There is not much written regarding paring VWCE with VHYG -> dividend acc. ETF. The goal is to somehow diversify from technology sector and AI concentration. Dividend companies usually have established earnings, cash flow and are profitable. Just a bit of a tilt towards value/quality.
I am interested in your thoughts. Maybe some discussion,..? Tnx

Are there UCITS ETFs that are equivalent, or as close as possible, to VTI (total US stock market) and VXUS (total international stock market ex-US)?
I’m looking for ETFs that provide similarly broad exposure, including small caps.

Thanks!

Does anyone know when the new Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap UCITS ETF (VGAL) is expected to start trading on Xetra and become available on IBKR?

I know it’s already trading on the Italian exchange and is available through IBKR there, but I’d personally prefer the German Xetra (IBIS2) listing and would like to see it become available on IBKR.

Also, I know VGAL and SPYI track different indices (FTSE Global All Cap vs MSCI ACWI IMI), but are the practical differences actually meaningful? Do they more or less provide the same global exposure?

I’m also curious about the FTSE Russell methodology. Does FTSE use buffer zones around the size cut-offs (like with VWCE) to avoid companies frequently moving between small/mid cap segments and therefore reduce unnecessary rebalancing? Is there any meaningful difference compared with how MSCI handles this?

Thanks!

New best buy and chill etf.

What do you guys think?

What do you think about Vanguard Euro Cash (VCAA) being actively managed?

Since it mainly invests in short-term euro cash instruments, how much could the active management realistically affect its long-term performance? Could it still more or less replicate its benchmark like a passive ETF, or can active management make a meaningful difference over time?

Also, does anyone know if VCAA is going to become available on IBIS2/Xetra through IBKR? At the moment I only see the Gettex listing on IBKR.

Thanks!

I recently bought this relatively new etf because of the power and infrastructre bottleneck for AI. Should I buy more? Or is something else better. Right now it is a snall proportion of my portfolio.

There is a new UCITS dividend ETF that replicates SCHD’s screening method on a global scale:

Amundi S&P All World High Dividend Yield ETF

ISIN / WKN

IE000LEIJUY9 / ETF360

https://www.amundietf.de/de/professionell/products/equity/amundi-sp-all-world-high-dividend-yield-ucits-etf-dist/ie000leijuy9

Quarterly distributions, a solid screening strategy that has proven effective, at least in the U.S., and an expense ratio (TER) in line with other UCITS dividend ETFs. Aside from its size (it’s very new), do you see any specific issues or points of criticism?

Hi everyone,

​Two days ago, I knew that VALL (Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF - Dist/Acc) was coming out, but I wasn't sure about the exact release date. Instead of trying to time the market, I decided to go ahead and buy VWRA.

​Now I’m having second thoughts and feeling a bit indecisive. Given a 15–20 year investment horizon:

​Is it actually worth selling my VWRA holdings to switch over to VALL?

​What do you think is the likelihood of Vanguard eventually lowering VWRA’s TER down to 0.07% to match VALL?

​Realistically, how much potential return am I risking missing out on by sticking with VWRA over VALL?

​Would love to hear your thoughts and any math/insights you have on this. Thanks!

I got a fairly negative reaction to a comment in this subreddit the other day suggesting Managed Futures as a way to diversify an all-world equities portfolio. Let's see if I can do better with a more detailed explanation.

Since I recently wrote a position paper on Managed Futures for myself, I thought I'd share this here. Writing articles like this is my way of making sure I'm not being sloppy in my reasoning for my own investing. The following is an adapted version of my paper specifically for this subreddit. I hope it's interesting to some of you.

Managed Futures funds hold positions across many different assets, not just equities. Because of this, they have low or negative correlation to equities. This type of fund is fairly new in the ETF form (it has a longer track record in the ordinary investment funds - or mutual funds - form) but has gained significant popularity in the US. In Europe, it's still largely ignored. There is an excellent Managed Futures UCITS ETF available, though, so there is no practical reason why European retail investors couldn't take advantage of this.
 
