@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana·

🏰 My cash flow fortress: Why I'm not an "S&P 500 bot"! 🛡️🛢️

While the financial police are still discussing whether 5% gold is too risky and whether it is permissible to own more than one global ETF, I am building my empire of real values. 👊

My portfolio is not a "game of chance", but an asymmetrical bet on reality. Anyone who believes that the world will only consist of tech stocks in the next 30 years has not heard the shot.

Here is my setup (30+ year horizon):

1. Firepower (Defense):
$LMT (+0,65%) & $RHM (+5,21%) . 🔫 Anyone who bets on peace is brave - I'm betting on the defense budgets of the next 20 years. State treaties are the safest dividends in the world.

2. The lungs (infrastructure/energy):
$NEE (+0,08%) , $ENB (-0,38%) & $ENR (+2,28%) . ⚡ Without electricity there is no AI (hello to your tech ETFs!) and without pipelines there is no heating. Real assets that you can touch.

3. The monthly cash engine (income):
$MAIN (+0,7%) , $O (-0,03%) & $JPEQ . 💸 While you hope for a return once a year, my securities account pays me every month my bills every month. Cash flow is freedom, book value is just a number on the screen.

4. The safety belt (tangible assets/gold): Yes, I own "useless rocks". Why? Because gold hasn't fallen to zero for 5,000 years - your currencies have.

5. The spearhead (crypto): My TradFi block secures my existence, crypto secures my leap in wealth. Anyone still shouting "scam" in 2026 has slept through the blockchain revolution. 🚀

To all ETF ultras: Have fun with your 7% returns in 40 years. I take the shortcut via direct cash flow and real systemic relevance. My goal is not to "beat the market", but to become to become independent of the market.

Who is with me? Who is also betting on cash flow instead of hope? 👇

#EierAusStahl
#CashflowIsKing
#DividendenStrategie
#KryptoHedge
#TradFi
#GetQuinCommunity

33

60 Commenti

immagine del profilo

Alpalaka@Alpalaka

2Settimana

Will your companies still exist in the empire of real values in 30+ years?

•

14

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@Alpalaka Interesting point! But let's think this through to its logical conclusion. You ask whether these companies will still exist in 30 years' time? I ask back: will there still be a need for security, energy and food in 30 years' time?
Here's the reality check for you:
1. systemic relevance beats hype: tech companies come and go (remember Nokia or Yahoo?). But my companies are the hardware of civilization.
- Lockheed & Rheinmetall: As long as there are nations, there is defense. If these companies go to zero, we have a global collapse - then your ETF is worthless too.
- NextEra & Enbridge: Do you think we'll stop using electricity? On the contrary: AI and e-mobility are eating up huge amounts of it. These companies own the grid. Whoever owns the grid owns the future.
2. historical survivability: PepsiCo and Allianz have survived world wars, currency reforms and dozens of crashes. They have proven that they can adapt. A company that has increased its dividend every year for 50+ years has crisis management skills that start-ups can only dream of.
3. physical assets vs. bits & bytes: Your S&P 500 is full of software bets. My companies own pipelines, power plants, factories and land. These are real tangible assets. Even in the event of hyperinflation or a complete system reset, the value of the infrastructure remains intact.
My conclusion: I am not betting on the next 'next big thing', but on the basic needs of humanity. People will always eat, drink, be insured and defend themselves.
Good luck with your strategy - I'll stick with the companies that keep the world running! 😉

•

4

•

immagine del profilo

2Settimana

@OlafTheSnowman No con from me per se: but have you ever backtested your strategy and seen how you would have done over the last 50 years?

Personally, I have generated a good return for myself. 16.2% p.a. since 2016.
This beats my benchmark FTSE All World quite clearly. However, my performance is significantly worse than that of the Nasdaq 100, which - with a consistent savings plan - achieves 18.1% p.a.

It is very difficult to beat tech in the long term (!). Simply because there is always completely different potential there than with an insurance provider, food producer or defense equipment supplier.

