The ETFs I Actually Hold And Why

If you searched for ETFs I hold, this is the real version: what is currently in my portfolio, how I split it, why I chose those funds and what I still need to clean up after moving more of my investments from Chip to Trading 212.

This is not a model portfolio. It is not a list of ETFs you should copy. It is simply my own setup, written out in plain English so a beginner can see how one real portfolio has developed from a messy first attempt into something more structured.

Important bit first: this is not financial advice. It is what I am learning and doing. When investing, capital is at risk, your investments can fall as well as rise and you may get back less than you put in. Whenever I mention performance, remember that past performance does not guarantee future results.

If you are completely new to ETFs, I would start with my ETF basics section here: /topics/etfs/. If you want the bigger beginner path, go to /start-here/.

Quick answer: the ETFs I hold

The cleanest way to explain my current portfolio is in three buckets:

1. My broad ETF split pie
   A Trading 212 Pie built around wider market exposure:

   • Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq 100
   • Vanguard S&P 500
   • iShares Core MSCI World

2. My higher-risk Tech pie
   A separate Trading 212 Pie focused on technology, semiconductors and space:

   • iShares MSCI Global Semiconductors
   • iShares S&P 500 Information Technology Sector
   • VanEck Semiconductor
   • VanEck Space Innovators

3. Direct holdings outside those pies
   These sit separately in my Trading 212 Stocks and Shares ISA:

   • iShares S&P 500 Information Technology Sector
   • Invesco FTSE All-World (Acc), shown in my platform as FWRG
   • Porsche, shown in my platform as P911, which is a tiny individual share holding rather than an ETF

The key thing is that my portfolio is not just “global index fund and done”. It has a broad part and a higher-risk thematic part. I am comfortable saying that now because it is the truth, but I would not want a beginner to look at it and think every part carries the same level of risk.

My current portfolio structure at a glance

Here is the simple version of how I think about the portfolio.

I use Trading 212 as my main platform now, specifically through a Stocks and Shares ISA. I still have some Chip history and transfer-related loose ends, which I will come back to later.

I like Trading 212 Pies because they make the structure visible. Instead of mentally juggling every holding, I can see “ETF split” and “Tech” as two separate ideas. That matters because those two ideas are not the same.

You can see more of my Trading 212 notes here: /topics/trading-212/.

My ETF split pie

My first main pie is called ETF split.

The target weights are:

I have checked those names against issuer pages because a platform display name is not always the full share-class name. I still treat this table as my plain-English portfolio note rather than a replacement for the official fund documents.

This is the part of the portfolio I think of as my broader ETF allocation, although it is worth being honest: it is still heavily weighted towards the US and technology because the Nasdaq 100 has a 50% target weight.

That was not produced by some complicated institutional allocation model. It was more practical than that. I wanted a mix of:

• broad market exposure
• funds I could understand
• exposure to areas that had historically performed well
• a structure I could automate and leave alone

That last point matters to me. One of my biggest lessons has been that the “perfect” allocation is less useful if I keep fiddling with it. I would rather have a simple structure I understand than keep chopping and changing every time I watch a new video.

Why I hold the Nasdaq 100 in the broad pie

The Nasdaq 100 is not a whole-market fund. It is more concentrated than something like an all-world ETF and it has a big technology tilt.

So why is it in my ETF split pie?

Honestly, because I have been interested in technology as an investment theme from the start. My first conventional ETF position was technology-focused and that has carried through into the way I built the portfolio.

That does not make it “right”. It just makes it honest.

I do not think of the Nasdaq 100 as the same kind of exposure as a global all-world ETF. It can have strong periods, but it can also fall sharply. The more I learn, the more I recognise that this is a deliberate tilt rather than pure broad-market investing.

Why I hold the S&P 500

The S&P 500 is one of the funds I wanted in the portfolio because it gives exposure to large US companies in a single ETF.

For me, the appeal was simplicity. I do not want to sit there picking individual US companies and pretending I know which one will win over the next 20 years. A fund like this gives me broad exposure to that market without having to choose every company myself.

That said, I try not to talk about the S&P 500 as if it is magically safe. It is still an equity investment. It can fall, sometimes by a lot. It is also US-focused, so it is not the same as owning the whole world.

Why I hold MSCI World exposure

The iShares Core MSCI World part of the pie is there because I wanted something broader than just the US-focused ETFs.

This was part of the shift in my thinking. I started narrow and tech-heavy. Over time, I have become more interested in having wider exposure through funds like MSCI World, S&P 500 and all-world style funds.

Again, “broader” does not mean “safe”. It just means I am not tying the entire outcome to one company, one niche theme or one very narrow idea.

For more beginner-friendly ETF explanations, I keep related articles under /topics/foundations/.

My Tech pie

My second main pie is called Tech.

This is the higher-risk part of my portfolio and I want to be very clear about that. It is not the beginner “keep it as simple as possible” version. It is a concentrated thematic allocation based on areas I am personally interested in.

