In the previous chapter, we saw that Irish ETFs are more efficient for Indian investors compared to US ETFs. As part of this chapter, we will look at the Irish ETF universe and shortlist various ETFs available for Equities, Debt and Gold.

Important: When you pick the TICKER, ensure it is traded in USD to avoid additional currency conversions.

Global Equity ETFs

When expanding outside India, you want to capture either the entire investable world or focus purely on developed markets (since your domestic portfolio already gives you heavy emerging market exposure).

When constructing a global passive equity portfolio, the index provider (MSCI, FTSE) is the architect and the ETF issuer (Vanguard, BlackRock) is simply the builder executing the blueprint.

MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) and FTSE (Financial Times Stock Exchange, now FTSE Russell) are the two dominant architects in the global equity space. While their goal is the same—to capture the performance of global stock markets—they draw their lines differently regarding market capitalization and country classification.

The Methodology

• MSCI: Focuses exclusively on Large and Mid-cap stocks. Capturing ~85% of the market keeps transaction costs and bid-ask spreads low by sticking to highly liquid equities.
• MSCI IMI (Investable Market Index): Takes the standard Large/Mid-cap index and adds Small-cap stocks to cover ~99% of the investable market. This is the truest representation of a “total market” index.
• FTSE: While their standard indices officially target Large and Mid-caps (~90-95% coverage), their methodology naturally dips slightly deeper down the market-cap spectrum than standard MSCI. Vanguard heavily favors this tier for its flagship global funds to keep licensing costs (and TERs) low.
• FTSE All-Cap: This is FTSE’s equivalent to MSCI’s IMI tier. By adding Small-cap stocks to the standard blueprint, it captures the full 99% of the investable market to provide true total-market exposure.

The Classification Difference: Mixing Indices

If you are building a one-fund equity portfolio (e.g., just buying a single Global fund), the difference between FTSE and MSCI is negligible; their long-term performance is virtually identical.

However, if you are splitting your portfolio into separate Developed Markets (DM) and Emerging Markets (EM) ETFs to control your own weightings, you must never mix index providers.

The critical difference is how they classify South Korea and Poland:

• FTSE classifies South Korea and Poland as Developed Markets.
• MSCI classifies South Korea and Poland as Emerging Markets.

If you pair a FTSE Developed World ETF with an MSCI Emerging Markets ETF, you will hold South Korea twice. If you pair an MSCI World ETF with a FTSE Emerging Markets ETF, you will exclude South Korea entirely. Pick one provider’s ecosystem and stick to it.

The Global Index Blueprint

This table shows exactly how both MSCI and FTSE apply their standard and small-cap modifiers across geographies. Note that “IMI” and “All Cap” are not separate regions, but simply a small-cap expansion applied to the base blueprints.

Notes

1. While the standard FTSE indices officially target Large and Mid-caps, their methodology naturally dips slightly deeper down the market-cap spectrum than standard MSCI, capturing a broader slice of the total market.
2. No plain-vanilla, standard ETF tracking these exact indexes exist as of writing this chapter. Some variants exist for FTSE Global All Cap Choice and FTSE Emerging All Cap Choice. I would rather use FTSE ones if at all.

Index providers build various indexes but ETF issuer only issue ETFs which have real demand. For example: MSCI ACWI ex India Index (USD) exists but there is no ETF.

MSCI Comparison

The Implementation Cheat Sheet for Global Indexes (Irish UCITS)

Here is how those blueprints translate into actual, investable Irish-domiciled UCITS ETFs. Notice how you are often forced to mix Standard and IMI/All-Cap tiers simply because certain index combinations lack a highly liquid, low-cost ETF.

Global Markets (All World/ACWI) = Developed Markets (DM) + Emerging Markets (EM)

If you want to pick one index fund for your equity portfolio, pick one of these based on your preference (Index/AUM/TER). Since there is no ETF tracking MSCI ACWI ex India Index (USD), picking this will have slight overlap with your Indian Equity holding. But this is the simplest way to get exposure to Global Equity investing.

Developed Markets (DM) only

Since these are Developed Market indexes they won’t have any overlap with Indian Equity portfolio. If you want to pick one DM index fund and use Indian Equity portfolio to proxy EM, then pick one of these based on your preference (Index/AUM/TER).

Emerging Markets (EM) only

If you want more Emerging Markets exposure beyond India you can pick one of these. See the holdings of iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) to know which countries it covers. It has ~11% of India and Taiwan/China/South Korea with higher allocation.

