ETFs to consider (via IBKR)

[krikering]

Hi All, just to kindly seek some opinions if don't mind.
I currently already invested 150k + in VWRA (via IBKR Platform) thus far.

My strategy is just to hold it over a long time horizon e.g 15 years or more, if possible.
I don't really monitor prices to see when is a good time to sell, like how some aggressive traders does with volatile shares, etc.


Just realised that there are other ETFs have an even lower expense ratio than VWRA (0.12% vs 0.19 TER).


Expense Ratio Comparison (Annual)

ETF	Full Name	Index Tracked	Approx. Expense Ratio
CSPX	iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF	S&P 500 (US Large Cap)	0.07%
WEBN	Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF	FTSE All-World (Global)	0.15%
VWRA	Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF	FTSE All-World (Global)	0.19% (down from 0.22%)
ACWD	iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF	MSCI ACWI (Global)	0.12% (down from 0.4%)

*Note: Invesco also launched FWRA (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF) which has a lower expense ratio of 0.15%, competing directly with VWRA.



Am thinking of keeping my VWRA investments (Rather than withdrawing).
But few months later, once have accumulated more savings then might consider invest in other ETFs (in addition to VWRA).


Just curious, on everyone's thoughts on ACWD/CSPX/WEBN/FWRA being a better potential ETF to invest in as compared to VWRA due to them having a lower expense ratio?

 

[reddevil0728]

Hi All, just to kindly seek some opinions if don't mind.
I currently already invested 150k + in VWRA (via IBKR Platform) thus far.

My strategy is just to hold it over a long time horizon e.g 15 years or more, if possible.
I don't really monitor prices to see when is a good time to sell, like how some aggressive traders does with volatile shares, etc.


Just realised that there are other ETFs have an even lower expense ratio than VWRA (0.12% vs 0.19 TER).


Expense Ratio Comparison (Annual)

ETF	Full Name	Index Tracked	Approx. Expense Ratio
CSPX	iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF	S&P 500 (US Large Cap)	0.07%
WEBN	Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF	FTSE All-World (Global)	0.15%
VWRA	Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF	FTSE All-World (Global)	0.19% (down from 0.22%)
ACWD	iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF	MSCI ACWI (Global)	0.12% (down from 0.4%)

*Note: Invesco also launched FWRA (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF) which has a lower expense ratio of 0.15%, competing directly with VWRA.



Am thinking of keeping my VWRA investments (Rather than withdrawing).
But few months later, once have accumulated more savings then might consider invest in other ETFs (in addition to VWRA).


Just curious, on everyone's thoughts on ACWD/CSPX/WEBN/FWRA being a better potential ETF to invest in as compared to VWRA due to them having a lower expense ratio?

If they track different index then expenses ratio is not even the tie breaking factor

decide on which theme you prefer first.

then only compare the expense ratio for those that tracks the same.

you are thinking in the wrong order

 

[sglandscape]

You are sweating the small stuff, as reddevil0728 mentioned, understand what you want to invest in, what upside and downside you want to be exposed to instead.

 

[Shiny Things]

So, firstly, not CSPX. That's an S&P500 ETF - it doesn't give you the global diversification that you get from an all-world ETF. (And let's not forget that despite all the noise about the, ahem, not-so-magnificent seven, US equities have underperformed the rest of the world by a lot over the last year.)

As for the other three... we discussed this over in the other thread a few days back, and the consensus was that they're all pretty much fine. 4bps is a very small difference in management fees, so don't get hung up on which all-world stock ETF to buy; just pick one.

VWRA is perfectly good, and it's a great default choice. FWRA seems fine too (just make sure you pick the London-listed one, not the Zurich-listed CHF-denominated one). WEBN's a bit quirky because as best I can tell, it's only got a EUR-denominated listing, and that extra currency conversion adds a little management headache, so I'm reluctant to recommend it.

 

[krikering]

If they track different index then expenses ratio is not even the tie breaking factor

decide on which theme you prefer first.

then only compare the expense ratio for those that tracks the same.

you are thinking in the wrong order

You are sweating the small stuff, as reddevil0728 mentioned, understand what you want to invest in, what upside and downside you want to be exposed to instead.

Thanks alot for the inputs.

Am trying to see which one is more worthwhile over the long-term (10 years or more) to hold to maximise long-term earnings.