The target weights are equal:

This pie exists because I had a personal hunch that technology, semiconductors and space-related companies could do well over time. It was not based on massive research. It was more that I was interested in those industries and chose to invest in them.

That is not how I would want to teach a complete beginner to build a whole portfolio.

The Tech pie has done well for me at points, but that needs a huge caveat: past performance does not guarantee future results and capital is at risk. A concentrated theme can look brilliant when it is going up and painful when it turns the other way.

Why I have two semiconductor ETFs

This is one of the areas I want to review more carefully.

I hold both:

• iShares MSCI Global Semiconductors
• VanEck Semiconductor

At a simple level, both are giving me semiconductor exposure. That means there may be overlap. I am comfortable saying I hold both, but I would not want to pretend I have fully audited the differences between them yet.

This is exactly the kind of thing that can happen when you build a portfolio gradually. You start with an idea, add another fund that seems to match the idea and only later step back and ask:

• am I doubling up?
• do these funds own many of the same companies?
• are the charges different?
• are they listed in the currency I think they are?
• is this exposure still the size I want it to be?

Those are the questions I still need to work through properly. This is why I do not want this article to sound like a polished portfolio recommendation. It is a real portfolio, which means it has history and a few rough edges.

My direct ETF holdings outside the pies

Not everything sits inside a pie.

I also have separate direct holdings in my Trading 212 Stocks and Shares ISA.

The direct iShares S&P 500 Information Technology Sector holding is important because it links back to where I started. My first conventional ETF position was in an S&P 500 information technology sector ETF through Chip.

The FWRG holding is almost the opposite idea. It is broad, simple and closer to the kind of thing I expect to focus on more over time.

The Porsche holding is not part of my ETF strategy. It is tiny and I would not want anyone to read too much into it.

Why I prefer accumulating ETFs

Where possible, I prefer accumulating ETFs.

In plain English, an accumulating ETF keeps income inside the fund rather than paying it out to me as cash. A distributing ETF pays income out.

For the way I invest, accumulating funds make more sense because I am trying to build the portfolio over the long term. I do not want small cash payments sitting around waiting for me to reinvest them. I prefer the reinvestment to happen inside the fund structure where that is available and suitable for the holding.

That does not mean accumulating is automatically better for everyone. Some people want income paid out. Some people have different tax positions. Some people may choose distributing funds for reasons that make sense to them.

For me, accumulating fits the “keep it simple and let it run” approach.

What changed since my first Chip position

My first conventional ETF investment was much narrower than my current setup.

In June 2023, I funded my first Chip position with two deposits: one on 5 June and one on 6 June. I am treating those as funding dates for now, not confirmed trade execution dates. My October 2023 Chip statement then shows one investment holding: an iShares S&P 500 information technology sector ETF.

That first position tells you a lot about how I started: concentrated, technology-focused and probably more risk-heavy than I fully appreciated at the time.

Since then, the main changes have been:

• I moved from Chip towards Trading 212 as my main investing platform
• I started using a Stocks and Shares ISA for new investments
• I built an automated routine using Pies and AutoInvest
• I added broader ETF exposure through S&P 500, MSCI World and all-world style funds
• I separated my broad allocation from my higher-risk Tech pie
• I became more deliberate about accumulating ETFs
• I started thinking more carefully about overlap, fees and foreign exchange costs

I still like technology as a theme. I am not pretending I suddenly became allergic to it. But I understand much more clearly now that a tech-heavy portfolio is not the same as a properly diversified global portfolio.

Why I moved towards Trading 212

The short version is that I wanted everything in one place and Trading 212 felt simpler for the way I now invest.

The features I actually use are:

• Stocks and Shares ISA
• Pies
• AutoInvest
• recurring investing into the same structure

I am not trying to turn investing into a daily decision. The whole point is to make it happen automatically so I am not looking at a chart and asking, “Is today the right day?”

My current routine is built around weekly AutoInvest into the two pies. The exact amount I invest is personal to me and not a target for anyone else. The useful lesson is the habit, not the number.

That is probably the biggest practical change I have made: I moved from “I should invest at some point” to “the system does it for me”.

What changed after moving more Chip holdings

There is one awkward but important bit: my portfolio is still in transition.

I had legacy holdings in Chip and have been gradually moving more into my Trading 212 Stocks and Shares ISA. In June 2026, I moved more of the Chip General Investment Account exposure across, aiming for roughly like-for-like semiconductor and space exposure inside Trading 212.

I am deliberately not treating that as a final clean transaction history yet because the exact sale proceeds, buy prices, units, dates, fees and final holdings need to be checked against statements and trade confirmations.

That means this article is best read as a portfolio snapshot and explanation of the structure, not a perfect audit trail.

What still needs refreshing after the transfer

Before I treat this as a fully refreshed portfolio record, I still need to update a few things.

1. The final Chip transfer status

Part of my Chip Stocks and Shares ISA was in the process of being transferred to Trading 212. Until that is fully complete and checked, I do not want to overstate the exact final platform split.

