Investors regularly ask me where I park my cash. This is an important question for all investors, as there are many good reasons to not have 100% of your capital invested in the market. I believe one of the best options is short-term Treasury ETFs. BondBloxx Bloomberg 6 Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XHLF) XHLF is a Treasury ETF. It focuses on Treasuries with about six months remaining. bondbloxxetf.com Source: https://bondbloxxetf.com To be clear, there are other treasury ETFs with even less durati ...

Posted on // Vanguard just announced a new round of expense ratio drops spanning 53 funds (roughly 25% of them), totaling close to $250 million in fee reductions in 2026. See their press release and full list of changes. This comes almost exactly a year after their February 2025 cuts which spanned 87 funds with an estimated $350 in fee reductions that year. Over the past two years, Vanguard has reduced fees on most of its fund lineup totaling nearly $600 million in savings for investors—Vanguard’s largest-e ...

Core Insights - The SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) represent two distinct investment strategies, with DIA focusing on concentrated blue-chip stocks and IWM targeting a broader range of small-cap stocks [5][6][9] Group 1: ETF Characteristics - DIA tracks the Dow Jones Industrial Average, holding only 30 blue-chip U.S. stocks, while IWM captures the performance of approximately 1,954 U.S. small-cap stocks [4][7] - DIA has a sector exposure heavily weighted towards financial services (28%), technology (20%), and industrials (15%), whereas IWM has a more balanced sector allocation with healthcare (19%), financial services (16%), and technology (16%) [2][5] - DIA has a lower expense ratio compared to IWM and currently offers a higher dividend yield, making it appealing for investors seeking lower costs and higher payouts [3][8] Group 2: Performance Metrics - Over the last five years, DIA has shown greater total return and less volatility, with a maximum drawdown of -21% compared to IWM's -32% [8] - Investors may prefer DIA for its combination of lower costs and higher yield, while IWM may attract those looking for diversification and exposure to small and mid-cap stocks [9]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Small-Cap Growth ETF (VBK) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth ETF (RZG) both focus on U.S. small-cap growth stocks but employ different strategies in portfolio construction, sector exposure, and fee structures [4][7]. Fund Comparison - VBK tracks a broad index of U.S. small-cap growth companies with 579 stocks, emphasizing technology (27%), industrials (21%), and healthcare (18%) [2][5]. - RZG is built around the S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth Index, focusing more on healthcare (26%), followed by industrials (18%) and financial services (16%), with only 131 stocks, leading to lower diversification [1][5]. Performance and Costs - VBK has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to RZG's 0.35%, making it more appealing for cost-conscious investors [3][5]. - RZG has shown a marginally higher one-year total return compared to VBK, but both funds have nearly identical drawdowns and long-term growth [5][9]. Risk and Volatility - VBK's beta is 1.4, indicating higher volatility compared to RZG's beta of 1.2, which may appeal to different types of investors based on their risk tolerance [8][9]. - RZG's concentrated portfolio may increase risk due to its lower number of holdings [7][9]. Investor Suitability - RZG is suited for investors seeking potential outperformance and who are comfortable with higher fees and concentration risk [9]. - VBK is ideal for long-term investors looking for low costs and broader exposure to the small-cap growth market [9].

Core Insights - The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) offers lower expenses and broader diversification compared to the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust (DIA), which is more concentrated in financials and industrials [1][2] Cost Comparison - VOO has an expense ratio of 0.03%, significantly lower than DIA's 0.16% [3][4] - VOO's assets under management (AUM) stand at $1.5 trillion, while DIA has $44.4 billion [3] Performance Metrics - VOO's one-year return is 19.6%, compared to DIA's 18.1% [3] - Over five years, a $1,000 investment in VOO would grow to $1,834, while the same investment in DIA would grow to $1,596 [5] Sector Exposure - DIA is concentrated with only 30 holdings, primarily in financial services (28%), technology (20%), and industrials (15%) [6] - VOO tracks 505 companies, with a significant allocation to technology (35%) and major positions in Nvidia Corp., Apple Inc., and Microsoft Corp. [7] Dividend Information - DIA offers a higher dividend yield of 1.4% compared to VOO's 1.1%, and DIA pays dividends monthly while VOO pays quarterly [4][9] Investment Suitability - VOO is suitable for investors seeking broad market exposure and lower costs, while DIA may appeal to those prioritizing monthly income [10]

