I’m 22 years old and I want to start investing through a PEA. For now, my goal is mainly to keep it simple, get started, and begin gradually rather than looking for the perfect strategy right away.
I was thinking of going with an MSCI World ETF, but I’m realizing there are several that are eligible for the PEA and I don’t really know how to compare them or which one would be most suitable in my case.
Same thing for the broker: I don’t know yet which one to go with. I’ve looked a bit at Trade Republic, Fortuneo, BoursoBank, etc., but I’m having trouble seeing what’s really important to look at beyond the fees.
I’ve also seen discussions about synthetic ETFs and a possible change in regulations, so I’m wondering if that’s something that should really factor into the choice of ETF today.
So, if you had to give me some advice as someone starting out, I’d be most interested in:
the criteria to look at when choosing a World ETF;
which one you chose for your PEA and why;
the important points for choosing a broker;
and possibly the mistakes to avoid when starting out.
For now, I’m really thinking of going with a single World ETF and investing regularly, and then considering emerging markets or other ETFs later.
Thanks to those who will take the time to share their experience!
In any case, thank you very much for your help and especially for sending me the two ETFs, it really helped me get a much clearer picture.
So I think I’ll go with Fortuneo with the Starter plan, since for what I’m planning to invest at the beginning (around €50 per month, then gradually increase), it seems quite interesting in terms of fees.
However, I still have a small question about the two ETFs you recommended: WPEA and DCAM. I get the impression that they are really very similar and that ultimately the main difference is mainly the issuer (iShares/BlackRock for WPEA and Amundi for DCAM).
So, which of the two would you recommend? I have to admit I’m not really sure how to choose between them or could you explain what criteria I should use to make my choice.
on Fortuneo, Amundi ETFs are accessible without fees from €500 (until the end of 2026 for now), which is very convenient.
Personally, I prefer enriching Amundi over BlackRock…
Don’t overthink this choice too much, here we’re really talking about a brand preference. ETFs track the index anyway, and the fees are the same rate.
If the broker you’ve chosen offers an advantage on one brand rather than another, it makes your choice easier. It’s up to you to see what Fortuneo says about it.
yes, at least until the end of 2026 for large orders over €500.
Under €500, it’s the Starter plan that « offers » you one order (at least on recent PEAs… mine is more expensive)
The problem with the world is that a large part of the American economy is based on technology and if a loss of investor confidence occurs, the index will lose a lot and can drag your entire portfolio down, whereas if you do arbitrage on US/Europe/Japan/Asia ETFs. With 4 ETFs this will allow you to do arbitrage yourself. In case of a drop in one index, the rest can remain stable.
Uh… generally when US indices take a beating, the others suffer just as much. The difference is that the US recovers faster.
We’re in a globalized economy, everything is interconnected. If you don’t want to spend your time betting on US weighting, you need to buy a World/ACWI, and if you want uncorrelated positions, you need to go for assets other than stocks.
Doing the arbitrage yourself between USA/Europe/Japan/Asia. OK no problem for me. Nothing also prevents you from taking a base World ETF, and complementing it with Europe ETFs (or others) to slightly overweight this geographical sector.
On the other hand, the World ETF is currently heavily composed of American stocks because these are the ones that predominate in the large capitalizations of countries considered developed. But the replication of the MSCI World index will also clean up the stock basket if a notable change in this distribution requires purging sick American companies.
If you do the allocation yourself, you will also experience the repercussions of a drop in confidence on your US ETFs. But if you favor, in your allocation, geographical sectors other than the US. Before the drop, you will not have benefited from the dynamism of your current US ETFs.
In short, the whole dilemma consists of following and trusting the allocation made in the MSCI World index (and probably associated with an Emerging ETF). Or betting on a different allocation of geographical sectors determined according to your convictions.
Thank you for your responses. What bothers me about the World is that you have an average.
The Eurostoxx 600 has performed better over the past two years than the American market; the index has gone from 8 euros per share to over 20 euros currently.
Having multiple positions in the portfolio really allows, in my opinion, to avoid risks.
Leaving one position in a portfolio, I think it’s risky in the stock market. I would really like to be convinced to leave one position for the overall portfolio. I think that depending on the variables, it’s more important to have multiple positions, which for me is too oriented towards technology.
I think the growth is too high; it can’t continue indefinitely like this, there will be a correction. So I favor multiple sectors and, as you also say, other safe havens besides the equity portion.
But I would like to be convinced that the World is the best, sincerely.
Your reasoning is based solely on retrospective analysis.
You say
The Eurostoxx 600 has performed better over the past two years than the US market
But did you know 3 years ago that this would be the case? Would you have overweighted that region at the time? Even if you did, it remains just a bet, no one has a crystal ball.
Having a World fund line is no riskier than having 10 geographic ETF lines, possibly less risky in the long term actually. Only different asset classes reduce risk.
Not at all, but for example when a geographical area loses performance I will invest more in it during my DCA rather than an index that has already performed well because we know that global economies will always recover even in case of crisis and that’s when you need to invest. That’s why I prefer this method. Moreover, on the Eurostoxx I had invested 15% of my portfolio during my lump sum and it was more profitable for me than having invested everything in a world. In fact, I’m even thinking of soon focusing more on MSCI Asia because there’s a good chance that in the coming years, their growth will outperform the American market
You confirm Philippe’s message. You base your convictions on past observations and make bets.
A decline can always continue to fall or rise again, you don’t know. Same thing for a rise. The advantage of casting a wide net with regular investment is that you don’t need to bet. It’s the index that adapts and corrects itself.
By choosing a sector-specific ETF, you’re not actually choosing a sector, you’re excluding the others. I understand your method well. But keeping your principle, you should rather consider building a base of World ETF (or better ACWI) by overweighting it with an additional portion of Asia and Europe based on personal conviction. At least in the long term, this allows you to benefit from changes in the index.
or could you explain what criteria I should use to make my choice.