2. The exact current allocation across everything

The Trading 212 pies are clear, but the full cross-platform picture needs a refresh after the transfer settles. Market values move, transfers complete and holdings can change.

Any exact balance or percentage would be time-sensitive.

3. Official fund details

Platform names are useful, but they are not enough for a proper public factsheet-style article.

For each ETF, the official documents are the place to check:

• official fund name
• ticker
• exchange
• listing currency
• accumulating or distributing status
• ongoing charge figure
• UCITS status
• index tracked
• whether there is overlap with other holdings

For this article, I checked the relevant issuer pages for the named funds: Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF Acc, Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Accumulating, iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF, iShares MSCI Global Semiconductors UCITS ETF, iShares S&P 500 Information Technology Sector UCITS ETF, VanEck Semiconductor UCITS ETF, VanEck Space Innovators UCITS ETF and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc. I use those documents as the source of truth rather than this blog post.

4. Screenshots need a privacy check

I am happy showing balances publicly, but no screenshot should ever show account IDs, bank details, addresses, customer references or anything security-sensitive.

So even where the numbers are fine to show, the images still need checking before publication.

5. Whether the Tech pie is still the right size

This is not me saying I am about to change it. It is me being honest that the higher-risk thematic part needs periodic review.

The question is not “has it gone up?” The better questions are:

• does this still match my risk tolerance?
• am I overexposed to the same companies through multiple ETFs?
• would I be comfortable if this part fell sharply?
• is this still aligned with my long-term goal?

Those are personal questions, not universal rules.

Broad ETFs versus thematic ETFs

This portfolio has taught me the difference between broad exposure and thematic exposure better than any definition could.

A broad ETF might track a large market or global index. It can still fall, but the result is spread across many companies and sometimes many countries.

A thematic ETF focuses on a narrower idea: technology, semiconductors, space or another theme. That can be exciting, but it can also mean more concentration and more volatility.

In my portfolio:

• the ETF split pie is the broader part, although still with a clear US and Nasdaq tilt
• the Tech pie is the higher-risk thematic part
• the direct IITU holding adds even more technology exposure
• the FWRG holding is closer to the simple global direction I may lean into more over time

If I was explaining this to beginner-me, I would say: do not just count how many ETFs you own. Look at what they actually hold underneath.

Owning eight ETFs does not automatically mean you are diversified if they all own similar companies.

What I like about my current setup

There are a few things I genuinely like about how the portfolio is now structured.

It is easier to understand than my first attempt

I can explain the broad pie, the Tech pie and the direct holdings. That is a good sign.

If I cannot explain why something is there, it probably needs reviewing.

It is automated

Automation has been the biggest difference for me. It takes away the emotion of deciding whether today is the perfect day.

There is no perfect day that I can reliably identify. So I would rather invest on a schedule and accept that some weeks will be better than others.

It separates broad and higher-risk ideas

I like that the Tech pie is separate. It stops me pretending that all ETFs are doing the same job.

Broad funds and thematic funds are not interchangeable.

It reflects my actual learning curve

This is not a portfolio built in a textbook. It reflects how I actually learned:

• started too narrow
• saw technology do well
• learned more about ISAs
• moved towards automation
• added broader exposure
• realised I need to review overlap and concentration

That is probably more useful for a beginner than pretending I got everything right from day one.

What I would be careful about

The obvious risk in my portfolio is concentration.

There is a lot of technology exposure when you add together:

• Nasdaq 100
• S&P 500 Information Technology
• semiconductor ETFs
• space innovators
• technology-heavy companies inside broader funds

That does not mean I need to panic. It does mean I need to understand what I own.

The other thing I would be careful about is reading too much into recent gains. Some of the tech-focused holdings have performed very well for me at points, but that can create false confidence. Markets can make you feel like a genius just before they remind you that you are not one.

So I keep coming back to the same boring line: past performance does not guarantee future results and capital is at risk.

How I think about this portfolio now

My current thinking is simple:

• keep investing automated
• keep learning what each ETF actually owns
• avoid constant chopping and changing
• gradually make the portfolio easier to understand
• be honest that the Tech pie is higher risk
• lean more towards broad exposure over time
• keep using accumulating ETFs where that fits the goal

The portfolio I have now is better than the one I started with, but it is not “finished”. I am not sure a real portfolio ever is. It just becomes more intentional.

For me, the biggest progress is that I now know the difference between:

• buying something because it sounds exciting
• buying something because it has a clear job in the portfolio

That is the direction I want to keep moving in.

Final thought

The ETFs I hold today tell the story of how I started investing: a concentrated tech beginning, a move towards broader funds and a growing preference for automation and simplicity.

I am glad I started, but I can also see the bits I need to review. That is the whole point of writing this publicly. Not to say “copy me”, but to show the real process of learning.

If you are building your own understanding, start with the basics, read the documents, check the risks and think about your own goals. What I hold is not what you should automatically buy.

This is what I am learning and doing, not financial advice. Do your own research and consider your own circumstances.

For the broader risk wording on this site, read the disclaimer here: /disclaimer/.