Purchased in April 2023.
In April of this year, new shares will be purchased again with the employee program.

Messaggi
143Hi dear community!
ith 2026 just starting and a great 2025 investment wise, this year I want to change my investment strategy slightly compared to last year.
1. Goal & Strategy
The primary goal for 2026 is to structurally outperform the World Index (FTSE All-World / VWCE) over a multi-year horizon. This is pursued by deliberately accepting a higher risk profile than the market, provided that this risk is taken in areas with a structurally higher expected return.
The chosen approach is a core–satellite strategy:
- The core ensures global market participation and stability.
- The satellites aim to generate alpha through thematic ETFs and a limited number of carefully selected individual stocks.
The focus is on long-term structural growth trends (AI, semiconductors, cybersecurity), rather than cyclical or opportunistic themes.
2. Portfolio Allocation
Core (±50%)
$VWCE (+0,69%) – ±30%
- Global diversification and the foundation of the portfolio.
$VUSA (+0,64%) – ±20%
- Additional exposure to the US as the primary engine of earnings
growth and innovation.
Thematic ETFs (±35%)
$SMH (+2,91%) - Semiconductors ETF – ±17,5%
- Structural growth driven by AI, cloud computing, automation, and industrial applications.
$LOCK (+0,02%) - Cybersecurity ETF – ±12,5%
- A defensive growth sector with high margins and recurring revenues.
Individual Stocks (±20%)
$CRWD (+1,42%) - CrowdStrike – ±5%
- Core holding within the cybersecurity segment.
$AMD (-0,51%) - AMD – ±5%
- Exposure to AI and data centres, with a deliberately limited weight due to overlap.
$RKLB (+2,46%) - Rocket Lab – ±5%
- An asymmetric growth play with a long investment horizon.
$ASRNL (-1,59%) - ASR Nederland – ±4%
- A defensive stabiliser within the equity allocation.
$IREN (+1,3%) - IREN – ±1%
A speculative satellite position focused on optional upside.
$AIR (-0,27%) and $ASWC (+1,36%) will be fully sold.
3. Investment Plan
- Monthly contribution: €500
- Execution: transactions every two months (€1,000 per cycle)
Approach:
- Core positions remain largely unchanged
- New capital is primarily allocated to thematic ETFs and selected stocks
Reallocations (AMD, NATO, Airbus) are executed gradually.
Cost control: limited number of trades per cycle with a fixed structure
The plan prioritises consistent capital deployment, not market timing.
4. Risk Assessment
- Market risk: heavy exposure to growth and US equities leads to higher volatility.
- Sector concentration risk: semiconductors and cybersecurity carry significant weight
- Stock-specific risk: individual holdings may temporarily underperform materially
- Speculative risk: IREN and Rocket Lab can experience severe drawdowns
- Behavioural risk: temptation to react to volatility, mitigated through predefined rules
Drawdowns of −30% to −45% during market stress are explicitly accepted.
5. Expectations
Expected average annual return: approximately 12–15%, based on historical data and allocation
- Outperformance objective: beat the World Index over multiple years, not necessarily every calendar year
- Volatility: higher than VWCE, but with superior long-term return potential
Performance is evaluated over a full market cycle rather than short-term intervals.
6. Mental Rules
- No new positions without a clear structural investment thesis
- No impulsive trades outside the scheduled execution moments
- ETFs provide structure; individual stocks provide conviction
- Positions with significant overlap are intentionally capped
- Speculative holdings remain small and controlled
- Time in the market matters more than timing the market
$AIR (-0,27%) Airbus has been building aircraft directly in China for a long time. In 2008, they began building aircraft locally for Chinese airlines. The strategy is working. A leasing company and two airlines place orders for more than 80 aircraft.
On December 30, China Aircraft Leasing Group - or Calc for short - placed an order for 30 Airbus A320 Neo aircraft.
A little earlier, Juneyao Airlines announced its intention to purchase 25 Airbus A320 Neo aircraft. The Chinese airline intends to sign the purchase agreement following government approval.
Spring Airlines also signed a purchase agreement with Airbus for 30 jets from the A320 Neo family at the end of December.
Source: focus.de
What happens if you invest too little for years? There is a need to catch up.
