Core Viewpoint - The iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) and iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF (IXUS) provide different exposures to equities, with IEMG focusing on emerging markets and IXUS covering both developed and emerging markets globally [1] Cost & Size Comparison - IXUS has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to IEMG's 0.09% - As of February 7, 2026, IXUS has a 1-year return of 31.67%, while IEMG has a return of 37.83% - IXUS offers a dividend yield of 3.01%, whereas IEMG has a yield of 2.51% - IXUS has assets under management (AUM) of $54.40 billion, while IEMG has a significantly larger AUM of $137.65 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, IXUS experienced a maximum drawdown of 30.05%, while IEMG had a higher drawdown of 37.16% - An investment of $1,000 in IXUS would have grown to $1,282 over five years, compared to $1,073 for IEMG [4] Portfolio Composition - IEMG holds 2,707 emerging-market stocks, primarily focused on the tech sector (23%), followed by financials (16%) and industrials (12%) - The top holdings in IEMG include Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Samsung Electronics, and Tencent Holdings, indicating a strong focus on Asian tech [5] - IXUS tracks an MSCI index with 4,211 securities, with its largest positions also in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Samsung Electronics, and ASML Holding - The top sectors for IXUS are financial services (22%), industrials (15%), and technology (12%) [6] Implications for Investors - IEMG aims to maximize growth for holders due to its focus on emerging markets, but both funds share similar top holdings and strong allocations to Asian stocks, leading to comparable volatility [8] - IXUS has outperformed IEMG by over 20% in the last five years and has shown a price return that is over 35% higher since both ETFs launched on October 18, 2012, suggesting IXUS has an edge [9] - For investors seeking a stronger international tech focus, IEMG remains a viable option due to its concentration in tech companies [10]

Core Insights - The iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) are designed for international diversification, targeting emerging and developed markets respectively [2] - IEMG has outperformed IEFA in the past year, but IEFA offers a higher dividend yield [4] Cost and Size Comparison - IEMG has an expense ratio of 0.09% and assets under management (AUM) of $137.65 billion, while IEFA has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% and AUM of $171.77 billion [3] - The one-year return for IEMG is 37.83%, compared to 28.70% for IEFA, with dividend yields of 2.51% and 3.32% respectively [3] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over five years, IEMG has a maximum drawdown of 37.16%, while IEFA has a drawdown of 30.41%, indicating that IEFA has provided steadier growth [5] - A $1,000 investment in IEMG would have grown to $1,073 over five years, while the same investment in IEFA would have grown to $1,338 [5] Portfolio Composition - IEFA includes 2,589 holdings, with major sectors being financial services (22%), industrials (20%), and healthcare (11%), featuring companies like ASML Holding N.V. and Roche Holding AG [6] - IEMG holds 2,707 emerging-market stocks, with a significant tilt towards the tech sector, including top holdings like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and Samsung Electronics [7] Market Behavior Insights - Emerging markets tend to exhibit higher volatility due to the nature of the companies involved, which can lead to both significant growth and operational risks [8] - Developed markets, represented by IEFA, are characterized by stability and consistent performance, although they may not experience the same price spikes as emerging markets [9]

Core Insights - Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) and iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF (IXUS) are two major international ETFs aimed at providing global diversification for investors [1] Cost & Size - VXUS has an expense ratio of 0.05% while IXUS has a slightly higher expense ratio of 0.07% [2] - As of February 7, 2026, VXUS reported a one-year return of 31.83% compared to IXUS's 31.67% [2] - VXUS has a dividend yield of 2.96%, slightly lower than IXUS's 3.01% [2] - VXUS has a total assets under management (AUM) of $133.1 billion, significantly larger than IXUS's $54.40 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VXUS experienced a maximum drawdown of -29.43%, while IXUS had a slightly higher drawdown of -30.05% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in VXUS would have grown to $1,277 over five years, while the same investment in IXUS would have grown to $1,282 [4] Portfolio Composition - IXUS tracks an MSCI index and holds 4,211 securities, with major positions in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Samsung Electronics, and ASML Holding [5] - VXUS holds 8,602 stocks, providing broader exposure compared to IXUS, while its top positions are similar to those of IXUS [6] Investor Considerations - Both ETFs exhibit similar characteristics in terms of holdings, Betas, dividend yields, and performance metrics, with the primary distinction being the number of holdings [7] - VXUS pays dividends quarterly, whereas IXUS pays semi-annually, which may influence investor preferences regarding dividend frequency [8]

