Is a currency “hedged” ETF actually a more speculative instrument than an unhedged version?
Currency hedge means that you are somewhat protected from movements in currency as your investment is in gold not currency. So this then becomes less speculative and concentrates more on your intended investment.  EDIT The purpose of the GBSE ETF is aimed for investors living in Europe wanting to invest in USD Gold and not be effected by movements in the EUR/USD. The GBSE ETF aims to hedge against the effects of the currency movements in the EUR/USD and more closely track the USD Gold price. The 3 charts below demonstrate this over the past 5 years.    So as is demonstrated the performance of the GBSE ETF closely matches the performance of the USD Gold price rather than the EUR Gold price, meaning someone in Europe can invest in the fund and get the appropriate similar performance as investing directly into the USD Gold without being affected by currency exchange when changing back to EUR. This is by no way speculative as the OP suggests but is in fact serving the purpose as per the ETF details. "The risk of any investment is measured by its incremental effect on the volatility of your overall personal wealth, including your other investments.  The usual example is that adding a volatile stock to your portfolio may actually reduce the risk of your portfolio if it is negatively correlated with the other stuff in your portfolio. Common measures of risk, such as beta, assume that you have whole-market diversified portfolio. In the case of an investment that may or may not be hedged against currency movements, we can't say whether the hedge adds or removes risk for you without knowing what else is in your portfolio.  If you are an EU citizen with nominally delimited savings or otherwise stand to lose buying power if the Euro depreciates relative to the dollar, than the ""hedged"" ETF is less risky than the ""unhedged"" version.  On the other hand, if your background risk is such that you benefit from that depreciation, then the reverse is true. ""Hedging"" means reducing the risk already present in your portfolio.  In this case it does not refer to reducing the individual volatility of the ETF.  It may or may not do that but individual asset volatility and risk are two very different things." "Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD.  Hedging it doesn't mean ""less speculative"". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible)." I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close.
Equal weighted indexes are not theoretically meant to be less volatile or less risky; they're just a different way to weigh stocks in an index. If you had a problem that hurt small caps more than large caps, an equal weighted index will be hurt more than a market-cap weighted one.  On the other hand, if you consider that second rung companies have come up to replace the top layer, it makes sense to weigh them on par.  History changes on a per-country basis - in India, for instance, the market's so small at the lower-cap end that big money chases only the large caps, which go up more in a liquidity driven move. But in a more secular period (like the last 18 months) we see that smaller caps have outperformed. I use the following allocation in my retirement portfolio: I prefer these because: Expense Ratios Oh, and by their very definition, ETFs are very liquid. EDIT: The remaining 10% is the speculative portion of my portfolio. Currently, I own shares in HAP (as a hedge against rising commodity prices) and TIP (as a hedge against hyperinflation). The opposite of a hedge is nothing.  Because if you don't want to hedge you bets, you don't, therefore you merely have the original bet. The opposite state of being hedged, is being unhedged. If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands).  Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market.  3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news.  I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are]. "The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred ""safe haven"" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a ""hedge""; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a ""hot"" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the ""jitters"" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail.  If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger.  Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's ""survivor bias""; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year." How is it possible that long term treasury bonds, which the government has never defaulted on, can hold more risk as an ETF then the stock market index? The risk from long-term bonds isn't that the government defaults, but that interest rates go up before you get paid, so investors want bonds issued more recently at higher interest rates, rather than your older bonds that pay at a lower rate (so the price for your bonds goes down). This is usually caused by higher inflation rates which reduce the value of the interest that you will be paid. Do you assume more risk investing in bond ETFs than you would investing in individual bonds? If you are choosing the right ETFs, there should be a lower amount of risk because the ETFs are taking care of the difficult work of buying a variety of bonds.  Are bond ETFs an appropriate investment vehicle for risk diversification? Yes, if you are investing in bonds, exchange traded funds are an appropriate way to buy them. The markets for ETFs are usually very liquid. "Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations.  Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case).  Since the ECB has been hesitant to ""print"" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy.  However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals.  You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by ""printing"" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country.  Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio?  Absolutely.  Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio?  Not right now.  However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to ""print"" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the ""real value"" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into?  Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates).  Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects" "Large multinationals who do business in multiple locales hedge even ""stable"" currencies like the Euro, Yen and Pound - because a 5-10% adverse move in an exchange rate is highly consequential to the bottom line.  I doubt any of them are going to be doing significant amounts of business accepting a currency with a 400% annual range.  And why should they?  It's nothing more than another unit of payment - one with its own problems." You can, and people do. More a Japanese thing than a US thing but I guess they've had super low interest rates for longer. Its called 'the carry trade' and is the reason the NZD is artificially high (which as an NZ exporter I find kinda annoying). Particularly popular with the so called 'japanese housewife' investor.  It also causes the NZD to plunge every time the US stock market dips - because the NZD is held mostly as a moderately risky investment, not for trade purposes. Presumably in a down market hedge funds need to cash in their carry trades to cover margins or something?   As another person said the primary risk is currency fluctuations. Unfortunately such currencies are highly volatile and tied to stock market volatility.  tl;dr It'd be nice if you all quit treating my national currency as an investment opportunity - then i could get on with my business as an New Zealand exporter ;-) Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together. My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described. e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today.  A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging.  Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated). "I was in a similar situation, and used FX trading to hedge against currency fluctuations. I bought the ""new"" currency when the PPP implied valuation of my ""old"" currency was high, and was able to protect quite a bit of purchasing power that I would have lost without the hedge. Unfortunately you get taxed for the ""gain"" you made, but still helpful.   In terms of housing market, you could look into a Ireland REIT index, but it may not correlate well with the actual house prices you are looking for." I've wondered why anyone thinks it will be more than a speculation instrument. I'd love to hear arguments for it but they always fall short as soon as I think about countries inflating/deflating the value of their own currency. "While I'm sure there's some truth to the argument that unsophisticated retail investors index against the S&amp;P 500 thinking that they're tracking ""the market,"" I don't think it makes sense to steer the S&amp;P 500 in that direction to cater to that lowest common denominator. The *ad absurdum* conclusion of that course of action, of course, would be to abolish the S&amp;P 500 entirely and move those assets into the S&amp;P Total Market Index. But clearly there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps with single share classes, just as there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps in general.  As for whether it will be a loss for passive investors...it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Maybe good corporate governance and direct accountability by managers really do contribute positively to returns in the long run and investors will benefit from this change as a result. Or maybe this will result in companies with multiple share classes being undervalued and create an opportunity to earn outsized returns by investing in them, and indexes that omit those companies will underperform. Only time will tell."