And that is exactly what happened to many countries within NATO. When Russia's war of aggression made it clear that even the theoretical investment target for armaments of 2% was far too low, the countries were completely overwhelmed.
As a result, all companies only remotely involved in armaments went up: $RHM (+1,07%)
$ONDS (-1,57%)
$MILDEF (+1,83%)
$AIR (-0,27%)
$BA. (+1,14%)
$HAG (+4,99%)
But even before the Russian war, there was already a problem with security spending within the EU: "capital formation" spending, which primarily includes long-lived military expenditure, was around 20% within Europe for a long time. In the USA, which is regarded as a model pupil for security spending, this figure is 40%.
And this is where Mildef comes into play. A Scandinavian company that, in my eyes, still flies somewhat under the radar. Mildef produces IT hardware for the military and defense (which is part of the 20%). As the company itself describes its business model very well, here is the graphic from the investor presentation:
What is not shown is the fluctuation in demand, which is caused by being relatively at the beginning of the value chain:
This bullwhip effect can also be seen in many other sectors, especially in industry, where many value creation steps build on each other. We are currently at a peak in demand from the consumer side. This has already been priced into the stock market for many companies, but not yet to the same extent for Mildef. In addition, spending is set to rise from 1% of GDP to 5% in many countries. Of course, these tasks will also flow into the countries' infrastructure, but I think it will quickly become clear that there is a need to catch up AND that there is long-term sustainable demand.
Mildef: Small but mighty
Mildef occupies a small niche within the defense industry with its products. It is not worthwhile for many large corporations to enter niches, as the investments are greater than the revenue opportunities. In addition, Mildef has little competition from smaller companies. Why?
The industry is strictly controlled. Although anyone can take part in a military tender, there are special regulations that are difficult to fulfill without special expertise. There is no cheap competition from Asia, as suppliers from Europe are preferred for security products. This is the reason for EBIT margins of more than 10%.
Regional distribution of sales
Sales are generated primarily in the Nordic countries. However, a new acquisition will soon change this. More on this in a moment.
Growth targets
The management has ambitious growth targets. In recent years, these have been achieved or significantly exceeded. Average sales growth over the last three years has been over 40% per year. I also expect sales growth of more than 40 % YoY for the current financial year. This is due to the Roda acquisition. More on this in a moment.
The EBIT margin of over 15% has not yet been achieved. Mildef likes to calculate with highly adjusted figures. However, the deviations from reality are so great that I would rather regard the 15% as a long-term target. EBIT is not particularly stable overall, but this is justifiable in view of the growth ambitions. However, this makes it more difficult for the valuation.
Roda takeover
Roda will bring further significant growth in FY 2025. The business model is similar to that of Mildef. Since a large part of the sales for 2025 is already known, I have tried to estimate the total growth and arrive at around 57% growth with the current 9M figures, Q4 from 2025 and a quarter of Roda's annual sales. The calculation is highly simplified. Sales could grow much faster in the last quarter.
Financial impact of the Roda takeover
Although debt has doubled, at around 1× EBITDA it is completely 1× EBITDA, however, it is completely within reasonable limits. This is due to the fact that the takeover was partly financed with new shares. Shareholders were diluted by 18%. As an investor, you don't like to see that at first, but the takeover was strategically very important: Mildef was previously mainly active in Scandinavia. The Roda takeover gives the company better access to the rest of Europe.
Valuation
Valuing Mildef is not easy. This is not because future sales are difficult to estimate. Backlog and conservative assumptions make it easy to do.
The problem, however, is choosing a sensible multiple. Typically, you are looking for
Due to the Roda acquisition and the generally strong growth the EBIT margin fluctuates strongly. I do not wish to use the adjusted management figures as they are adjusted accordingly.
There are also hardly any comparable companies. Mildef is active in a niche market. Although there are similar companies, they either lack growth or have lower margins. Both factors directly influence the multiple paid on the stock exchange.
In the end, I opted for a P/E valuation. However, this method has weaknesses, mainly because turnover is a very simple key figure.
In my model, I arrived at an expected return of 18.7 %. What is important here is that the growth assumptions for the future are significantly lower than those of the management.