Core Insights - The article compares two ETFs: the State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and the iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA), highlighting their unique investment opportunities for foreign exposure and climate-conscious investing [2][9]. Cost & Size Comparison - NZAC has an expense ratio of 0.12% and AUM of $182.12 million, while IEFA has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% and AUM of $171.77 billion [3][4]. - The one-year return for NZAC is 15.11%, compared to IEFA's 28.70%, and the dividend yield for NZAC is 1.88%, while IEFA offers a higher yield of 3.32% [3][4]. Performance & Risk Analysis - Over five years, NZAC has a max drawdown of -28.29% and has grown $1,000 to $1,499, while IEFA has a max drawdown of -30.41% and has grown $1,000 to $1,353 [5]. Holdings Overview - IEFA focuses on developed markets outside the U.S. and Canada, with 2,589 holdings, primarily in financial services (22%), industrials (20%), and healthcare (11%) [6]. - NZAC targets climate-aligned companies with 729 stocks, heavily weighted in technology (32%), followed by financial services (16%) and industrials (10%) [7]. Investment Implications - Investors must choose between a more American-focused ETF (NZAC) or a more international exposure (IEFA), with NZAC showing stronger long-term performance over five years despite lower one-year returns [9][10]. - NZAC includes international companies in its holdings, providing some level of global exposure, while IEFA's performance may be influenced by foreign market volatility [10][11].

Core Insights - The comparison highlights the differences between the SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM), focusing on cost, risk, and sector exposure for investors [1] Cost & Size - NZAC has a lower expense ratio of 0.12% compared to EEM's 0.72% - As of January 25, 2026, NZAC reported a 1-year return of 16%, while EEM had a significantly higher return of 38.76% - Dividend yield for NZAC is 1.9%, slightly lower than EEM's 2.06% - NZAC has a beta of 1.54, indicating higher volatility compared to EEM's beta of 0.63 - Assets Under Management (AUM) for NZAC is $181.27 million, while EEM has a much larger AUM of $25.1 billion [2][3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, NZAC experienced a maximum drawdown of 28.29%, which is less severe than EEM's 39.82% - An investment of $1,000 in NZAC would have grown to $1,466 over five years, compared to $1,050 for EEM [4] Holdings Overview - EEM focuses on emerging markets with 1,241 stocks, heavily weighted towards the tech sector, including major positions in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, ASML Holding, and Samsung [5] - NZAC targets companies that meet climate-aligned criteria, holding 729 stocks, primarily in the technology sector, with top positions in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [6] Investor Implications - A significant difference between the two ETFs is their international exposure; NZAC's top holdings are predominantly U.S. companies, while EEM's top 10 holdings are all non-U.S. stocks, which may introduce more volatility [7][9] - NZAC restricts its holdings to eco-friendly companies, while EEM offers broader diversification in emerging markets with a slightly higher dividend yield [8]

Core Insights - The article compares two international ETFs, iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) and iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX), highlighting their differing approaches to international equity exposure [1] Cost & Size - IEFA has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to ACWX's 0.32% [2] - IEFA's one-year return is 28.66%, while ACWX's is 31.86% [2] - IEFA offers a higher dividend yield of 3.4% versus ACWX's 2.7% [2] - IEFA has assets under management (AUM) of $170.35 billion, significantly higher than ACWX's $8.6 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, IEFA's maximum drawdown is -30.41%, slightly worse than ACWX's -30.06% [4] - A $1,000 investment in IEFA would grow to $1,302 over five years, compared to $1,267 for ACWX [4] Portfolio Composition - ACWX holds 1,796 companies across developed and emerging markets, with a focus on financial services, industrials, and technology [5] - IEFA focuses on developed markets with 2,619 stocks and a lighter allocation to technology [6] - The largest holdings in ACWX include Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Tencent Holdings, and ASML Holding, while IEFA's largest holdings are ASML, Roche Holding, and HSBC Holdings [5][6] Investor Considerations - Both ETFs exclude U.S. stocks, and their international holdings may behave differently from U.S. equities [7] - ACWX's top holdings are primarily based in Asia, while IEFA's are mainly in Europe, suggesting that U.S. investors should monitor relevant foreign events [8] - IEFA outperforms ACWX in terms of expense ratio, dividends, and five-year returns, but ACWX remains a viable option for exposure to both emerging and developed markets [9]

Core Insights - The article compares two international ETFs: Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO) and iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX), highlighting their differing focuses on emerging markets versus a broader global diversification strategy [2] Cost and Size Comparison - VWO has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to ACWX's 0.32% [3][4] - As of January 25, 2026, VWO's one-year return is 28.53%, while ACWX's is 31.86% [3] - Both ETFs offer similar dividend yields, with VWO at 2.64% and ACWX at 2.7% [3] - VWO has assets under management (AUM) of $112.62 billion, significantly larger than ACWX's $8.53 billion [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VWO experienced a maximum drawdown of -34.31%, while ACWX had a drawdown of -30.06% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in VWO would have grown to $1,069 over five years, compared to $1,267 for ACWX [5] Portfolio Composition - ACWX, launched nearly 18 years ago, holds 1,796 companies across developed and emerging markets, with a focus on financial services, industrials, and technology [6] - The largest positions in ACWX include Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Tencent Holdings Ltd., and ASML Holding N.V. [6] - VWO is concentrated in emerging markets, with significant investments in technology, financial services, and consumer cyclical sectors, including major stakes in Taiwan Semiconductor, Tencent, and Alibaba Group [7] - TSMC alone constitutes over 10% of VWO's assets, indicating a higher concentration and potential volatility compared to ACWX [7] Dividend Payment Structure - ACWX pays dividends semi-annually, while VWO pays dividends quarterly, which may influence investor preferences regarding cash flow [10]