My main point is always to achieve a high returns, and higher TER means that over the long term they will earn into my earnings.




Heard that ACWD is the closest to VWRA amongst the others, as they track close to 3000 entities whilst VWRA is around 4000+.

Taking into account that ACWD already tracks so many entities, thus the fact that they are only 0.12 in TER compared to VWRA probably means over the long-term they should have a higher returns of achieving better returns?



Just curious, if you guys have any ETFs to recommend other than VWRA where I feel that the 0.19 TER will eat into my profits over the long run.

Thus in addition to VWRA, I am contemplating between CSPX/IMID/WEBN/ACWD/SWRD.

But not exacty sure which 1 of the above is better than VWRA to hold over 10 years or more.

I am only sticking to VWRA, due to popular recommendation since last time but right now am considering the other options now, since they are lower TER.

 

[sglandscape]

Thanks alot for the inputs.

Am trying to see which one is more worthwhile over the long-term (10 years or more) to hold to maximise long-term earnings.

My main point is always to achieve a high returns, and higher TER means that over the long term they will earn into my earnings.




Heard that ACWD is the closest to VWRA amongst the others, as they track close to 3000 entities whilst VWRA is around 4000+.

Taking into account that ACWD already tracks so many entities, thus the fact that they are only 0.12 in TER compared to VWRA probably means over the long-term they should have a higher returns of achieving better returns?



Just curious, if you guys have any ETFs to recommend other than VWRA where I feel that the 0.19 TER will eat into my profits over the long run.

Thus in addition to VWRA, I am contemplating between CSPX/IMID/WEBN/ACWD/SWRD.

But not exacty sure which 1 of the above is better than VWRA to hold over 10 years or more.

I am only sticking to VWRA, due to popular recommendation since last time but right now am considering the other options now, since they are lower TER.

The more you track, in general the lower the returns because you'll be underweight the outperformers, that choice would matter more than the small difference in TER.

 

[krikering]

The more you track, in general the lower the returns because you'll be underweight the outperformers, that choice would matter more than the small difference in TER.

Appreciate the input.

By that logic, is it perhaps slightly accurate to say that VWRA long-term wise might have high chance of giving lower returns compared to ACWD/WEBN / SWRD/IMID

Due to VWRA Tracking too many entities?



Plus the fact that they are 0.19 in TER, means that is not so wise to put too much inside VWA as over a 10 years + timeframe they probably will give a lower returns?

 

[reddevil0728]

Thanks alot for the inputs.

Am trying to see which one is more worthwhile over the long-term (10 years or more) to hold to maximise long-term earnings.

My main point is always to achieve a high returns, and higher TER means that over the long term they will earn into my earnings.




Heard that ACWD is the closest to VWRA amongst the others, as they track close to 3000 entities whilst VWRA is around 4000+.

Taking into account that ACWD already tracks so many entities, thus the fact that they are only 0.12 in TER compared to VWRA probably means over the long-term they should have a higher returns of achieving better returns?



Just curious, if you guys have any ETFs to recommend other than VWRA where I feel that the 0.19 TER will eat into my profits over the long run.

Thus in addition to VWRA, I am contemplating between CSPX/IMID/WEBN/ACWD/SWRD.

But not exacty sure which 1 of the above is better than VWRA to hold over 10 years or more.

I am only sticking to VWRA, due to popular recommendation since last time but right now am considering the other options now, since they are lower TER.

Focus on the index first then talk about the rest.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Vanguard has a track record of reducing their expense ratios over time. It’s possible somebody could open yet another thread 3 months from now asking, “Should I switch to (or switch back to) VWRA since its expense ratio is 1 bp lower?”

Seriously, there are about half a dozen low cost global stock index funds that are all fine. Pick one. Or more than one if that makes you feel better. It won’t make a material difference.(*) Focus on what will make a material difference. For example, are you letting too many CPF OA dollars pile up when at least some of them should be transferred to your and/or family members’ SAs/RAs? 150+ basis points is a big deal!

(*) If you want to get technical, the expense ratio matters but is subject to change. And other factors that matter include the bid-ask spread (related to trading volume), the fund’s share price (a lower price helps soak up a bit more idle cash when only whole share trading is available), the number of counters you hold (more counters perhaps slightly raises commission costs), fund tracking error, and fund managers’ skills in optimizing their trades for taxes and other considerations, as notable examples. These other factors may swamp small expense ratio differences.

