. No need for frequent rebalancing.
- Balanced Exposure: Automatically balances the exposure between US and non-US developed markets.
Rebalancing Concerns
You are right that creating a custom portfolio can involve rebalancing, which might be seen as a drawback. However, some investors are willing to take on this task for the benefit of having more control over their investments. It is about finding the right balance between control and convenience.
Why Not Use FWRG, HMWO, or VWRP?
These ETFs are excellent choices for broad global exposure, and they simplify the investment process by including both developed and emerging markets in one fund.
Pros:
- Comprehensive Coverage: These ETFs offer extensive global exposure, including developed and emerging markets.
- Automatic Rebalancing: They rebalance themselves, saving time and effort for the investor.
- Simplicity: A single purchase provides a diversified portfolio, ideal for hands-off investors.
Cons:
- Less Control: You can’t adjust specific regional exposures as easily as with a custom portfolio.
- Potentially Higher TER: Depending on the ETF, the TER might be slightly higher than a carefully selected combination of individual ETFs.
Is the Global Reach of the S&P 500 Enough?
The S&P 500 does provide significant global reach, as many of its constituents are multinational corporations with substantial revenues from outside the US. However, it is still US-centric. Adding non-US developed and emerging market exposure helps diversify away from any potential US-specific risks.
Conclusion
For simplicity and minimal management effort, ETFs like FWRG, HMWO, or VWRP are excellent choices. They offer broad, diversified global exposure with the convenience of a single fund.
For those who want more control and are comfortable with occasional rebalancing, a custom combination like the Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF and Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF (or comparable products) might be more attractive due to the potential for a slightly lower combined TER and the flexibility to adjust regional exposures.
Ultimately, the choice depends on your investment strategy, risk tolerance, and preference for simplicity versus control. Both approaches can effectively achieve the goal of global diversification.
I hope this helps clarify your concerns.
Dan
1 Like
Is this Gemini? The formatting is really familiar.
2 Likes
Gemini? Sorry, @Scrooge_McCodf, I must have missed something…
After some research (I was curious)…I found the following couple of things which I believe might be relevant to your comment.
-
Gemini - chat to supercharge your ideas
https://gemini.google.com -
Gemini
https://www.gemini.com
Gemini makes crypto simple.
I haven’t looked into those; however, the first one I believe it is some for of ChatGPT lookalike wheareas the second is about crypto currency.
If you hinted to the first one and me using that to create my post, then I have to say I am genuinely surprised my post looked like anything generated by AI. An to be honest, I don’t know if that is good or bad 
In case you meant the second one, well I don’t do anything related to crypto.
I hope this helps clarify things.
I mean it’s 100% AI. It’s the exact same formatting and heading types they use when answering basic queries. I’m just wondering which one. No shame, I’m just curious.
1 Like
This is hilarious, I am curious too understanding how this could be 100% AI. I am happy to show you how I put this things together, and yes, I do use a sort of standardised structure to help developing the content.
That said, the main purpose of these posts is to help investors in making educated decisions, and I hope Inhave been able to provide some help 
Yes the standard format is likely Gemini. They even capitalise the same things you do. I’ve no idea why you want to lie about it. It’s blatantly obvious and I wasn’t throwing shade (at first) now you’re unwilling to admit it, I’m highly highly dubious of anything you post.
You are entitled to have your opinion, and I would have said it was gemini if that was the case. You can carry on making all the allegations you want, but I still hope these posts will help those investors who are seeking to learn a bit more about the world of investing.
Concluding, the information provided in the posts is there to be checked for legitimacy.
I hope we can all focus on more valuable conversation, and bynthe way I am always happy to help
Turns out I could have just asked Gemini.
1 Like
VEVE+VFEM, or the accumulating versions and your charges are lower than that of VWRL or VWRP, and it’s the same as the all world.
2 Likes
I used to do exactly this. It strikes a good balance between costs and the faff of having multiple ETFs for the US, EU, Asia, Japan etc.
1 Like
My Gemini is different
1 Like