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@KevinE Strong performance, Kevin! You have to make 16.2% p.a. first. 🤝
But here's the misunderstanding: I don't want to 'beat' anyone. For me, investing is not a race against the Nasdaq, but the building of a fortress.
Why am I not optimizing for pure tech growth?
1. psychology vs. math: a backtest is of no use to me if I lose my nerve in the next 40% drawdown in tech. My defense stocks, food producers and dividend payers are my anchors. They ensure that I always stay invested.
2. cash flow now, not in 30 years: I prefer actionability today (through dividends and DeFi) to a theoretical maximum return in the distant future.
3. overall context: This is only part of my setup. With my cash reserve and other asset classes (crypto/DeFi), I have enough 'turbo' in the system. The equity portfolio doesn't have to save the world, it has to deliver.
In the end, the winner is not the one with the highest Excel number, but the one who reaches their goal without giving up in between. 😉

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

TotallyLost@TotallyLost

2Settimana

You may not be an S&P500 bot, but you still get your posts written by some. 😅
Which AI wrote this post?

•

14

•

immagine del profilo

Alpalaka@Alpalaka

2Settimana

@TotallyLost Just ask your S&P500

••

Musikerie@Musikerie

2Settimana

The biggest risk when investing is yourself

•

7

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@Musikerie In any case, I had to pay dearly for that last year

••

immagine del profilo

S.A.U.@SAUgut777

2Settimana

I don't want to dispute your plan, but with the 24 individual positions and the position sizes of 1-30€ you will neither notice the cash flow nor a possible doubling of the price in the portfolio...

Even your largest dividend ETF position ~€100 will hardly be noticeable 🤷🏻‍♂️

I don't know if you have savings plans on everything, but if not, the trading costs will completely eat up the little that comes out of it...

I'd urgently look for a different approach and concentrate on one thing first, otherwise you'll still be pedaling around in 30 years and you'll hardly have made any progress.

That doesn't mean you should throw your approach overboard, but instead simply take a different approach.

•

6

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@SAUgut777 thank you in any case for this advice i am definitely aware of this. I am not yet 100% where I want to be in my portfolio, what I definitely have is a structure and a system that I can build up now and don't have to redo next week.

The same goes for the capital, which is still being restructured.

I have found my line, which was very chaotic before and I want to stick to it now

••

immagine del profilo

S.A.U.@SAUgut777

2Settimana

@OlafTheSnowman As I said, I don't mean any offense, but it will be a rocky road and you will probably reflect at some point and get annoyed that you're not really getting anywhere.

I don't know how high your savings rate is, but a small suggestion from me would be to start by building up certain positions one by one.

This doesn't mean selling everything you have so far, because then you will usually pay order fees and that would be counterproductive for the return.

But you first set a sum X for each value as the first maximum value of your investment sum for this value and build up the value accordingly. Once you have reached your sum, you move on to the next value etc.... just don't want to build up an infinite number of values at the same time and if opportunities arise in existing values, then you make targeted purchases and gradually increase the maximum investment sum....

...that's how I do it, for example, and I'm actually doing very well with it, you can take a look...

...also focus on healthy cash flow/dividends, sometimes also high-yield dividends to optimize the savings rate, otherwise often value stocks with healthy dividends.

Pure growth stocks have also been rarer for me so far, but are now to be increasingly mixed in, but always according to the same investment principles described above.

As I said, you shouldn't throw your plan overboard straight away, but perhaps just take a more structured approach instead... wish you every success 😉

•

2

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@SAUgut777 In any case, very good tips that I am very happy to take to heart. Personally, I have built a "good" structure for gradually increasing my capital. What I can say, however, is that I don't work with savings rates but savings quotas. As I don't like to commit myself fully in this area.

Thanks anyway and good luck to you too

••

immagine del profilo

S.A.U.@SAUgut777

2Settimana

@OlafTheSnowman What can I say, I have set myself a basic sum, which is increased by exactly this amount depending on the dividends, and if things don't work out, then the monthly contribution is sometimes smaller, but basically I stick to the fixed sum.

Be that as it may, you will go your own way, continue to learn and I am pleased if I have been able to help you.

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

DerMartin@DerMartin

2Settimana

Sophisticated professional.

•

5

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@DerMartin I'm just learning 😅

••

immagine del profilo

Chris@1Chrischi1

2Settimana

the poles are melting. in 20/30 years only the carrot will be left of olaf the snowman