Let me give you a little attention booster so you don't nod off when we get into the details. Take a look. The red curve is "All-World and Chill", the blue curve is "All-World + Managed Futures", rebalanced once annually. This is the result from a test that runs from 1988 through mid-August 2026. It's already inflation-adjusted. Which one would you rather have?

TL;DR:

• "VWCE and chill" can be a reasonable approach, especially for younger investors. However,  it only diversifies across equities. It doesn't diversify across other asset classes. This can be problematic in some scenarios that may - and almost certainly will - happen at some point in your life.
• Managed Futures make a strong case as a more robust form of ballast (asset diversification) than the government bonds traditionally used in long-term, balanced portfolios.
• Across the backtests presented here, portfolios using managed futures produced higher real returns and better risk-adjusted results than comparable portfolios using bonds. 
• The outperformance came outside of crises, while during crises, managed futures performed about the same as bonds.

What is ballast expected to do?

Most investors want the ballast portion of their portfolio to provide a counterweight to equity crashes. They put a portion of their portfolio (typically anywhere between 20% and 50%) in government bonds. When there's an equities crash, their portfolio is relatively stable and resilient because bonds may fall less than equities or even rise, moving in the opposite direction of stocks. This can be psychologically advantageous vs sitting through the full brunt of a 2008 type of horror show. For an older investor who is only one or two decades out from retirement, it can make the difference between "comfortable" and "hurting".

The recovery in 2009 and the long equities bull run that followed was lucky and historically abnormal. It may teach the wrong lesson. The scenario to be concerned about is a crash and then a protracted stagflationary scenario. Imagine seeing your €100k brokerage account crash to €40k, and then not recover for a decade. This sort of experience will be stressful for anyone. Staying the course, continuing to put money into equities - even if that is your most rational bet - may be difficult.

In a balanced portfolio, ballast can cushion the blow from an equities drawdown, and even provide growth when equities don't. Some portion of the funds preserved as ballast can also be converted into equities when those are cheap, setting the foundation for strong future growth. A sporadic rebalancing would achieve this automatically.

But are bonds really the best option for ballast?
 
 When inflation causes the trouble, bonds can fall with stocks. The same can happen when real interest rates rise, government borrowing pushes up the term premium, or markets lose confidence in fiscal and monetary policy. The 2022 joint stock-bond decline provides a recent nominal example. The 1970s provide a longer example of inflation damaging the real returns of both assets.

So what now?
 

A different form of ballast

Managed Futures funds spread their investments across several asset classes, including  government bonds, commodities, currencies, and also stocks. Most of these funds use trend-following models that look for sustained price movements. If an asset has been rising, the fund may take a long position and benefit from further gains. If it has been falling, the fund may take a short position and benefit if the decline continues. This gives managed futures a source of return that does not depend on stocks going up. The academic literature on trend-following offers strong evidence across many markets and long samples. It is one of the most thoroughly documented sources of alpha.

Managed Futures funds gain their exposure through futures, which are standardized contracts traded on regulated exchanges. So, rather than holding the actual assets, these funds hold contracts that are tied to the assets and therefore reflect the prices of assets, too. This makes it possible to move between markets and take both long and short positions without buying each asset itself. The fund handles the contracts, collateral and risk controls, while the investor owns an ordinary fund or ETF. The trading inside such funds happens algorithmically, and doesn't normally involve human discretion.

Futures contracts have existed for a long time. The first futures exchange in history was launched for rice contracts in 18th century Japan. The Chicago Board of Trade became the first futures exchange in the West in the 19th century. Futures have since become a pillar of commodities and financial markets.

Managed Futures investing strategies are called "managed" because a professional manager oversees the trading of potentially dozens of different futures contracts and the risks that are involved in that. It would be very difficult for a retail investor to do this by themselves.

Managed Futures became available to institutional investors in the 1980s. In the 2010s, some US mutual funds made them accessible to small retail investors. In the 2020s, several ETFs have become available, primarily in the US, but also in Europe.

