Core Insights - The iShares MSCI World ETF (URTH) and the iShares MSCI ACWI ex US ETF (ACWX) differ in cost and composition, with ACWX being more expensive but yielding higher dividends, while URTH is heavily weighted towards U.S. technology stocks [2][3] Cost & Size Comparison - URTH has an expense ratio of 0.24% and AUM of $6.74 billion, while ACWX has a higher expense ratio of 0.32% and AUM of $7.87 billion [4] - The 1-year return for URTH is 23.08%, compared to ACWX's 35.9%, and the dividend yield for URTH is 1.5% versus ACWX's 2.83% [4] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, URTH experienced a maximum drawdown of -26.06%, while ACWX had a deeper drawdown of -30.06% [6] - The growth of $1,000 over five years is $1,644 for URTH and $1,251 for ACWX, indicating better long-term growth for URTH despite ACWX's recent outperformance [6][9] Portfolio Composition - ACWX holds 1,751 non-U.S. companies, with a sector emphasis on financial services (25%), technology (15%), and industrials (15%), featuring top positions like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and Tencent Holdings [7] - URTH covers 1,319 developed market stocks, heavily weighted towards U.S. technology, with major holdings including Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, resulting in a sector allocation of 26% technology and 17% financial services [8][9] Investment Implications - Both ETFs provide international diversification but cater to different investor preferences: URTH for those seeking U.S.-centric exposure and ACWX for those wanting to avoid U.S. equity dominance [11]

Core Insights - Global diversification has negatively impacted returns for U.S. investors over the past decade, with the iShares MSCI World ETF (URTH) underperforming the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF by approximately 81% since 2015, despite still delivering a healthy total return [1] Group 1: Investment Strategies - The company has a history of investing in REITs, preferred stocks, and high-yield bonds since high school in 2011, indicating a long-standing interest in markets and the economy [1] - Recently, the company has been combining long stock positions with covered calls and cash secured puts, reflecting a strategic approach to investment [1] - The investment approach is fundamentally driven with a long-term perspective, focusing primarily on REITs and financials, along with occasional articles on ETFs and macro-driven stock ideas [1]

Core Insights - The article compares two global ETFs: SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and iShares MSCI World ETF (URTH), highlighting their differences in cost, yield, and investment focus [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - NZAC has a lower expense ratio of 0.12% compared to URTH's 0.24%, making it more cost-effective for investors [3][4] - As of December 2, 2025, NZAC has a 1-year return of 12.5% and a dividend yield of 1.9%, while URTH has a 1-year return of 15.0% and a dividend yield of 1.3% [3] - NZAC's assets under management (AUM) are $177.9 million, significantly smaller than URTH's AUM of $6.5 billion [3] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over a five-year period, NZAC experienced a maximum drawdown of -29.6%, while URTH had a drawdown of -26.9% [5] - An investment of $1,000 would have grown to $1,522 in NZAC and $1,682 in URTH over five years, indicating URTH's superior performance despite its higher fees [5] Fund Composition - URTH consists of 1,322 developed-market stocks, with significant holdings in technology (27%), financial services (16%), and industrials (11%), including major companies like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [6] - NZAC holds 687 stocks, covering both developed and emerging markets, with a heavier focus on technology (31%) and a climate-focused, ESG-screened approach [7] Investment Focus - The primary distinction between the two funds lies in their investment goals: NZAC targets investors looking to mitigate climate risk, while URTH provides broader exposure to international stocks without sustainability considerations [9][10] - The difference in fees is emphasized as a critical factor for investors, as similar performance can lead to significantly different long-term returns due to the expense ratio disparity [11]