•

3

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@1Chrischi1 Nice try with the pun! ⛄ But while you're making fun of my name, I've built my portfolio to deliver cash even when the carrot is floating in the water. 🥕🌊
Here's the reality for the 'snowman haters':
1. NextEra Energy: You're talking about the meltdown? I'm investing in the solution. NEE is the world leader in wind and solar energy. The more the world needs to decarbonize, the more my portfolio earns. While you moan, I sell the world green electricity. ⚡
2 Allianz & Munich Re: You think the meltdown is killing insurance companies? Wrong. Climate change means higher risk. Higher risk means higher premiums. Allianz has been an expert in pricing catastrophes for 100+ years. More weather chaos = more demand for cover. The 'carrot' is insured, friends! 📝
3 Lockheed Martin: Melting poles mean new trade routes in the Arctic and new geopolitical tensions. Who secures these routes and builds the satellites for weather monitoring? That's right, Lockheed. Security becomes the most valuable commodity in an unstable world. 🛰️
4 PepsiCo: Even if it gets warmer - we will always eat and drink. Pepsi is investing billions in regenerative agriculture to make its supply chains weatherproof.
Conclusion: You can laugh at Olaf the snowman, but my cash flow is made of concrete. While you watch your 'shares of hope' melt away, I sit in my air-conditioned fortress and collect the dividends.
Maybe in the end, all that will really be left is the carrot - but it will be mine and I will sell it to you at a high price! 😉🚀

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

Chris@1Chrischi1

2Settimana

@OlafTheSnowman hehe 😁
don't want to attack you either. have a look at my portfolio 😉

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@1Chrischi1 Neither do I. We are all different and we all think differently. I've tried and tried a lot in my life but I've now arrived at the point where I don't want to impose my strategy or my thinking on anyone - accept my path and move on or be inspired and stay. I like to look at your portfolio.

••

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@1Chrischi1 I find your portfolio very inspiring. Taking your wife's debt as an asset is also a great investment 😅

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

Chris@1Chrischi1

2Settimana

@OlafTheSnowman yes i wanted to display it differently but somehow it doesn't work. that's why it just stays that way now - it doesn't matter because it only appears in aggregated and not in the share portfolio itself 😉

but what I was getting at is that our portfolios have some overlaps 😘

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@1Chrischi1 Yes, I could see that. What exactly are you aiming for? Cash flow or the world?

••

immagine del profilo

Chris@1Chrischi1

2Settimana

@OlafTheSnowman a mix of growth and dividends.
for the last 5 years, my real cash flow has been the 100-hour week.
monday-monday.
self-employed dog trainer, part owner of a club, bartender for events, paid for an apartment and built a few more things (conservatory, solar for water, pv system for electricity.
i'm 37 - by the time i'm 45 i'll be sitting on bali and enjoying life with my wife and dog if things continue to go so fantastically 🤞

•

2

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@1Chrischi1 wow Mega congratulations that you have this opportunity I am unfortunately not yet at this level but that is also the standard I would very much like to reach. Maybe a bit late at 29, but the will is there.

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

2Settimana

Unfortunately, I have to agree with @SAUgut777 that your contribution stands in stark contrast to your portfolio... Target weightings or not, you need volume for these theses.
With positions in the range of up to €100 on so many positions, you need a lot of patience.
Or a lot of capital for re-buttering.

•

3

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@Metis An absolutely valid point if you're just taking a snapshot. But I'm not building a portfolio for this afternoon, I'm building it for the next 30 years.
Here is my logic:
1. the foundation is poured first: You don't build a house by first finishing one room and then pouring the next foundation. I have opted for architecture. Now every available mark is pumped into this framework.
2. scaling beats timing: Yes, 15 positions currently look 'tattered' with this portfolio size. But the problem will solve itself with consistent additions. I need to set the structure now so that I know where the capital needs to go when crypto profits or salary bonuses come in.
3rd learning effect: I'd rather learn the behavior of LMT, O or MAIN now with small sums than only start when I'm moving six-figure sums. This is training under real conditions.
4. fee check: Thanks to modern brokers with zero fee savings plans, the number of positions hardly plays a role in terms of costs. The 'fees eat up returns' argument is a relic from the 90s.
Conclusion: I am growing into this structure. I'd rather have a perfect structure with little capital than a lot of capital in a structure that doesn't match my goals. The snowman gets bigger layer by layer! ⛄📈

••

immagine del profilo

2Settimana

@OlafTheSnowman Yes, well. I mean, you need a lot of time or capital to build up this amount of positions to reasonable volumes.
I don't know whether it wouldn't have been smarter in perspective to buy from large to small positions according to desired size. First the ETFs and then gradually add the individual stocks.

•

2

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@Metis yes that's also a good point but I thought the other way around myself it will take more time to scale from one ETF to several individual stocks and since I work according to the ray dalio principle I find it not so time intensive in my opinion.