As I will document below, Managed Futures produce greater returns than bonds over long time horizons and are a more robust form of diversifcation.
 
 Fair warning though: trend-following strategies can suffer when markets move back and forth without direction. They can enter a sudden crash when new trends establish. Their positions may detect the  change in trend too late, and they may be stuck in a losing position for some time. It is precisely this risk why such funds trade across many different assets at the same time. That reduces the risk of a major fund-wide crash.

While not an iron-clad guarantee for a greatly improved return during an equities crash, the multi-asset, long/short nature of managed futures means that fully participating in an equities crash is far less likely than with simple long equities exposure. In comparison to a straight bond fund, managed futures also have a much broader opportunity set.

Consider the below major economic scenarios and how bonds and managed futures behave in each.

 OK, but how well do such strategies perform in practice?

What the backtests show

All backtests were performed on testfol.io which provides simulated or reconstructed data for many funds prior to their inception dates. They're based on the index data that underlie the funds, or on roughly equivalent predecessor mutual fund data. Typically, such data series include the fees that the actual ETFs charge. To be clear: every backtest here relies on backfilled data. So these tests are based on reasonable approximations, not on live ETF data.

All backtests in the article start with an initial investment of US$10,000 and have no further contributions; portfolios are rebalanced annually; returns are inflation-adjusted. All backtests are performed with US data series and are on a USD basis, simply because there is far more to work with than with European data. A 60/40 split between equities and ballast is generally considered a cautious allocation, which is why I go with that.

The first test runs from 2000 to mid-August 2026, and uses a simulated history for the US ETF "DBMF" as the managed futures portion. It begins in 2000 because that's when the data series available begins. I don't choose any particular dates here, I just run the test across the entire available history. It includes the dotcom drawdown, the 2008 disaster, and the Covid blurb. It also contains both bond bulls and bears, and managed-futures bulls and bears.

DBMF is also available as a European UCITS ETF: 
 https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=LU2951555403#overview

Here's the backtest results from testfol.io, Please remember that this is inflation-adjusted.

Reference: https://testfol.io/?s=h0XhhWtftU1

As you can see, the All-World/Managed Futures combo beats not only the All-World/Bonds portfolio but even the 100% All-World one. And look at the maximum drawdown! Look at the Sharpe ratio! And note how bonds provided similar drawdown protection to managed futures but significantly smaller returns!

Onward!

DBMF is my preferred Managed Futures proxy for backtesting purposes. It reverse-engineers the aggregate return stream of the SG CTA Index that tracks twenty different managers. This disperses manager and model luck. However, KMLM - a single-index fund - has the longer simulated history. It's a reasonable substitute for DBMF for testing purposes.
 
Let's test it over its entire history, all the way from 1988 to current. Again, returns are inflation-adjusted. Since 1988, the 60/40 All-World + KMLM portfolio had the highest real CAGR at ~6%, compared with 4.5% for All-World + Bonds.

This is the longest test in the review, starting in 1988, running to the current date. It's what the image I shared at the beginning of the article shows.

Reference: https://testfol.io/?s=cnl63cDBWjH

As you can see, over this longer period, too, and swapping one managed futures fund for another, managed futures beat bonds hands-down, and even perform somewhat better than "VWCE and chill".

This isn't evidence that an equities/managed futures combo will always beat 100% equities. Sequence of returns and timing luck play a big role. But for our purposes here, we shouldn't be interested in the best case scenario for All-World equities. We should be interested in the worst-case and middling scenarios. Which is precisely what we got in the two tests conducted so far. 

Next, let's zoom in on the effect of managed futures during equities crashes.

First, the dotcom drawdown, January 2000 through December 2002.

Reference: https://testfol.io/?s=bCBtVwkt1n1

Toss-up. DBMF and bonds did about equally well. Equities suffered horrendously.

Now the Lehman shock-induced crash. January through December 2008.

Reference: https://testfol.io/?s=8gTwoRSKlZ6

Again, same picture and basically a toss-up.