Notes

• Filtered Funds with AUM > $1 Billion across various indexes
• Top 3 by AUM and top 3 by TER listed in above tables
• Data taken by 3rd week of June 2026

US Equity ETFs

US equities dominate both Developed Market (DM) and Global (DM + EM) equity indexes, accounting for ~67% of developed-market capitalization and ~60% of global market capitalization.

For many investors, a broad global ETF already provides substantial exposure to the United States. However, some investors prefer to control their US allocation separately.

Common reasons for separating US exposure include:

• Overweighting or underweighting the US market relative to global market-cap weights.
• Increasing exposure to growth-oriented sectors such as technology.
• Combining a World ex USA portfolio with a dedicated US allocation.
• Implementing a custom asset allocation based on personal risk tolerance and return expectations.

The US Index Blueprint

When isolating US exposure, investors using Irish UCITS ETFs will primarily encounter three index families:

Other index families such as Russell (Russell 1000, Russell 2000, Russell 3000), FTSE USA, Solactive GBS USA, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) exist but have relatively limited representation within the Irish-domiciled UCITS ETF universe. Most investors building portfolios with Irish ETFs will primarily encounter MSCI USA, S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 products.

Unlike MSCI USA and S&P 500, the Nasdaq 100 is not intended to represent the broad US equity market. Rather, it is a growth-tilted index that has historically delivered higher returns than the broader market, albeit with greater volatility.

US Indexes Comparison

The Implementation Cheat Sheet for US Indexes (Irish UCITS)

MSCI USA

S&P 500

Nasdaq 100

For most long-term investors, the practical difference between MSCI USA and S&P 500 is relatively small. The more consequential decision is whether to own the broad US market (MSCI USA/S&P 500) or to make a deliberate growth bet through the Nasdaq 100.

Observations

• S&P 500 remains more popular than MSCI USA despite covering fewer companies.
• Several MSCI USA and S&P 500 ETFs with assets exceeding $10 billion are available at just 0.03% TER.
• Nasdaq 100 ETFs remain considerably (~5x) more expensive, with the lowest-cost fund charging 0.14% TER.
• Investors pay a meaningful premium for concentrated growth exposure.

Notes

• Tables include accumulating Irish-domiciled UCITS ETFs with assets exceeding $1 billion.
• Fund size, TER and rankings are based on data available in mid-June 2026.

MSCI Comparison of India, USA and ACWI

Observations

• MSCI ACWI provides broad diversification across both developed and emerging markets, reducing dependence on any single country.
• MSCI USA has been the strongest performer over the past decade, driven largely by the growth of mega-cap technology companies.
• MSCI India has experienced periods of significant outperformance, but with greater volatility and larger valuation swings.
• Market leadership changes over time. The best-performing country in one decade is rarely guaranteed to lead in the next.
• A global index allows investors to participate in future winners without needing to predict which country will outperform.

Key Takeaway: Investing in a global index such as MSCI ACWI is not about maximizing returns from a single market. It is about reducing concentration risk while participating in global economic growth.

Sovereign Debt ETFs

Debt ETFs primarily serve as the defensive allocation within a portfolio. During accumulation, they provide liquidity, stability, and dry powder for rebalancing. During capital preservation and decumulation, they can also serve as a retirement spending bucket and a source of portfolio income.

The purpose of the debt allocation is not to maximize returns but to provide stability, liquidity, and dry powder for rebalancing. Short-term U.S. Treasuries achieve this objective without the additional credit, duration, currency-hedging, and geopolitical risks introduced by corporate bonds, aggregate bond funds, or emerging-market debt.

Filtering on USD-denominated, US government bond ETFs, accumulating share class, unhedged, Ireland-domiciled, and assets under management greater than $1 billion yielded 7 funds as follows

US Treasury Bond ETFs

Based on your preference for TER/AUM you can pick the iShares or Vanguard for 0-1 year Treasury bond ETFs. Picking up long term debt ETFs such as 7-10yr or 20+yr will expose you more to interest rate risks. So stick to short term (0-1 or 1-3yr) bond ETFs if you are investing in debt.

Depending on your overall portfolio construction/goals, you may also choose to keep the entire defensive allocation in INR-denominated debt instruments and use global equities and global gold (discussed below) as the primary rebalancing assets. In such a setup, a dedicated international debt allocation may not be necessary.

Gold ETCs (Exchange Traded Commodities)

Why do we need international gold?

As part of a global asset allocation strategy, holding a portion of gold through international instruments can make portfolio rebalancing more efficient. If both global equities and gold are held in USD, investors can rebalance between them without incurring additional foreign exchange costs (usually the major cost for international investment even after optimizations of Chapter 3: How to Transfer Money Efficiently?).