••

immagine del profilo

Dividenden-Penner@Dividenden-Penner

2Settimana

You can sell the last sentence in point 4 to Degussa as an advertising slogan. 🧐

•

2

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@Dividenden-Penner I'll throw the profit into gold 🤣

••

immagine del profilo

2Settimana

Does the term recency bias mean anything to you? To me it looks a bit like you have picked the sectors that have performed well recently and are now going to continue to do so for the next 30 years. Wouldn't you then fall into the category of tech disciples because they trade in a similar way?

•

2

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@U1F34E you might think, but let's take Next Era and Enbridge. Will you stop using electricity tomorrow or in 10 years' time? If we look at the energy sector alone, there are companies behind the ongoing infrastructure that are and will remain relevant for years. To get the comparison to tech, Nokia and Yahoo are a good example. We need energy, security, food and insurance today and in 10 years' time.

••

immagine del profilo

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

2Settimana

An unusual approach, but it is an approach. Better than just randomly buying something together. I wish you every success.

However, I do think that you can make more than 7% with ETFs over 40 years. If you make 7% p.a., that would be more realistic and then, with an investment horizon of 40 years, the compound interest effect adds up to quite a lot.

•

2

•

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

@NichtRelevant Thank you very much and good luck too. I don't want to put right or wrong here because there is no such thing and I don't find the approach that unusual. Perhaps it is unusual in terms of private investors. But institutional investing with similar principles I wouldn't say the same because that's a lie I say similar.

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

Marty0292@Marty0292

2Settimana

You had 187 euros in your portfolio a year ago and now you have 360 euros. It's better to focus on earning money, because that's where the much greater leverage lies than in your investment selection.

•

2

•

Mostra la risposta

immagine del profilo

ZeissJessy@ZeissJessy

2Settimana

Good luck as success is only based on substance.

•

1

•

Mostra la risposta

immagine del profilo

Stag1440@Stag1440

2Settimana

I don't disagree, but didn't you some months ago say, all in ETFs?

•

1

•

Mostra la risposta

immagine del profilo

2Settimana

Isn't that rather the epitome of current trends or hype values? With all due respect, passive global ETFs are ideal precisely because they simply reflect the current zeitgeist and are always up to date. No stress, no bad investments. Simply blunt and mindless investing in the highest current market capitalization. 🤔

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

DerDanner@Therapeut

2Settimana

According to statistics, only the top 4% of stocks provide a return of 7- 8% in the long term. i.e. if you don't have these 4% in your portfolio, you will underperform either way.
If you were thinking purely rationally, you would be better off with an ETF in the end.

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

2Settimana

Exciting perspective with the "real assets". Infrastructure, energy and defense are definitely fundamental building blocks of the global economy - without electricity, networks and security, no digital economy can function.

I see the whole thing more as an interplay between different levels of value creation. That's why I try to build my portfolio along several structural drivers:

1. digital infrastructure & scaling
AI, semiconductors and software (e.g. ASML, digitalization and AI ETFs, Atoss). These areas have been driving productivity and scaling for decades.

2. real assets & geopolitical reality
Defense and infrastructure, because countries have to invest here in the long term - regardless of the economic cycle.

3. demographics & structural demand
Health and emerging markets such as India, which generate long-term growth from population and prosperity dynamics.

For me, it is therefore less about "tech vs. real assets" and more about the question:
What structural forces will shape the next 20-30 years - and how do you map them together in the portfolio?

In the end, these worlds are connected anyway: Without chips, no energy grids; without energy, no AI; without security, no infrastrur

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

beardonfire@beardonfire

2Settimana

Congratulations! What are your experience in the stock market? What is your current result over 20 years?

•

1

•

immagine del profilo

ashish J.@JaqenH

2Settimana

You want to beat market but you also want monthly dividends. In which world paying 25% tax on returns a sound solution to maximizing your CAGR ?

•

1

•

Mostra la risposta

immagine del profilo

2Settimana

Microportfolio. Do you set up a saving plan? I do drip and reinvest all dividends. After a year and half it start to fruit. Providing stable fund for strategic investments.

•

1

•

Mostra la risposta

2Settimana

Thanks for the article. I joined $MAIN. Hope it develops and distributes diligently.

