Look, I’m a portfolio manager. I deal with numbers, risk, alpha – things that matter. But these ETFs… it’s just… a whole thing. We’ve got the SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC +0.05%), and the iShares MSCI ACWI ex US ETF (ACWX 0.06%). One’s trying to save the planet, the other’s just… not including America. It’s like they couldn’t decide what arbitrary line to draw, so they drew both. And then they expect me to pick one for a client?
Both track global equities, fine. But NZAC’s got this whole climate thing going on, and includes the US. ACWX? Nope, no America. It’s like saying, “Let’s build a house, but only use half the materials.” What’s the point? I mean, I get diversification, but this feels… incomplete. And of course, everyone’s got an opinion. “Oh, it’s sustainable!” “Oh, it’s pure international exposure!” Just pick one, people! It’s exhausting.
Snapshot (and a Headache)
| Metric | NZAC | ACWX |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | SPDR | iShares |
| Expense ratio | 0.12% | 0.32% |
| 1-yr return (as of 2026-01-09) | 22.0% | 34.2% |
| Dividend yield | 1.9% | 2.7% |
| Beta | 1.06 | 1.02 |
| AUM | $182.0 million | $8.4 billion |
ACWX is more expensive, naturally. Because everything good costs more. It’s a universal truth. And it gives you a higher yield. Which is nice. But then you look at the AUM… $8.4 billion for ACWX, $182 million for NZAC. It’s like comparing a Boeing 747 to a Cessna. What are people doing with this NZAC thing? Is it some sort of exclusive club for people who really, really care about carbon footprints?
Performance & Risk (and the Illusion of Control)
| Metric | NZAC | ACWX |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 y) | -28.29% | -30.06% |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $1,501 | $1,267 |
Okay, NZAC has slightly better five-year growth. But is that enough to justify the whole… vibe? It’s like choosing a restaurant based on the color of the napkins. I’m supposed to build portfolios, not participate in some sort of socially responsible popularity contest. And don’t even get me started on trying to explain this to clients. They just want returns, not a lecture on ESG.
What’s Inside (and Why Does It Matter?)
ACWX holds 1,700 stocks. Seventeen hundred. That’s… a lot of companies. Top holdings: Taiwan Semiconductor, Tencent, ASML. Solid. No surprises. It’s like ordering a plain bagel. You know what you’re getting. NZAC? Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft. Tech-heavy. Predictable. It’s like ordering a bagel with everything on it. Too much. Just… too much.
And this “Paris-aligned” thing… it’s just a marketing gimmick, isn’t it? They’re screening out fossil fuels and controversial weapons. Great. But what does that actually mean for returns? Are we sacrificing alpha for… virtue signaling? I’m a portfolio manager, not a saint.
What This Means (and Why I’m Annoyed)
Look, both ETFs offer global exposure. NZAC is climate-focused, ACWX is just… international. The choice depends on your priorities. If you care about the planet, go with NZAC. If you want simple diversification, go with ACWX. But can’t we just have one ETF that does both? Is that too much to ask? It’s like they’re deliberately making things complicated.
NZAC charges 0.12%, ACWX charges 0.32%. That’s a significant difference over time. But ACWX has a higher dividend yield. So you’re paying more for income. It’s like paying extra for guacamole. Worth it? Depends on how much you like guacamole. I just want to allocate assets, not debate the merits of avocado-based condiments.
Ultimately, it comes down to portfolio construction. NZAC for the ESG crowd, ACWX for the… pragmatists. I’m a pragmatist. I like things simple. I like things efficient. And I really, really dislike unnecessary complexity. This whole thing is just… a mess.
Glossary (Because Apparently, We Need One)
ETF: Exchange-traded fund. You know, a basket of securities.
Expense ratio: The fee you pay. It’s like a cover charge.
Dividend yield: The income you receive. It’s like a tip.
Beta: Volatility. It’s like a rollercoaster.
AUM: Assets under management. It’s like a pile of money.
Max drawdown: The biggest loss. It’s like a bad day.
Growth of $1,000: How much your money grows. It’s like a magic trick.
Sector weights: Where the money is allocated. It’s like a seating chart.
ESG screen: Filtering out bad companies. It’s like a bouncer.
Paris-aligned: Trying to save the planet. It’s like a noble quest.
Total return: Everything you make. It’s like a jackpot.
Index: A benchmark. It’s like a finish line.
Read More
- 39th Developer Notes: 2.5th Anniversary Update
- Gold Rate Forecast
- You Should Not Let Your Kids Watch These Cartoons
- Here’s Whats Inside the Nearly $1 Million Golden Globes Gift Bag
- ‘Bugonia’ Tops Peacock’s Top 10 Most-Watched Movies List This Week Once Again
- The Hidden Treasure in AI Stocks: Alphabet
- The Worst Black A-List Hollywood Actors
- TV Pilots Rejected by Networks
- The Labyrinth of JBND: Peterson’s $32M Gambit
- USD RUB PREDICTION
2026-01-17 14:23