let’s have a little poll 
any changes to your holdings due to the reasons discussed in this thread?
I try to understand synthetic etf. Could you explain me why you are not worried about counterparty and collateral risks? In my understanding they are not negligible, so not worth the risk vs the physical ones.
You probably just grabbed the absolute cheapest ETFs that exist in both US-domiciled and IE-domiciled versions — which, surprise, are mostly S&P 500 trackers anyway. Personally I think that’s a pretty unrealistic comparison though. The thread title is literally about VT, and most long-term/FIRE investors are running world ETFs, not US-only stuff. Would make way more sense to actually compare world ETFs against each other.
Also, I’ve had the impression for a while now that you’re pretty anti-US products and anti-IBKR in general — that’s your right. But I still don’t think it has to be this black-and-white. It can absolutely make sense to avoid US ETFs at IBKR and just hold them at a Swiss broker instead. One of the links that got posted even had an IBKR support reply saying that US securities get frozen on death until everything’s sorted out, while UCITS ETFs stay freely accessible. Do what you want with that info.
And let’s be real — you can’t seriously tell me that hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are invested in the US market are all somehow paying US taxes.
Compound interest is kind of a big deal, so yeah… the specific products you actually put your money into do matter.
Lets try here:
A few years ago i invested some money into crypto, mainly btc in cold storage and eth in celsius network to get extra yield (because i was greedy). Btc did well, but celsius collapsed and went bankrott (luna, ftx, etc) in the US , so all celsius accounts were frozen and the money blocked…A few Ks. That was painful but not a relevant lost. For sure a very good lesson: greed is terrible! Others lost all their money.
The „good“ part is that it happened in the usa, so the entire legal think was well organized (stratteo), lawyers were involved, youtubers followed the entire drama etc. At one point i needed to decide if i wanted to get a small but secure cash payback and go versus stay involved, no secured amount but a prob higher % back. I chose the second, waited, and slowly money was paid back (still a loss, but cannot tell you how much).
So I was ok, because from the beginning it was clear for me, that was my casino money. Still, I was greedy. It took YEARS (still now some money is blocked and might be paid) to solve it and got a LOT of emails with legal stuff to read. Often i did not understand because it was to complicated (no AI at that time!) and not much was at stake.
But i learned my lesson: control the greed, take the risk were needed / tolerable (asset allocation), avoid the unnecessary risk (foreign lender).
So now:
Bought a house in CH (thank VT and Btc)
Have emergency chf in PF and Zkb
Buy into Pensionskasse
Max 3A in Finpension / Viac VT like
Buy Vwra in chf on Saxo
Buy Ib1t in chf on Saxo
Will buy at some point memecoins (and probably lose).
It’s more interesting than that. My goal, out of intellectual curiosity, was to compare two funds that are as similar as possible while diverging only on US vs UCITS and physical vs synthetic.
Turns out, US funds are distributing by law, while synthetic UCITS tend to be accumulating. And I wanted to compare funds on the same index by the same provider.
The S&P 500 is an extremely well-tracked index, and is by far the most significant component of an all-world portfolio, both in terms of market capitalisation and tax optimisation. It allowed me to isolate the delta between US physical and UCITS synthetic.
I am satisfied with what I learned from this comparison. If you want to do the same comparison on a broader index, please be my guest and good luck finding two appropriate funds.
This is indeed a point I tried to make more than once.
Have you heard of the concept of US withholding tax?
Annual Withholding Tax Return for U.S. Source Income of Foreign Persons.
I need to tell you that indeed, hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are invested in the US market are all somehow paying US taxes 
You are not the only one. Back then, many didn’t think that would become possible.
But hey, you live, you learn. Foreign stock brokers have generally withheld U.S. tax on U.S.-source income since 2001. This obligation was introduced when the IRS implemented the Qualified Intermediary (QI) regime.
I am.
The greatest economic and military power of our time is run by fools, and is bullying other countries and other people into submission.
As a Swiss and European citizen, I am appalled by how the US is treating my country and my people. I will certainly do my best to avoid giving them more leverage over my personal finances - as I did my best to convince my people to refrain from giving the US more leverage over our country’s Air Force.
You are allowed to be foreign and to have different feelings. I am not judging that. But I will keep trying to raise awareness on this matter.
Luckily, the EU is a unified block, immune to populism or self-defeating law proposals and always with the interest of Swiss investors at their heart. Like one happy European family.
There’s nothing wrong with Dutch or German brokers, French ETF providers or synthetic instruments instead of physical ownership, Forum is full of those discussions, and then some. But elevating it to a decision of “country and people” is a bit elevated, I think.
All pathos aside, with all your concerns, why not simply avoid US stocks? If the US wanted to weaponize its stock market for use in negotiations, they might as well start with financial institutions or the dollar.
Sure, it’s the biggest market, but you would be even less US-dependent by simply avoiding it.
(post deleted by author)
I am not sure I read your irony correctly. In case you are trying to draw some equivalence between the state of Europe today versus the USA, you are making a fallacious argument. Europe is not trying to annex Greenland, to bomb Iran, to kidnapp sitting Presidents of the Republic, to slap 39% tariffs on Swiss goods, or to casually assassinate foreign leaders. The rule of law is generally upheld in a predictable fashion.
I would prefer to stay on topic as much as possible, but sometimes need to clarify assumptions about how I think and how I act, before they turn into fallacious arguments.
Feel free to read posts 33 et seq. while enjoying a gorgeous sunny day 
It is not about pathos. It is about risk parity.
Whilst I do think there is a case to simplify legal exposures and have advocated for it (link), I’m not sure the S&P 500 is a good example for this.
First, I think that derivatives are actually more dangerous in changing legal situations (see the mark to zero for derivatives on Russian stocks). There is a case for partially funded, loss capped derivatives (e.g. an options contract, or a LETF). If those go to zero, you will only loose a fraction of the notional instead of a 100%.
Second, physical S&P 500 is a prime candidate for Finpension’s newish reporting strategy, which should give full tax credit for withholding taxes. It seems to be going well, and will now be fought over in court according to them. But the underlying of the Irish ETF must be physical for that to work.
Third, the S&P 500 is US assets in one or another convoluted form. If the US is targeting a group that you are part of, this will hit you through the threat of secondary sanctions or some other fancy construction. Better to keep it simple and just hold US stocks through US ETFs at a US broker. Have as few other jurisdictions involved as possible.
And yet, it’s a foreign entity, or 27 foreign entities, just like the US. I don’t follow the politics closely, but every time I read about some election, more of than not it’s parties from far left or right gaining ground. That’s not to discuss foreign politics, the point is if you’re concerned about negative changes in regulations or international taxation, it does exist in EU, and is possible to increase with the EU growing and the national politics becoming more fragmented.
Not a big risk, in my opinion, but neither is the US.
Your headline is " threat that changed the calculus", the threat being a proposed law to change some existing taxation rules. And you don’t even see a little bit of pathos? Maybe it was a serious proposal, maybe a calculated chip for negotiations, who knows.
Either way, the main point I wanted to add this late in the discussion (which wasn’t on starting topic, anyway) you may consider or not: if you go all the way to look into those risks, maybe don’t just focus on the US and fan for the EU. Similar risk does exist from the EU over some beef with CH. Damn, it could start, (again) literally over beef, or cheese, and then some proud farmer representative proposing to retaliate via targeting private investors.
Or what about a less polemic, more related and real example? Just a few years ago the EU withdrew the stock market equivalence for Switzerland to coerce it to sign the framework agreement.
Quite controversial, but no game changer for private investors, either.
That’s on estate tax, though?