•

1

•

Visualizza tutti 3 ulteriori risposte

immagine del profilo

Raketentoni@Raketentoni

6G

Hi Olaf, this is Mr. Prompt, I took a look at your statements 😱

Challenge accepted! 😆 Such "yield gurus", who think they've dribbled out the market because three fifty euros land in their settlement account every month, are the perfect fodder for our tough quality and cash flow filters.
Let's take his "fortress" apart brick by brick. Here's the honest, number-based reality that you can throw at him (in excerpts, if you like):
🏰 The illusion of his "cash flow fortress"
His biggest mistake right from the start: he confuses cash flow with total return and completely ignores the consumption of capital. A high dividend is useless if the price of the underlying asset stagnates or falls. The dividend is not free money, but a discount on the share price. His arrogance towards the "7% ETF ultras" will cost him massive returns in the long term.
Here is a check of its individual components according to our strict quality standards:
1. the "firepower" (Defense: $LMT, $RHM)
His claim: "World's safest dividends due to government contracts."
The reality check (Core Quality Formula): RHM has a massive special cycle due to the Ukraine war, this is pure cyclicality and not a perpetual moat. Let's take a look at its US anchor Lockheed Martin (LMT): Sales growth is bobbing around at a measly 2% to 3% and operating margin is around 11%.
Our score: 3 % + 11 % = 14.
Conclusion: For us, a score below 15 means: weak/stagnating. Where is the qualitative growth here? This is an extremely slow tanker. If the defense budget even stagnates after a change of government, its "firepower" will collapse.
2. the "lungs" (infrastructure/energy: $NEE, $ENB, $ENR)
His claim: "Without power, no AI, real assets."
The reality check (cash flow quality & dividend filter): We just analyzed NextEra ($NEE) - great company, but currently negative free cash flow due to massive CapEx. We have to turn a blind eye here. But Enbridge ($ENB)? A classic "yield trap". They entice with a dividend of over 7%, but the balance sheet is massively burdened with debt. The payout ratio is often beyond good and evil. And $ENR (Energizer)? A battery manufacturer with mountains of debt, partly negative equity and shrinking margins.
Conclusion: It is massively violating our exclusion rule here: no pseudo dividends through debt. He is partly buying balance sheet cosmetics in order to achieve an artificially high monthly return.
3. the "monthly cash engine" ($MAIN, $O, $JPEQ)
His claim: "Cash flow is freedom, book value is just a number."
The reality check: Book value is not just a number if the company is burning substance!
Realty Income ($O): Pays nice every month, but how do REITs fund their growth? By constantly issuing new shares. The shareholder is therefore continuously diluted.
JPEQ (JEPQ): This is a covered call ETF. It generates its crazy high payout (approx. 9%) by selling the upside of the tech stocks in the ETF! It makes fun of tech, but its main cash engine is 100% dependent on the volatility of these very tech stocks. If the market rises massively, he does not share in the gains because the ETF is capped.
Conclusion: It sacrifices long-term capital growth for a short-term feel-good feeling in the current account.
4th & 5th The seatbelt & The spearhead (gold & crypto)
His claim: "Crypto secures the wealth spike, gold won't fall to zero."
The reality check: marvelous! First he preaches "cash flow is freedom" and makes fun of growth stocks, and then he puts assets in his portfolio that generate absolutely zero cash flow. Neither gold nor Bitcoin pay a dividend, have a P/E ratio or an operating margin.
Conclusion: This is the ultimate violation of our "Story > Numbers" exclusion rule. He is betting exclusively on the "Greater Fool Theory" (that someone will be willing to pay even more for it tomorrow). This has nothing to do with "pure tangible assets" and "independence", it's pure speculation.

I love the choice of words @Get_Rich_or_Die_Tryin

•

1

•

Mostra la risposta

immagine del profilo

Mathias Rr@Mathias_Rr

2Settimana

😂😂😂

••

immagine del profilo

Olaf T.@OlafTheSnowman

2Settimana

Guys, thanks for the passionate debate! 😂 But seriously, let's put this into perspective:

The depot you see here represents just about 2.5% of my total capital. It's my strategic laboratory where I test the architecture for the future.

Anyone who seriously believes that you can evaluate a system without knowing the remaining 97.5% of the asset allocation should perhaps read the chapter on "Holistic strategy" again. 😉

I am building the foundation here - the substance for the big picture lies elsewhere. Have fun optimizing your 100% share portfolios! ⛄🏰

••

Villefort@Villefort

2Settimana

Wow, according to your posts, you only started investing yourself last year and after such a short time you already know everything best yourself, respect 💪🙌

••

immagine del profilo

2Settimana

Il commento è stato cancellato

Visualizza tutti 2 ulteriori risposte

Partecipa alla conversazione

Iscriviti Accesso