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 Schwab International Equity ETF (SCHF) and SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (SPDW) are designed to provide broad exposure to developed markets outside the United States, with both funds maintaining low expense ratios of 0.03% [4][7][8] - SCHF holds 1,499 stocks with a sector mix of 25% financial services, 18% industrials, and 12% technology, while SPDW holds 2,390 stocks with a sector mix of 23% financial services, 19% industrials, and 11% technology [1][2] - SCHF has a slightly lower beta of 0.86 compared to SPDW's beta of 0.88, indicating that SCHF is marginally less volatile [5][7] Fund Characteristics - SCHF has approximately $58 billion in assets under management (AUM), while SPDW has around $35 billion in AUM, suggesting a significant size difference [8] - The top holdings for SCHF include Asml Holding Nv, Samsung Electronics Ltd, and Roche, while SPDW's top holdings are Roche Holding Ag, Novartis Ag, and Toyota Motor Corp [1][2] - Both funds have experienced a maximum drawdown of about -30% over the same period, indicating similar risk profiles [7] Performance Metrics - Over the last five years, a $1,000 investment in SCHF would have grown to $1,593, while the same investment in SPDW would have grown to $1,567, showing that SCHF has outperformed SPDW in terms of growth [5] - SCHF offers a marginally higher dividend yield compared to SPDW, making it more attractive for income-focused investors [3][5]

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 FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO) and SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (SPDW) are both international equity ETFs with different regional focuses, catering to diverse investment strategies [1] Cost & Size Comparison - VWO has an expense ratio of 0.07% and assets under management (AUM) of $111.14 billion, while SPDW has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $35.1 billion [2] - The one-year return for VWO is 28.53%, compared to SPDW's 35.3%, and the dividend yield for VWO is 2.64%, while SPDW offers a higher yield of 3.2% [2] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, VWO experienced a maximum drawdown of -34.31%, while SPDW had a lower drawdown of -30.20% [4] - A $1,000 investment in VWO would have grown to $1,069 over five years, whereas the same investment in SPDW would have grown to $1,321 [4] Portfolio Composition - SPDW provides exposure to 2,413 companies in developed international markets, with significant holdings in financial services, industrials, and technology [5] - VWO focuses on emerging markets, with major investments in technology, financial services, and consumer cyclical sectors, including a substantial stake in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which constitutes over 10% of its assets [6] Investor Considerations - Both ETFs have minimal exposure to U.S. stocks, which may present unique risks for U.S. investors due to differing market behaviors influenced by local economic and political factors [7] - SPDW's top holdings are primarily European companies, while VWO's are mainly Asian, indicating a geographical investment strategy difference [8] - For investors seeking technology-focused exposure, VWO is preferable, while SPDW is characterized as a more balanced option with a higher dividend yield [9]

Core Insights - IEFA and SPDW both provide broad access to developed markets outside the United States, but they have different portfolio structures and cost profiles [4][6][7] Fund Overview - IEFA holds 2,589 stocks with a sector mix of financial services (22%), industrials (20%), and healthcare (11%), and has nearly $169 billion in assets under management (AUM) [1] - SPDW includes 2,390 holdings with sector weights of financial services (23%), industrials (19%), and technology (11%) [2] Performance and Cost - SPDW has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% compared to IEFA's 0.07%, while IEFA offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 3.4% versus SPDW's 3.2% [3] - The beta for both funds measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500, with the 1-year return representing total return over the trailing 12 months [3] Investment Strategy - IEFA follows the MSCI EAFE framework, primarily allocating exposure to Europe and Japan, while SPDW tracks a developed ex U.S. index that includes Canada [6] - The choice between IEFA and SPDW depends on how international exposure fits into an investor's overall portfolio strategy, with IEFA appealing to those seeking a traditional EAFE allocation and SPDW attracting those looking for broader coverage and lower costs [7]

Credit Quality - Emerging markets' credit quality is "significantly higher" than developed markets'[1] Source - The CEO of South Africa's biggest independent fund manager made the statement[1]

Core Insights - The iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) offer different approaches to global equity exposure, with IEFA focusing on developed markets outside the U.S. and Canada, while EEM targets emerging economies [1] Cost & Size Comparison - IEFA has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to EEM's 0.72% [2] - As of October 27, 2025, IEFA's one-year return is 19.2%, while EEM's is 22.9% [2] - IEFA has a higher dividend yield of 2.9% compared to EEM's 2.1% [3] - Both ETFs have similar beta values, with EEM at 1.06 and IEFA at 1.07, indicating comparable volatility [2] - Assets under management (AUM) for IEFA stand at $159.2 billion, while EEM has $21.2 billion [2] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, EEM experienced a maximum drawdown of -39.82%, while IEFA's maximum drawdown was -30.41% [4] - A $1,000 investment in IEFA would have grown to $1,537 over five years, compared to $1,244 for EEM [4] Portfolio Composition - IEFA holds 2,611 stocks, with significant allocations in financial services (22%), industrials (20%), and healthcare (10%) [5] - Major holdings in IEFA include ASML Holding NV, SAP, and Nestlé [5] - EEM consists of 1,198 holdings, with a heavier focus on technology (25%) and financial services (23%) [5] - Top allocations in EEM include Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Tencent Holdings, and Alibaba Group Holding [6] Investment Preference - IEFA is favored due to its lower expense ratio, higher dividend yield, and better historical performance compared to EEM [7][9] - EEM's top five holdings constitute over 25% of its portfolio, indicating a lack of diversification, with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing alone accounting for 12% [8]

Market Status - FTSE Russell will upgrade Greek equities to developed-market status [1] - Greek equities spent a decade within the emerging asset class [1]

Core Viewpoint - Emerging markets (EM) outperformed developed markets (DM) in Q3, driven by strong gains in North Asian tech stocks and a rebound in Chinese market sentiment [1][2]. Group 1: Performance Overview - The MSCI Emerging Markets Index rose approximately 11% in Q3, compared to a 7% increase in developed markets [2]. - Key leaders included South Korea and Taiwan, benefiting from semiconductor and AI hardware demand, while ASEAN markets lagged due to weak domestic demand [3][5][8]. Group 2: Sector Performance - The rise was primarily driven by cyclical sectors such as consumer discretionary, technology, and materials [2]. - Notable sector performances included: - Consumer discretionary (+12.6%) - Technology (+10.4%) - Materials (+10.3%) - Communication services (+8.2%) - Defensive sectors like financials and healthcare underperformed, indicating a shift towards growth-sensitive sectors [11]. Group 3: Future Potential - Future performance of emerging markets will depend on several factors: 1. Earnings expectations: Bloomberg consensus predicts strong earnings growth for emerging markets, with +11.3% in 2025 and +15.0% in 2026, compared to lower expectations for the US and Europe [12]. 2. Valuation and capital flows: Emerging market stocks are trading at a lower valuation (expected P/E of 12.4) compared to developed markets, indicating potential for capital inflows [15]. 3. Dollar dynamics: A weaker dollar historically supports emerging market performance, while a strengthening dollar poses challenges [16]. 4. Domestic policies and reforms: Structural reforms in markets like India and Mexico can enhance mid-term earnings resilience [17]. 5. Commodity and trade conditions: Resource-rich regions benefit from rising metal and energy cycles, while Asian importers gain from lower energy prices [18]. 6. Industry leadership sustainability: The AI-related supply chain and consumer trends in emerging markets provide long-term growth drivers, though a shift to defensive sectors may alter leadership dynamics [18]. 7. Positioning and liquidity: Underweight positions suggest room for capital inflows, but smaller emerging markets may experience disproportionate volatility [18].