 

[sango65]

Reposting my post in EDMW here

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...ur-s-p-500-etf-options.7184091/post-158366032

Can the gurus advise the following: -

Are both SLV and IAU ETFs or just stocks?

What is the meaning of expense ratio? I cant seem to find any fees in my Trust a/c.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Can the gurus advise the following: -
Are both SLV and IAU ETFs or just stocks?

They are ETFs that attempt to track the prices of silver and gold respectively. Since they're U.S. domiciled funds they happen to be U.S. estate taxable. SLV's expense ratio happens to be rather high — 30 basis points higher than ISLN's (on the London Stock Exchange), for example.

You're holding about $24 worth of two funds you don't even understand? Seriously? What are you doing?

What is the meaning of expense ratio? I cant seem to find any fees in my Trust a/c.

You won't. You'll find that information in the fund manager's publications and filings.

 

[krikering]

Vanguard has a track record of reducing their expense ratios over time. It’s possible somebody could open yet another thread 3 months from now asking, “Should I switch to (or switch back to) VWRA since its expense ratio is 1 bp lower?”

Seriously, there are about half a dozen low cost global stock index funds that are all fine. Pick one. Or more than one if that makes you feel better. It won’t make a material difference.(*) Focus on what will make a material difference. For example, are you letting too many CPF OA dollars pile up when at least some of them should be transferred to your and/or family members’ SAs/RAs? 150+ basis points is a big deal!

(*) If you want to get technical, the expense ratio matters but is subject to change. And other factors that matter include the bid-ask spread (related to trading volume), the fund’s share price (a lower price helps soak up a bit more idle cash when only whole share trading is available), the number of counters you hold (more counters perhaps slightly raises commission costs), fund tracking error, and fund managers’ skills in optimizing their trades for taxes and other considerations, as notable examples. These other factors may swamp small expense ratio differences.

Thanks a lot for the insight, perhaps will look into it during the weekends.

Right now, I only have $150k+ in VWRA via my IBKR Account. Thus contemplating alternative ETFs too and there are other ETFs with TER lower than 0.19.


How would you compare WEBN and ACWD against VWRA, in terms of higher potential returns (after factoring in the lower TER aspect) ?

 

[BBCWatcher]

Right now, I only have $150k+ in VWRA via my IBKR Account. Thus contemplating alternative ETFs too and there are other ETFs with TER lower than 0.19.

How would you compare WEBN and ACWD against VWRA, in terms of higher potential returns?

As Shiny Things alluded to, let's exclude WEBN since it's the "wrong" quotation/listing currency with a bit more friction. I think there's technically a WEBQ variant, but WEBQ appears to be fairly "zombie" (near zero trading volume) at present.

Let's suppose for sake of argument that ACWD offers a "pure" net 7 basis point cost advantage. That's a big assumption (see above), but let's go with that. That advantage would deliver S$105 on a S$150,000 portfolio in one year. Not nothing, but it's not likely to be your first financial concern.

 

[krikering]

As Shiny Things alluded to, let's exclude WEBN since it's the "wrong" quotation/listing currency with a bit more friction. I think there's technically a WEBQ variant, but WEBQ appears to be fairly "zombie" (near zero trading volume) at present.

Let's suppose for sake of argument that ACWD offers a "pure" net 7 basis point cost advantage. That's a big assumption (see above), but let's go with that. That advantage would deliver S$105 on a S$150,000 portfolio in one year. Not nothing, but it's not likely to be your first financial concern.

Currently am looking into it, ACWD is most likely the ETF which I will buy in. Few months time after a few months worth of salary crediting in.

Am aware that they track lesser entities than VWRA, but considering they are already tracking close to 3000 entities I presume that it should be enough.


Looking at purely now (as TER will rise/fall in coming years),

would you say that ACWD with a TER of 0.12 (lower than VWRA) will bring higher potential returns in the long-run (e.g 10 years time or more) ?

 

[BBCWatcher]

I can't speak for ST, but I'm guessing that (FWIW) he and I are somewhat pushing back on the "Should I switch funds to save a couple or few basis points?" questions because we live in a real world where there are far bigger problems to worry about. I think we'd be delighted if more savers/investors tackled bigger problems first like trying to time markets (don't), poor insurance decisions, choosing tax inappropriate investments, unwise/profligate spending decisions on goods and services, bad career and human capital investment decisions, dragging too much cash and CPF OA for their circumstances, paying off comparatively low cost loans faster than required, incurring high cost debt charges (including late payment fees), putting $100 purchases on 12 month installment plans (not usually a good idea), having investment portfolio allocations at age 30 that are too conservative for 85 year olds, and several other financial malpractices.