Core Insights - The article compares two ETFs, Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF (VONG) and iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF (IWY), highlighting their differences in diversification, sector allocation, expense ratios, and historical performance [4][5][8]. Group 1: ETF Overview - VONG offers broader diversification with 394 holdings and a sector allocation of 53% technology, 13% consumer cyclicals, and 13% communication services [1][4]. - IWY focuses on large-cap U.S. growth stocks with a pronounced technology emphasis, holding 66% in technology, 11% in consumer cyclicals, and 7% in healthcare, with only 110 holdings [2][4]. Group 2: Performance Metrics - Over the last five years, IWY has generated a total return of 118%, equating to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16.9%, while VONG has delivered a total return of 106% with a CAGR of 15.5% [7][8]. - IWY's top three holdings (Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft) make up 37% of its portfolio, indicating a higher concentration risk compared to VONG [7][8]. Group 3: Cost and Fees - VONG has a lower expense ratio of 0.07%, meaning investors pay $7 in fees for every $10,000 invested, while IWY has a higher expense ratio of 0.20% [6][8]. - The cost structure of VONG makes it more appealing for cost-conscious investors, while IWY may attract those seeking higher returns despite the higher fees [8].

Core Insights - The comparison between iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) and Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG) highlights differences in dividend yield, sector focus, and risk, which are crucial for investors considering income versus growth strategies [1][2]. Cost & Size - HDV has an expense ratio of 0.08% while VIG has a lower expense ratio of 0.05% [3][4]. - As of January 2, 2026, HDV's one-year return is 12.0% compared to VIG's 14.4% [3]. - HDV offers a dividend yield of 3.2%, significantly higher than VIG's 2.0% [3][4]. - HDV has assets under management (AUM) of $12.0 billion, while VIG has a much larger AUM of $102.0 billion [3][4]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, HDV's maximum drawdown is -15.41%, while VIG's is -20.39% [5]. - An investment of $1,000 in HDV would grow to $1,683 over five years, whereas the same investment in VIG would grow to $1,737 [5]. Portfolio Composition - VIG consists of 338 holdings with a significant tilt towards Technology (30%), Financial Services (21%), and Healthcare (15%) [6]. - The top holdings in VIG include Broadcom, Microsoft, and Apple, reflecting its focus on dividend growth [6]. - HDV is concentrated on 74 U.S. stocks with higher current yields, focusing on sectors like Consumer Defensive, Energy, and Healthcare [7]. - Major positions in HDV include Exxon Mobil, Johnson & Johnson, and Chevron, emphasizing its income-oriented strategy [7]. Investment Suitability - VIG is suited for investors seeking growth through dividend appreciation, despite its lower yield [11][13]. - HDV appeals to conservative investors prioritizing income and lower volatility due to its higher dividend yield and focus on defensive sectors [12][13].