I used EBIT as a second valuation approach. This resulted in a return of only 4.4 % per year. However, as already mentioned, EBIT is not stable and therefore probably not a suitable estimation parameter.
So which valuation makes sense?
I do not know. However, it is clear that the return will be very low or very high depending on the assumptions. Hence my question to the community: Which valuation method makes sense here? Perhaps you know an approach that fits better?
Thank you very much for reading. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a relaxing break from the stock market🎄
As always, I look forward to your feedback. Criticism is also welcome, after all, we all want to improve :)
p.s: I always find the overview of long posts here not so good, so I try to keep the introductions short. There is of course a lot more to say about Mildef. How do you see it? Do you prefer detailed posts or do you like it a bit clearer?
+ 5
NHIndustries was established as a specialized company for the planning, manufacture, implementation, production and logistics support of the NH90 helicopters.
Airbus Helicopters: 62.5 %
of which Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: 31.25 %
Leonardo Helicopters: 32 %
Fokker: 5.5 %.
Netherlands Aircraft Company
This morning, the Sea Tiger helicopter will be handed over to the German Navy by Federal Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius (SPD) in Berlin. It will be stationed at the naval aviation base in Nordholz.
The NH-90 MRFH Sea Tiger on-board helicopter is the Navy's most modern helicopter. It is specially designed for use on frigates and is intended to help combat submarines, among other things. To this end, it has a diving sonar and a sonar buoy system to locate submarines. It is also designed to monitor the sea space above water with the help of electro-optical sensors and a camera system. The Sea Tiger is armed with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.
NH-90 Sea Tiger: A "milestone for submarine hunting"
A total of 30 helicopters of this type are to be stationed at Naval Air Wing 5 in Nordholz, Lower Saxony. The first one will be handed over to the Navy in Berlin on Tuesday morning. In the afternoon, it is then expected to arrive at its stationing location with the naval aviators in Nordholz. For the Inspector of the Navy, Vice Admiral Jan Christian Kaack, the Sea Tiger represents a technological milestone for submarine hunting and naval warfare from the air.
Two future-facing defense plays, great businesses, awkward timing
Defense is one of the few sectors where the future is arriving faster than expected, and it’s arriving on wings. For once, it’s not just about AI. Driven by an array of international conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza, countries are ramping up defense budgets and increasingly counting on unmanned warfare. Drones, autonomy, loitering munitions, uncrewed systems — that’s where modern warfare is heading, whether we like it or not.
In the grand scheme of things, these innovations probably mean fewer direct combat deaths, but also higher unpredictability and scale. In theory, we could have millions of drones fighting each other in the sky, which sounds better on the surface than pure dogfights; however, they can also be scaled far more aggressively than normal fighter jets and therefore potentially do more damage. Which might be bad for the world, but could certainly benefit those two: AeroVironment and Kratos sit right at the center of that shift, and both stocks reflect it after massive rallies this year.
I actually owned both at the start of the year. Unfortunately, when I opened my new portfolio, I had to sell them, locking in something like a ~30% gain. Usually I’d say “not bad,” but I had both down as high-conviction holdings and the timing really hurts in hindsight. I genuinely like both companies and still follow them closely. Admittedly, at the beginning, I was worried that an end to the Ukraine conflict could crush demand, especially for AeroVironment’s products. But I quickly identified that concern as premature. The conflict isn’t ending anytime soon, and even if it did, the genie is out of the bottle. Drone warfare is here to stay.
AeroVironment is the more mature and tangible story. The stock is up roughly 50% this year, though still down about 40% from its October peak near $410. Fundamentals are strong: revenue is expected to more than double this year, followed by ~20% growth after that. Profitability should follow, free cash flow is exploding at high double-digit rates, and there’s no debt. EV/revenue around 5–6 is roughly in line with historical averages, but the business itself is in a completely different phase now. That said, a lot still hinges on sustained geopolitical tension, and profitability remains a question mark. I’m tempted, but not convinced enough to re-enter yet.
Kratos is the more speculative bet. Growth is solid but less explosive: mid-teens top-line growth, high double-digit net income growth projected, and no debt. But this is still very much a “future defense” company rather than a global prime. Execution risk is real, and interference from the big players like Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, and Airbus is unavoidable at some point. This could happen in the form of a takeover, but also just with the launch of rival products (the most painful scenario for Kratos). The stock is up nearly 200% this year and trades at an EV/revenue of ~10 versus a historical average closer to 3. I was convinced the stock would have a run when I bought it initially, but never expected it to be that explosive so quickly.
