XIRR

dunstonh

It's not merely limited; it's actually damaging. Maybe so, but it is the only hard data and understanding I have. Besides, it is only potentially damaging to me and I accept the risk it carries.

In that case, it's time to improve your knowledge and understanding. There's no point following duff information if it leads to poor outcomes.

Which Dev Asia would you invest in? Potentially Vanguard FTSE Developed Asia Pacific ex-Japan UCITS ETF

Either works as long as your benchmarks are consistent across the globe. Mixing FTSE and MSCI benchmarked trackers can cause you to miss out or double‑count, depending on the region. Developed Asia is one of the biggest differences between them It can make a significant difference to returns if you get it wrong.

I did say relatively stable - by which I mean less risky. Practically any investment could lose 80% or more in a year. The issue is how likely is it to lose 80%.

An 80% loss in Western markets is akin to a once‑in‑a‑century event. However, an 80% loss in Asia Pacific It is statistically more likely to happen. Especially given that the gains over the past 12 months have come from just three of companies that make up 27% of the SMCI Asia Pacific ex Japan index.

Asia Pacific trackers rose for a very focused reason. That reason can disappear as easily as it appeared. You can't benefit from those gains by moving into it now. They've already occurred. They could keep rising a bit longer, or you might be buying at the peak and watch the whole thing unwind spectacularly.

Which Dev Asia would you invest in? Potentially Vanguard FTSE Developed Asia Pacific ex-Japan UCITS ETF

Returning to that question, the fund you're looking at is 54.8% invested in South Korea as of June 2026. That fund has effectively become a Korean technology‑heavy fund. That makes it extremely high risk.

Investing in a single region or country is bad quality investing. The Vanguard tracker you mention is intended to be part of a broader portfolio of funds covering other regions and countries worldwide. You wouldn't completely sell out Europe to go fully into Asia; that would be daft. You can tilt away from market cap by overweighting or underweighting a specific country or region, and that’s fine if you've researched and have reasons for doing so. Many people tilt away from market cap. Especially since the U.S. market cap has reached an all‑time high and is very susceptible to technology. Going into a region, a highly volatile one at that is not a good idea.

Veloflyer

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82147276#Comment_82147276

OK - That particular Vanguard Asia fund is currently around 10% of the entire portfolio - for the reasons of regional diversity and indeed to tilt away from the US - as it was skewed more there than previously. The other 80% is essentially Global and 10% Euro skewed. It does indeed form part of a much broader portfolio. If I add to it by selling the 10% Euro fund, that will clearly rise to around 20%. There is no way I would go 100% into one particular region. I appreciate the remarks about the Asia Vanguard fund so perhaps if I decide to sell the Euro fund, I should look to invest in one of the other 8 instead.

I get that all of this is somewhat nebulous, and perhaps I am looking for a solution that does not really exist, but I would still like to rationalize the numbers of ETFs held. Perhaps an easier solution would be to firstly consolidate the 4 global trackers I have.

NoMore

Decide on your allocation you want and then move everything to the minimum number of trackers than achieve your goal.

OldScientist

Can I second @NoMore in saying that a good place to start would be deciding exactly what allocation you want to end up with before working out how to implement that and over what time scale.

One approach is to start with a global index and then adding desired regional (or other) tilts. For example, if the underlying concern is about the dominance of the US stock market and technology stocks in particular then add an ex-USA global fund (one way to generalise and future proof this approach is to say that no region or country should exceed 50%, or some other number, of your overall holdings).

I've also simplified my portfolio over the last decade or so (IIRC, it peaked at 14 funds - including some active) and have got equity holdings down to three funds (two, because of platform limitations, global funds tracking the same index and a global small cap fund). Some funds were removed in one go (the active funds) others were gradually reduced to a zero holding over a period of several years.

Veloflyer

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82148025#Comment_82148025

I did indeed do that some time ago, hence the tilt to Asia and Europe with a couple of ETFs. Relatively speaking, the Europe ETF seems to be a poor performer and (rightly or wrongly) I don't see it improving much. The money tied up in there could be working harder, but I appreciate there is also some value in spreading the risk a little more around the globe - particularly away from the US.

As aforementioned, I have perhaps 4 global trackers which broadly seem to duplicate each other. Some consolidation here may be in order. I also have as S&P 500 tracker - which although does OK, I fret about the 100% US weighting.

Bostonerimus1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82148025#Comment_82148025

Ex US equity index funds can also have large tech allocation. Companies like Samsung, Nvidia, TSMC etc can dominate. But Ex US global equity index funds usually have a lower tech allocation than cap weighted S&P500 funds or Russell 3000 etc. My US equity index had 40% tech and I moved some to an exUS global index with 18% tech and a US value index with 10% tech. I feel a lot better.

OldScientist

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82148345#Comment_82148345

Consolidating the 4 global funds and, possibly, swapping the SP500 for a global fund (60% or so of which would then be the same holdings!) would at least immediately simplify your portfolio with no significant decision made as to composition.

As for Asia Pacific and Europe who knows what the future will bring. As others have noted, the Asia Pacific fund is very concentrated (Korea and Australia form 80% of the portfolio, the top 3 companies form 30% of the portfolio) which might be a concern but probably not too much if held in small amounts.