Core Viewpoint - The State Street Real Estate Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLRE) and iShares Select US REIT ETF (ICF) provide diversified access to U.S. real estate investment trusts (REITs), with notable differences in cost, yield, and performance metrics that investors should consider. Cost & Size Comparison - XLRE has an expense ratio of 0.08%, significantly lower than ICF's 0.32% [2] - XLRE's one-year return is 1.38%, compared to ICF's 0.97% [2] - XLRE offers a higher dividend yield of 3.45% versus ICF's 2.88% [2] - XLRE has assets under management (AUM) of $7.4 billion, while ICF has $1.9 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - The maximum drawdown over five years for XLRE is 34.11%, slightly better than ICF's 34.75% [4] - The growth of $1,000 over five years is $1,111 for XLRE and $1,121 for ICF, indicating similar performance [4] Holdings Composition - ICF holds 34 U.S. REITs, focusing primarily on equity REITs, with major positions in Prologis, Welltower, and American Tower, which together account for about 25% of the fund [5] - XLRE also holds 34 assets but includes both REITs and S&P 500 companies involved in real estate, contributing to its higher AUM despite being younger than ICF by 14 years [6] Dividend Payout Analysis - XLRE has a payout ratio of 124.09%, indicating that its dividend payments exceed its earnings, which may raise sustainability concerns [9] - In contrast, ICF's payout ratio is 91.97%, aligning closely with the typical REIT requirement to distribute 90% of taxable income as dividends [9] - Investors are advised to monitor XLRE's upcoming quarterly dividend payment, expected around mid-March 2026, due to its high payout ratio [9]

Core Insights - Investors face a choice between higher yield and long-term resilience when selecting between the State Street SPDR Portfolio Long Term Corporate Bond ETF (SPLB) and the iShares iBoxx Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) [1] Group 1: ETF Overview - Both SPLB and LQD focus on U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds, with SPLB targeting long-term maturities of 10 years or more, while LQD covers the entire investment-grade maturity spectrum [2] - SPLB has a lower expense ratio of 0.04% compared to LQD's 0.14%, and offers a higher dividend yield of 5.2% versus LQD's 4.34% [3] - SPLB has assets under management (AUM) of $1.1 billion, significantly smaller than LQD's AUM of $33.17 billion [3] Group 2: Performance Metrics - Over the past five years, LQD has experienced a maximum drawdown of 14.7%, while SPLB's drawdown was 23.31% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in LQD would have grown to $801.52, while the same investment in SPLB would have grown to $686.55 over five years [4] Group 3: Portfolio Composition - SPLB holds 2,953 investment-grade corporate bonds with a fund life of 16.8 years, with top positions including Meta Platforms, Anheuser Busch InBev, and CVS Health [6] - LQD has a broader portfolio with 3,002 holdings, including significant positions in BlackRock Cash Fund, Anheuser Busch InBev, and CVS Health [7] - LQD's broader maturity range allows it to better withstand market volatility, particularly during periods of rising interest rates [11]

Core Insights - The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) and Fidelity High Dividend ETF (FDVV) both target U.S. companies with above-average dividend yields but differ in their strategies and characteristics [1][2]. Cost and Size Comparison - FDVV has an expense ratio of 0.15% and assets under management (AUM) of $7.7 billion, while VYM has a lower expense ratio of 0.06% and AUM of $84.6 billion [3]. - As of December 18, 2025, FDVV's one-year return is 10.62% compared to VYM's 9.99%, and FDVV offers a higher dividend yield of 3.02% versus VYM's 2.42% [3]. Performance and Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, FDVV experienced a maximum drawdown of -20.17%, while VYM had a drawdown of -15.87% [4]. - An investment of $1,000 in FDVV would grow to $1,754 over five years, compared to $1,567 for VYM [4]. Portfolio Composition - VYM tracks the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index with 566 holdings, primarily in financial services (21%), technology (18%), and healthcare (13%), featuring top stocks like Broadcom, JPMorgan Chase, and Exxon Mobil [5]. - FDVV has a more concentrated portfolio with 107 holdings, focusing heavily on technology (26%) and consumer defensive (12%) sectors, with major positions in Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple [6]. Investment Implications - While FDVV offers a higher dividend yield, its higher expense ratio may offset some income benefits, making the net earnings from both funds relatively similar for most investors [7][8]. - The sector allocation indicates that VYM is more stable due to its focus on financial services, whereas FDVV's heavier tech exposure may lead to higher volatility and potential returns [9][10].