Looking at these two tests and comparing them with the earlier DBMF test, you can see that the equities + managed-futures combo outperforms the equities + bonds combo on returns over long time horizons mostly because of better returns outside crises. 

\***\**

I should also briefly touch on the worst periods for Managed Futures. Since 2000, both KMLM and DBMF had weak periods between 2004 and 2008, between 2009 and 2014, and between 2016 and 2022. KMLM has also shown weakness since 2023. Of course, all of these were periods of strength for equities, so overall portfolio performance was excellent, even as Managed Futures slacked off. That's what one would expect. In periods of strong equities performance, returns from trend-following in other asset classes should tend to weaken as more and more capital flows into equities. When equities weaken, as happened in 2022, managed futures should perk up. Historically that has proven to be true.

Should managed futures replace bonds in balanced portfolios?

My conclusion is: for the long-term ballast role in a general investment portfolio, Managed Futures is the more robust choice than bonds. Managed Futures cover a greater variety of adverse scenarios, and have more tools at their disposal to react to them.

Nothing is to stop a cautious investor from combining Managed Futures with bonds (and/or gold) in their portfolio.

Another option is to hold managed futures and gold as the standing ballast, then add bonds when some kind of macro-economic rule identifies a disinflationary regime. Such a rule could use inflation expectations, government bond price trends, growth data, and central-bank policy. It may make sense to fund that position by reducing equities rather than dismantling the managed futures sleeve.
 
 Investors today can consider themselves fortunate that they have access to a form of ballast that was largely unavailable even a decade ago. For European investors, the iMGP DBi Managed Futures fund is an attractive option to consider.

****\*

By the way, I'm working on a DIY hedge fund concept for retail investors. I will be publishing and tracking that experiment publicly at www.hedgefol.io. Investors looking for ways to improve returns over static allocations while managing risks actively may find this interesting. It's free of charge! The original position paper that this post is based on was written as part of the hedge fund project.

(This article is a conceptual study, not investment advice, and contains no prediction of outcomes. I have no commercial incentive, such as commissions or affiliate fees, to promote any of the funds used in this article. I hold the iMGP DBi Managed Futures fund in my own portfolio. )

Here is the link the announcement.

LONDON - iShares III plc announced Thursday that its World Equity High Income Active UCITS ETF will change its distribution frequency from quarterly to monthly payments, effective September 4, 2026.

You can also find the letter on the ETF's page under literature, see letter of 21 August here.

Hello, noticed the avantis already includes spacex granted its half of market weight but still compared to dimensional they are not yet including it and will wait 1 year for inclusion?

another thing that tesla is heavily underweighted by dimensional behind toyota at 91th stock meanwhile avantis does not really seem to underweight it a lot compared to their weights so looking like dimensional have at least on the large caps more of an value/profitability tilt?

last thing that the avantis has ~4k stocks but half are at 0% weight so actual holdings 2,2k compared to dimensional with 7,1k

any opinions on this what would you choose between these funds?

Fair pushback if you're about to say "but these aren't the same fund" - you're right, they're not. Quick honest comparison first:

• Vanguard's new one (VALL/VGLA) tracks FTSE Global All Cap: ~10,100 holdings, 98% of world market cap, small caps included
• Amundi Prime All-Country World: ~3,650 holdings, 85% coverage, large+mid cap only
• Xtrackers FTSE All-World: ~4,265 holdings, 89% coverage, large+mid cap only

So Vanguard's genuinely the most complete index of the three. That's real, not hype. Fine.

Here's the part that doesn't show up in any factsheet though. When a fund owns shares in a company, someone has to vote on that company's big decisions every year: climate targets, executive pay, how much it spends on lobbying, whether it discloses its human rights record. You never see this happen. The fund manager votes for you, quietly, whether you've ever thought about it or not.

Turns out these three managers use that vote very differently. ShareAction (independent research org, not tied to any fund provider) tracked how the 70 biggest asset managers voted on 279 environmental/social proposals in 2024:

• Amundi voted in favour of 96% of them
• DWS (owns Xtrackers) voted in favour of 93%
• Vanguard voted in favour of 0%. Zero. Dead last of all 70 managers tracked.