For example:

• If equities fall while gold rises, a portion of the gold holdings can be sold in USD and the proceeds can be redeployed into equities.
• Conversely, if equities rally and gold underperforms, some equity exposure can be trimmed and reallocated to gold.

Because both assets are denominated in the same currency, this process avoids repeated INR–USD conversions and the associated forex spreads or remittance costs.

In this way, international gold acts not only as a diversifier and crisis hedge, but also as a liquidity buffer that enables low-friction portfolio rebalancing within the global allocation.

What is Gold ETC

Gold ETCs are exchange-traded securities designed to track the price of gold. They trade on stock exchanges like regular stocks and allow investors to gain exposure to gold without physically buying, storing, or insuring gold bars.

Unlike traditional exchange-traded funds (ETFs), Gold ETCs are legally structured as debt securities issued by financial institutions, not as investment funds. This structural difference exists because European UCITS fund rules do not allow a fund to hold a single commodity like gold directly.

Most modern gold ETCs are physically backed, meaning that gold bullion is held in secure vaults (typically in London) and acts as collateral for the securities issued to investors.

A Gold Comparison

Let’s compare Indian Gold ETFs/Mutual Funds vs Irish Gold ETCs.

Indian Gold Mutual Funds (FoFs)

Top 3 by AUM and Top 3 by TER are listed here.

Indian Gold FoF Total TER ranges from 0.45% to 0.90% as shown in the table

Indian Gold ETFs

Top 3 by AUM and Top 3 by TER are listed here.

Indian Gold ETF TER ranges from 0.29% to 0.80% as shown in the table

Irish Gold ETCs

Top 3 by AUM and Top 3 by TER are listed here.

TER is very competitive globally, ranging from just 0.11% to 0.12%

• Source: justETF as of May 2026 filtered for Ireland Domicile and Gold asset class.
• ISIN prefixes reflect where the instrument was initially registered or the parent entity’s location, while the legal domicile of the vehicle remains in Ireland

Comparing the AUM and TER

Min and Max cost and AUM are based on the filtered list of Top 3 AUM and Top 3 TER rankings below.

The Scale & Cost Gap: When looking at the numbers, the structural advantage of global markets becomes obvious:

• Scale: The largest Indian Gold ETF ~$5.8B is ~6.5x smaller than the largest Irish Gold ETC ~$37.6B, while the largest Indian Gold Mutual Fund is nearly 23x smaller.
• Cost: Because the gold in global ETCs is held in massive institutional bars (~12.5kg) with high operational efficiency, their costs are rock bottom. Indian Gold Mutual Funds are anywhere from 3.7x to 7.5x costlier than their Irish counterparts, with Total TERs dragging at up to 0.90% annually compared to a flat 0.12%.

Notes

• The Domicile Note: Unlike global equity ETFs (where an Ireland domicile slashes US Dividend Withholding Tax from 30% to 15%), gold does not pay dividends. Therefore, there is no specific tax treaty advantage to domiciling gold in Ireland. However, if you are already building a global passive equity portfolio using Ireland-domiciled UCITS ETFs, routing your gold allocation to an Irish ETC is highly recommended for portfolio consolidation
• 1 USD = 95.70 INR used for Indian AUM conversions to USD
• Data is taken by last week of May 2026

TER Drag Compounds Hard Over Long Durations

At first glance, the difference between a 0.12% TER Global Gold ETC and a 0.90% Indian Gold Fund may appear small. But gold is usually a long-duration holding, and recurring costs compound aggressively over time.

Historically, gross INR gold returns are driven by two compounding components:

• Gold Growth (USD): ~7%
• USD/INR Depreciation: ~4%
• Combined Gross INR Return: 11.28% [(1.07 * 1.04) - 1]

Crucially, the investment structure dictates exactly where the Total Expense Ratio (TER) is deducted, which alters the final math.

For a Global Gold ETC, the 0.12% TER is deducted directly from the underlying USD gold return, meaning you still get the full, un-taxed benefit of the currency depreciation on that net USD amount. For an Indian Gold Fund, the 0.90% TER is deducted from the total combined INR return.

Here is how that structural difference impacts the effective return rate:

1. Deriving the Effective Net Rate

(Note: The Indian Fund’s TER is applied to the final INR return, not the USD leg).

While a ~0.78% difference in net CAGR might sound easily ignorable, time amplifies this gap significantly.

2. Comparison of Long-Term Growth

For a simple ₹1 lakh lump sum held for 30 years, here is how that effective rate divergence plays out:

By switching from an Indian Gold Fund to a low-cost Global Gold ETC, the investor pockets an extra ₹4.55 lakh—yielding a final portfolio value nearly 23% higher over 30 years, simply through structural efficiency.

