Optimization of portfolio (withholding taxes)

I asked for a table comparing numbers from a screenshot from your 2021 analysis (linked above from @Abs_max ) with the GTP numbers.

Country Region Weight PI Weight GTP PI US GTP US PI IE GTP IE
United States US 60.1 58.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0
Japan Japan 5.8 6.2 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0
China (mainland) Emerging markets 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
United Kingdom Developed Europe 3.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Canada Canada 2.9 3.2 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0
France Developed Europe 2.9 3.1 15.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
Switzerland Developed Europe 2.6 2.8 17.5 15.0 35.0 15.0
Germany Developed Europe 2.4 2.6 12.0 15.0 12.8 15.0
Australia Asia-Pacific ex Japan 1.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0
Taiwan Emerging markets 1.7 1.8 20.0 21.0 20.0 21.0
South Korea Emerging markets 1.5 1.6 17.6 22.0 22.0 22.0
India Emerging markets 1.3 1.4 7.5 25.0 5.0 10.0
Netherlands Developed Europe 1.3 1.1 15.0 15.0 13.0 15.0
Sweden Developed Europe 1.0 0.9 8.4 15.0 3.0 15.0
Hong Kong Asia-Pacific ex Japan 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denmark Developed Europe 0.7 0.7 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Spain Developed Europe 0.6 0.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Italy Developed Europe 0.6 0.5 15.0 15.0 16.0 15.0
Brazil Emerging markets 0.5 0.4 8.2 15.0 13.0 15.0

Let’s ignore the weighting, might be timing or index used and it’s close enough. Could you comment e.g. the 3% for France with IE-domicile, or 17.5% for Switzerland with US domicile? I did find the 15% in the DTA, but haven’t read the fine-print.

Here’s the cheeky GTP answer, not mine :wink:

France

  • France-US DTA: Typically, the withholding tax on dividends paid from France to the US is 15%【source: US-France Tax Treaty】.
  • France-Ireland DTA: Typically, the withholding tax on dividends paid from France to Ireland is 15%【source: Ireland-France Tax Treaty】.

The 3% figure for PI IE seems unusual and incorrect.

The GTP rates seem to be more accurate based on the double tax agreements and authoritative sources. The discrepancies in the PI rates might be due to incorrect assumptions or outdated information.

1 Like

No I can’t :joy:. I suspect some tax optimization techniques behind the scenes such as use of derivatives around ex dividend dates or whatnot. I also suspect that inside EU it is easy to move stocks to an office in the respective county to avoid WHT and then claim income from the fully own subsidiaries or something.

Or if US ETFs invest via ADRs, the withholding tax is retained at the ADR level and this loss is not visible in the funds’ report.

That is new information to me. I always acted under the assumption that it is better, from a tax perspective, to own:

  • US-domiciled ETFs for US exposure,
  • CH-domiciled ETFs for CH exposure,
  • IE UCITS for everything else.

Is my knowledge obsolete?

Edit: Apologies - I stumbled upon this, and will do some homework first :slight_smile:

2 Likes

This is still basically the status-quo from a practical perspective (and just market tracking).

If you will always get 100% of your DA-1, ex-US US domiciled is slightly ahead of IE on average. Plus the funds have lower TER. And you don‘t need multiple funds for developed and emerging markets.

But it‘s very dependent on if you can ensure the full DA-1 credit.
Also you are giving the US 15% tax for free, and costing Switzerland tax revenue at the same time.
That‘s the moral downside.
And ucits is a hedge against US regulatory risks, estate tax etc.

3 Likes

Thank you!

Until now, I have always received full DA-1 credit, and didn’t know it could be at risk.
The portfolio is:
USXF for US exposure
DMXF for developed markets (ex-US) exposure
EMXF for emerging markets exposure.