Yeah, OK, if you can save a couple or few basis points, sure, fine, whatever, congratulations. But you're very unusual if that's your biggest financial optimization opportunity.

 

[BBCWatcher]

would you say that ACWD with a TER of 0.12 (lower than VWRA) will bring higher potential returns in the long-run (e.g 10 years time or more) ?

All we know is that ACWD currently has a 7 basis point lower expense ratio than VWRA has. Currently that difference suggests ACWD will marginally outperform VWRA, but there's no guarantee of that.

I suppose you can look at past performance, so let's try that. Here are the "as published" net annualized performance figures for ACWD and VWRA through December 31, 2025 over standard 1, 3, and 5 year intervals in nominal U.S. dollar terms:

ACWD: 22.81%, 20.70%, 11.25%
VWRA: 22.56%, 20.57%, 11.18%

Thus ACWD has performed slightly better over the past 1, 3, and 5 year periods. "Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results."

 

[reddevil0728]

Currently am looking into it, ACWD is most likely the ETF which I will buy in. Few months time after a few months worth of salary crediting in.

Am aware that they track lesser entities than VWRA, but considering they are already tracking close to 3000 entities I presume that it should be enough.


Looking at purely now (as TER will rise/fall in coming years),

would you say that ACWD with a TER of 0.12 (lower than VWRA) will bring higher potential returns in the long-run (e.g 10 years time or more) ?

Stop. Take a pause. Drop this obsession with TER first.

because this TER is a quantitative, it can be a clear cut cheaper or more ex.

but that’s not the point.

focus on which strategy/investment you believe will be better first.

no point going for a strategy/investment in a sunset industry but with low TER vs a high growth strategy/investment with a higher TER.

talk on this basis.

 

[Lao_Tiko]

Not to forget that fund size do matter if you want a "fire-and-forget" investment plan. I've had an ETF close on me last year - Direxion Moonshot Innovators ETF (nysearca:MOON).

For that reason I would recommend ishares or vanguard because they have gravitas in attracting funds. Probably an outlier in my case because I picked a narrowly focused fund so it might not matter if you pick a broadly focused ETF like VWRD or VWRA or IWDA etc because they have billions. But yeah, fund size should also be in your tick-box once you go "exotic".

 

[krikering]

Not to forget that fund size do matter if you want a "fire-and-forget" investment plan. I've had an ETF close on me last year - Direxion Moonshot Innovators ETF (nysearca:MOON).

For that reason I would recommend ishares or vanguard because they have gravitas in attracting funds. Probably an outlier in my case because I picked a narrowly focused fund so it might not matter if you pick a broadly focused ETF like VWRD or VWRA or IWDA etc because they have billions. But yeah, fund size should also be in your tick-box once you go "exotic".

ACWD is by State Street though, highly unlikely to close.

Stop. Take a pause. Drop this obsession with TER first.

because this TER is a quantitative, it can be a clear cut cheaper or more ex.

but that’s not the point.

focus on which strategy/investment you believe will be better first.

no point going for a strategy/investment in a sunset industry but with low TER vs a high growth strategy/investment with a higher TER.

talk on this basis.

My strategy is just to hold for a long term e.g 15 years or so, etc.

Thus i picked VWRA earlier back and invest 150k + in cash.



Am now looking into other ETFs with a lower TER e.g ACWD, etc. that can give higher potential returns, and i just continue my current strategy of holding it over the long-term.

 

[reddevil0728]

ACWD is by State Street though, highly unlikely to close.


My strategy is just to hold for a long term e.g 15 years or so, etc.

Thus i picked VWRA earlier back and invest 150k + in cash.



Am now looking into other ETFs with a lower TER e.g ACWD, etc. that can give higher potential returns, and i just continue my current strategy of holding it over the long-term.

That’s your goal. Your goal is to hold for the long term.

but what’s your strategy to get there?

your strategy to get there is not based off just a low TER right?

Like I asked, you prefer low TER but negative returns.

or higher TER but much higher returns?