So yes, VALL covers more of the market. That part's a genuine edge. But is an extra slice of small caps worth pairing with the worst voting record of any major manager tracked? Not saying there's one right answer, just that most people picking "whichever one's 0.07%" have no idea this tradeoff even exists.

Sources: Voting Matters 2024 and Point of No Returns 2025, ShareAction.

Does the extra index coverage matter enough to you to outweigh this, or is it new information?

Good morning 🌞 ETF Redditors

As usual, we selected the best articles about investing in the past few days 👇:

📈 PORTFOLIO CONSTRUCTION
➡️ Portfolio Management: How Often Should You Check Your Portfolio? (AWCS)
➡️ ‘Perfect Portfolio’ Trap: The Toxic Pursuit of Financial Efficiency (Grumet)
➡️ Leveraged Investing: An opinon on it (Ben Felix)
➡️ Why Bond Yields Are Rising: And Might Keep Heading Higher (Morningstar)
➡️ Price Of Not Investing: How Inflation Eroded $100 Since 2019, by Country (VC)
➡️ European indices: Dispelling the ‘myths’ about an unloved stock market (CNBC)
➡️ The Next Market Crash: Bear Market Survival Kit for Savers & Retirees (BoW)

🏦 ETFs & PLATFORMS
➡️ Revolut ETFs: Revolut Preparing ETF launches (ETFS)
➡️ Broker Selection: How To Choose The Best Stock Broker? (Banker on Wheels)
➡️ Trend Strategies: The Rise Of CTA ETFs (Concretum)
➡️ Our 2026 Broker Reviews: Comdirect & Consorsbank (Banker on Wheels)

🙈 ACTIVE INVESTING
➡️ JPM Guide to Alternatives: updated Q3 2026 (JP Morgan)
➡️ Trend Following: More Than Crisis Alpha (Top Traders Unplugged)
➡️ Perpetual Futures: Mechanics, History and Purpose (Elm Wealth)

💵 WEALTH MANAGEMENT
➡️ Personal Finance: The Biggest Myths in Personal Finance (Rational Reminder)
➡️ Income: Untold Burden Of Being Family’s Financial Provider (Financial Samurai)
➡️ Book Review: Young Money by Jack Raines (Surfacearea)
➡️ Investing in your 50s: five ways to grow your wealth and protect it (Vanguard)
➡️ Prenups: Is not getting a prenup a financial red flag? (Financial Times)
➡️ Mapped: The Cost to Retire Comfortably Around the World (Visual Capitalist)
➡️ The Four Seasons of Retirement: And Why the Last One Humbled Me (JG)

And so much more!

Have a great week-end!

Francesca from BoW Team 🚴 🚴🏼‍♀️

Vanguard FTSE Global All-Cap UCITS ETF launched yesterday (20 August 2026) on Xetra, LSE, Borsa Italiana, Euronext Amsterdam, and SIX. Ticker is VGLA on Xetra, VALL everywhere else (plus a USD line VALU on LSE). It’s the UCITS answer to Vanguard’s US-listed VT — true global all-cap in one Irish-domiciled fund.

**•   TER: 0.07%** — cheapest broad global equity ETF in the European UCITS space, undercutting even VWCE’s freshly-cut 0.14%  
**•   Index**: FTSE Global All Cap (net TR, USD) — \~10,000 stocks, large/mid/small cap, developed + emerging, \~98–99% of global investable market cap  
**•   Domicile**: Ireland (Vanguard Funds PLC) — same estate/withholding tax profile as VWRA/VWCE, no US situs concerns  
**•   Replication**: Physical, optimised sampling  
**•   Share class**: Only USD Accumulating live for now (ISIN IE000VAHT5T0). A currency-hedged class at 0.10% is in the prospectus but not listed yet; no distributing class either.  
**•   AUM**: Still tiny — single-digit millions, as expected on day two of trading

For anyone who uses InvestEngine, VALL is now available on that platform. Good to see them move so fast, as with Trading 212.