Core Insights - The SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (SPDW) and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) provide broad international exposure, with SPDW focusing on developed markets and VXUS including both developed and emerging markets [2] Cost & Size Comparison - VXUS has an expense ratio of 0.05% and AUM of $573.72 billion, while SPDW has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $35.07 billion [3] - The 1-year return for VXUS is 31.69% compared to SPDW's 32.6%, and the dividend yield for VXUS is 3.02% versus SPDW's 3.14% [3][4] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over five years, VXUS has a max drawdown of -29.43% and a growth of $1,000 to $1,256, while SPDW has a max drawdown of -30.20% and a growth of $1,000 to $1,321 [5] Holdings Overview - SPDW holds 2,413 stocks with a sector tilt towards financials, industrials, and consumer cyclical, featuring top holdings like ASML Holding N.V., Samsung Electronics, and Roche Holding AG [6] - VXUS is broader with 8,673 holdings, including top positions such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd., Tencent Holdings Ltd., and ASML Holding N.V. [7] Investor Considerations - International stocks in these ETFs may exhibit different price movements compared to U.S. stocks, influenced by the economic and political conditions of the respective countries [8] - SPDW's top holdings are primarily European, while VXUS has a significant presence in Asian companies, indicating different regional exposures [10]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Total World Stock ETF (VT) and iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX) provide broad international equity exposure but differ in costs, returns, risk, and portfolio composition [2] Cost & Size Comparison - VT has a lower expense ratio of 0.06% compared to ACWX's 0.32%, making it more affordable for long-term investors [3][4] - As of January 24, 2026, VT's one-year return is 19.76%, while ACWX's is significantly higher at 34.2% [3] - VT has a dividend yield of 1.77%, whereas ACWX offers a higher yield of 2.7% [3][4] - VT has assets under management (AUM) of $62.50 billion, compared to ACWX's $8.53 billion [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VT experienced a maximum drawdown of -26.38%, while ACWX had a larger drawdown of -30.06% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in VT would have grown to $1,527 over five years, compared to $1,267 for ACWX [5] Portfolio Composition - ACWX, launched nearly 18 years ago, tracks non-U.S. large- and mid-cap stocks, holding 1,796 companies with a focus on financial services, industrials, and technology [6] - VT combines U.S. and international stocks, covering 10,036 holdings, with a similar sector mix [7] - The largest positions in ACWX include Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Tencent Holdings, and ASML Holding, while VT's top holdings are Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [6][7] Investment Implications - Since its inception, VT has outperformed ACWX, yielding nearly 150% more since 2008 [8] - VT has a smaller dividend yield but offers quarterly payouts, which may appeal to investors preferring more frequent distributions compared to ACWX's semi-annual payouts [9] - ACWX has a higher one-year return and a broader international focus in its top holdings, which span Asia to Europe, while VT's top holdings are predominantly U.S. stocks [10]

Core Thesis - ASML Holding N.V. is viewed positively, with a current share price of $1060.00 and trailing and forward P/E ratios of 37.71 and 34.48 respectively, indicating strong market performance and investor confidence [1] Company Performance - ASML has experienced a 23% increase in stock price since Rebound Capital began coverage in June 2025, significantly outperforming the S&P 500 [2] - The company is expected to report third-quarter results on October 15, with an "earnings preview" framework introduced to analyze stock behavior around earnings [2] Valuation and Potential Upside - The intrinsic value of ASML is estimated at €982 per share, compared to the current price of €836, suggesting a potential upside of 17% [3] - A post-earnings dip could present a favorable entry point for investors [3] Market Dynamics and Catalysts - Positive catalysts for ASML include stronger-than-expected bookings, advancements in High NA EUV machines, and increasing demand from the AI memory market [3] - Historically, ASML's stock reacts sharply around earnings, often moving more than 5%, driven primarily by bookings and guidance [4] Management and Investor Focus - ASML's management is conservative, often under-promising while aiming to over-deliver, particularly regarding AI-related demand, which could lead to positive surprises [5] - Analysts expect the market to focus on FY26 revenue guidance rather than quarterly results, predicting a moderate positive reaction of around 5% [5]