I’m honestly annoyed not to own any defense exposure right now. But discipline matters (something I’ve found out the hard way multiple times). Both AeroVironment and Kratos are fascinating, strategically important companies — just not at prices where I feel comfortable pulling the trigger. For now, they stay on the watchlist.
$AVAV (+6,22%)
$KTOS (+9,15%)
$LMT (+4,85%)
$NOC (+4,74%)
$BA (+3,28%)
$AIR (-0,27%)
Is this a generational aviation plot twist nobody saw coming?
Airbus spent the last five years looking like the responsible one among the aircraft manufacturers while Boeing lit itself on fire every other quarter. Go back a year in time and everyone would talk about Airbus as the safe one, the competent one, the “we actually know where our bolts are” one. No mysterious crashes, no doors disintegrating mid-flight, no ridiculous debt load. But 2025 gave us a bit of a plot twist: Airbus is the one stumbling (obviously a slight exaggeration, considering the stock is still up YTD), and Boeing is finally starting to look functional again.
The WSJ reported that Airbus is facing fresh production delays, new supply-chain headaches, and slipping delivery targets. This sounds bad and is exactly what Boeing had to cope with over the last painful years. After an era of flawless execution, suddenly the company can’t deliver planes at the pace airlines desperately need. And airlines are truly desperate right now, which is why the backlogs for Airbus and Boeing are filled for years to come. Demand is exploding and routes are expanding. Is that really the time you should let the market down, Airbus?
Meanwhile Boeing, the company we collectively bullied for half a decade, is now the one cleaning up its act. They won a $100 billion defense contract for the F-47 project over Lockheed Martin and secured the future of this segment for Boeing, while the commercial side is recovering as well. The 737 MAX scandal is fading away, quality-control processes are stabilizing, and delivery numbers are finally heading in the right direction. For once, it’s Airbus giving excuses while Boeing quietly gets things done. A few years ago I would have bet on them going bankrupt rather than beating Airbus.
So do we have a new problem child? Maybe not a full-blown meltdown, but Airbus is undeniably wobbling. Add to that a P/E around 30, which might be fair for now given the demand backdrop, but still too expensive for my taste. Especially considering that sentiment can turn brutally fast in this industry. The moat is undeniably there, and nothing will change about the sort-of duopoly the giant is operating in, but cracks in the story can lead to a re-rating. I loved owning Airbus until earlier this year and made a nice return, but I refuse to pay luxury prices for a company beginning to struggle with years of no serious competition which left its marks.
Airbus will recover like great companies always do. But right now, the premium over Boeing, or one of my other aviation favorites Embraer, seems questionable.
After years of turbulence, the global aviation industry is clearly picking up speed again. Passenger numbers are now almost at pre-crisis levels, but there is still a "pandemic gap" of around 30%, which is likely to be closed in the coming years. Forecasts predict annual passenger growth of 4-5% worldwide, and even up to 6% in Asia by 2044.
This will benefit manufacturers in particular, but also suppliers: $AIR (-0,27%) , $SAF (-0,52%) or $MTX (-1,81%) MTU Aero Engines have full order books and stable margins.
For example, Airbus and $BA (+3,28%) are considered structural winners in the industry due to their duopoly structures and the long-term visibility of their orders.
Airlines and airports, on the other hand, are much more volatile and are more dependent on the economy, energy prices and geopolitical developments.
👉 The complete analysis with detailed figures, market forecasts and company examples can be found in the verlinkten Artikel
Airbus
Air France-KLM
Boeing
Bombardier
Dassault Aviation
Embraer
Fraport
GE Aerospace
Honeywell
Lufthansa
MTU Aero Engines
Pratt & Whitney
RollsRoyce
Saffron
$AIR (-0,27%)
$BA (+3,28%)
$LHA (-2,25%)
$FRA (-1,53%)
$GE
$HON (+1,31%)
$MTX (-1,81%)
$RR. (+1,88%)
$EMBR3
I migliori creatori della settimana