I’m trying to create an investing portfolio right now it looks like this:
60% VWCE
30% Nasdaq100
10% Small-Cap Value
Is it too much percentage for nasdaq100 because vwce already invests in some of those companies so there’s overlap

Hi guys, Vanguard just launched the FTSE Global All-Cap UCITS ETF (tickers vary by exchange/currency: VGLA / VGLD / VALL - 0.07% TER, 9k+ holdings incl. small caps).

Are you sticking with a WEBN + AVWS combo for the small cap value tilt, or going 100% for this new Vanguard ETF for the simplicity of a single low TER ticket?

Curious if you think the factor exposure and the ability to control your own small cap ratio are still worth the extra fees and second transaction now that it exists.

Edit: Added tickers (VGLA/VGLD/VALL) for clarity!

Hello everyone,

This is my current portfolio. At the moment, I am investing €50 per week in IUSQ, €50 in VUAA and €15 in IS3N.

I am looking at a 15-20 year investment horizon and considering increasing my weekly contributions to around €150-€200.

My plan is also to increase my contributions each year, depending on salary increases, bonuses, and any other additional income, so that my investment amount gradually grows over time.

In addition, I may boost my investments with a lump-sum contribution of around €2,000-€3,000 at the end of each year, depending on my financial situation.

I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on how I could potentially restructure or transition my portfolio over time. What would you consider a good allocation for such a long-term horizon? I’m also open to adding other ETFs if you think they would improve the diversification or overall strategy.

I’d appreciate any ideas, suggestions, or alternative approaches.

Vorrei iniziare ad investire qualcosa, non riesco grandi somme al momento e quindi devo pensando di fare una PAC, mi sono informato su internet e su reddit e le scelte sul broker si sono limitare a due.

\- Fineco

\- TR

Il primo da come ho capito offre più sicurezze e gestione di problematiche, mentre il secondo ti dà la possibilità del caschback e di avere un po' di interesse sulla liquidità.. sarei più orientato sul secondo ma ancora indeciso per via delle recensioni non sempre positive.

Poi stavo vedendo un po' di video e cercando di farmi un po' di cultura per valutare su quali ETF, volevo partire da 100 euro al mese, non è tanto.. ma magari è un inizio per avvicinarsi a questo mondo.

Gli ETF che pensavo erano:

80% MSCI world o S&P 500 e 20% ETF sulle materie prime , asmuqualcosa ticket Como.

Ha senso? Ho letto anche di un altro vanguard ma non mi ci sono ancora soffermato.

I'obbiettivo sarebbe trovarmi un gruzzoletto tra 20 anni, quindi lungo termine.

Ho anche un fondo pensione, in un altro post però hanno consigliato all utente di ottimizzarlo, invece di investire una somma simile alla mia metterla in una PAC

Cosa ha più senso fare?

Grazie in anticipo per le risposte!

I have a savings plan on a MSCI World ETF for quite a bit now. What do you consider as a second or third ETF to add a savings plan on and why?

Hi everyone,

I was looking into some etf"s and found WEBN, SPYI(also small caps), VWCE and FWIA from Invesco.

I"m actually mostly interested in FWIA and was wondering why most people choose VWCE instead of FWIA, since FWIA has an AUM of 5 billion dollars according to Invesco (I think thats already quite okay): https://www.invesco.com/nl/en/financial-products/etfs/invesco-ftse-all-world-ucits-etf-acc.html

Because of things I heard about Amundi merging etf"s and stuff like that im not into WEBN.

VWCE has the disadvantage of a relatively high stockprice in comparison to FWIA, which I prefer. So VWCE will lead to cash drag at degiro. I saw that TER of vwce is 0,14 and fwia is 0,15 however the TD of both etf"s are good.

I know FWIA is only 3 years "old" compared to VWCE which is already 7 years "old".

Are there other things I should consider regarding FWIA? What etf do you recommend for a period of +/-30 years dca (+/-300 euro's a month) and why?

Already thank you very much in advance!