This is why recurring structural costs matter enormously for long-term passive assets like gold. One-time forex conversion and routing costs to access global markets may hurt initially, but the recurring TER drag of domestic funds compounds against the investor every single year.

Note: These calculations exclude the initial one-time forex conversion and brokerage costs required to access global markets. However, the recurring TER savings from lower-cost Global Gold ETCs typically offset these upfront costs within the first 2–3 years of holding. In practice, the effective forex cost may be even lower when gold investments are piggybacked on existing international equity allocations, since the same USD balance can be reused across assets without repeated INR–USD conversions. There is no forex cost involved when rebalancing from Global Equity to Gold.

Notes

• Indian gold prices include the impact of import duties, GST, and other local market factors. Changes to these policies can affect domestic gold prices independently of global gold prices, introducing an additional source of tracking variation for Indian investors.
• Currently, my gold allocation sits in Indian Mutual Funds. While I initially planned to upgrade to Indian ETFs, I am routing all my future gold investments into Irish ETCs to eliminate the heavy domestic cost drag and avoid arbitrary tax distortions entirely.

Portfolio Construction

The indexes and ETFs discussed throughout this chapter can be combined in several ways depending on how much diversification, concentration, and control an investor desires.

At one end of the spectrum sits the fully diversified global market portfolio. At the other end sits a concentrated, high-conviction portfolio built around India and US technology. As diversification decreases, concentration in a smaller set of countries, sectors, and companies naturally increases. This may lead to higher returns, but it also increases volatility and the risk of underperforming the broader global market.

The Concentration Ladder

As we move down the ladder—from GM → DM → MSCI USA → S&P 500 → Nasdaq 100—the portfolio gradually becomes more concentrated.

The number of countries and individual companies decreases, reducing overall diversification. Conversely, the weight of the top 10 companies, technology exposure, and volatility all increase. This magnifies both the potential for massive outperformance and the risk of severe underperformance.

The Role of Gold and Debt

Growth assets are only one side of portfolio construction. Gold and Debt serve an entirely different purpose:

Rather than maximizing returns, Gold and Debt create opportunities for systematic rebalancing. For example:

• During equity bear markets, Gold or Debt can be sold to purchase equities at lower valuations.
• During strong equity rallies, excess profits can be redirected into Gold or Debt.
• During retirement, Debt can provide spending liquidity while allowing equities to recover from temporary drawdowns.

A later chapter on The Perpetual Rebalancing Framework will cover the exact mechanics I follow to maintain my desired asset allocation, detailing both the Accumulation and Decumulation phases end-to-end.

My current asset allocation (Tax Year 2026-27)

My current asset allocation is based on the Concentrated Diversification approach. US is highly concentrated via Nasdaq 100, while India is highly diversified in the Nifty 500 companies using custom weights. Concentrated on just 2 countries but diversified over 600 companies.

Instead of owning the entire world, I focus on two primary growth engines:

1. India through broad market indexes (Nifty 50, Nifty Next 50, Nifty Midcap 150, & Nifty Smallcap 250).
2. US Technology and Innovation through the Nasdaq 100.

This results in exposure to approximately 600 companies (Nifty 500 via custom weights + Nasdaq 100). While significantly more concentrated than a global index, it still provides meaningful diversification across sectors, industries, and market capitalizations.

My current asset allocation looks like this:

This gives me 50% INR (India + Debt) and 50% USD (Nasdaq 100 + Gold) based assets. 85% in Equity and 15% in defensive assets.

This allocation reflects my own goals, risk tolerance, and conviction. It should be viewed as an example implementation rather than a recommendation.

Key Takeaway

The decision is not simply a binary choice between diversification and concentration. It is a choice between:

• Maximum Diversification through Global Market portfolios, which aim to capture global economic growth with minimal concentration risk. This is truly moving to a global index and not worry about which country/sector will perform better.
• Concentrated Diversification through portfolios such as India + Nasdaq 100, which focus on a smaller set of high-conviction growth engines while relying on Gold and Debt to provide stability and rebalancing opportunities. This is for investors who have conviction in their country and top global growth engine. This is the approach I currently follow.

Neither approach is inherently superior. The appropriate choice depends entirely on an investor’s goals, conviction, risk tolerance, and willingness to weather periods of underperformance relative to the global market.

The important part is selecting an allocation that you can consistently maintain through both bull and bear markets. A good portfolio is not the one with the highest historical return, but the one you can hold for decades without abandoning the plan.

Work In Progress: Writing further chapters and refining published chapters. Stay tuned!