Hello getquin community! 👋

Savings plans are an excellent way to build up assets automatically over the long term. Today I would like to introduce you to three well-known approaches and a less common but interesting alternative:

1. 70/30 - The classic

Here you invest 70% of your money in the MSCI World ETF (industrialized countries) and 30% in the MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (emerging markets). The idea behind this: Industrialized countries offer stability, while emerging markets offer growth potential.

2. 50/30/20 - More diversification with a focus on Europe

This allocation consists of 50 % MSCI World, 30 % Emerging Markets and 20 % in the MSCI Europe ETF (or a European small-cap ETF). It offers a greater weighting of Europe and more diversification.

3 ACWI - Keep it simple

The MSCI ACWI ETF combines around 2,900 companies from 23 industrialized countries and 24 emerging markets. This means you can invest in around 85% of global market capitalization with just one ETF. Ideal for anyone who likes things to be uncomplicated.

4. equal weight portfolio - all on an equal footing

Instead of weighting companies according to market capitalization (as is the case with most ETFs), an equal-weight portfolio distributes the investment evenly across all the companies it contains.

Why is this interesting?

-DiversificationSmaller companies also receive the same weighting as large players (e.g. Apple or Microsoft).

-OpportunitiesMedium-sized and smaller companies often grow faster than established groups and thus make a greater contribution to performance.

-Stability: There is less dependence on individual, disproportionately weighted companies.

Example: An equal-weight S&P 500 ETF $XDEW (+0,18%) weights all 500 companies in the index equally, regardless of their market capitalization. This gives smaller companies a fair chance to contribute to performance.

My conclusion:

Each strategy has its pros and cons, and the choice depends on your goals and risk appetite.

Which of these strategies do you use? Or do you have a different preferred allocation? Share your experiences! 💬👇

Disclaimer: No investment advice or recommendation, this article is for information purposes only. Before you decide on an ETF, take a closer look at it in terms of positions, sampling, regions, etc. I can't describe everything here as it would go beyond the scope of this article.

Part 1 (Definition, Categories

& Z-score and quality factor): https://getqu.in/RCSY4a/

Part 2 (Value ETF): https://getqu.in/Nfnhqb/

Part 3 (Low Volatility ETF): https://getqu.in/Ub7KpG/

Part 4 (Momentum ETF): https://getqu.in/CNMgGw/

Part 5 (Small- and Growth ETF): https://getqu.in/0NoqmW/

Part 6 (Dividend ETF): https://getqu.in/NJtoF5/

Part 7 (Multifactor ETF): https://getqu.in/qBLxfo/

What are Equal-Weight ETF?

Equal-weight ETFs are - as the name suggests - characterized by the fact that the positions held in the ETF are all equally weighted and not, as is usually the case, according to their market weighting. The investment case for this form of investment is based in particular on the observation of the recent past that the weighting of indices is becoming increasingly concentrated on a few stocks/sectors and countries. For example, the top 10 positions in the S&P 500 already account for 33% of the index weighting. The global comparison is no different: In the Euro Stoxx 600, the top 10 account for around 20 % of the weighting and in the MSCI World around 24 % and this with over 1,400 positions (!). The USA accounts for 70 % of the MSCI World and the technology sector is weighted at around 27 %. The market capitalization often no longer corresponds to the GDP weighting of the respective countries (as a measure of a country's economic strength).

With free trade and globalization, this is not too bad, as companies can generate a large proportion of their profits abroad. However, with increasing protectionism and the reversal of free trade, this discrepancy can become a risk.

Due to the high concentration, the return of the indices essentially consists of a few large companies with a strong US focus. This creates a cluster risk, although this has paid off well in the recent past (

https://stock3.com/boersenwissen/gleich-vs-kapitalisierungsgewichtet-gibt-es-einen-gewinner-13016464)

The Equal-Weight ETFs are therefore created for all those who are concerned about the growing concentration on the markets and want to spread the risk over more shoulders.

Furthermore, there is a natural size-tilt, as both small and large companies are equally weighted in the index, meaning that a much higher weighting is placed on small and mid-caps compared to the normal indices.

Historical returns

The charm of the equal weight approach becomes apparent if we look beyond the recent past to a longer-term horizon:

https://www.betashares.com.au/files/collateral/brochure/QUS-Brochure.pdf

Annualized comparison of annual returns (negative = outperformance of the equal weight approach):

https://stock3.com/boersenwissen/gleich-vs-kapitalisierungsgewichtet-gibt-es-einen-gewinner-13016464

In a study from 1994 to 2000, the returns already converge strongly:

https://www.lynalden.com/equal-weighted-index-funds

Overall, the picture is similar to the size-premium - logically, since size stocks are also more strongly represented - in the long term, the equal-weight approach would be worthwhile, but in the recent past, due to the tech/Us concentration, one would have achieved an underperformance. The higher weighting of smaller stocks also increases volatility, something that would probably not have been expected as many take the equal weight approach to minimize risk.

👉Equal-Weight ETF:

-$TSWE (+0,03%) (World | TER 0.20 % | TD 0.47 % | EUR 0.8 bn invested volume | 3Y underperformance vs All-World -11 %pt. | 5Y underperformance -14 %pt. | 10Y underperformance -30%pt.)

• Index methodology: Selection of 250 companies according to Moody's sustainability criteria (no alcohol, gambling, military, animal testing for cosmetics etc.), then equal weighting.

-$XDEW (+0,18%) (US | TER 0.20 % | TD -0.02 % | EUR 12 bn invested vol. | 3Y underperformance vs. S&P 500 -18%pt. | 5Y underperformance -36 %pt. | 10Y underperformance -114 %pt.)

• Index methodology: Equal weighting of all companies included in the S&P 500.

-$MOTV (US | TER 0.46 % | TD n.a. | EUR 0.1 bn invested vol. | 6 months outperformance vs. S&P 500 +0.5%pt.)

• Index methodology: Index focuses on Morningstar's "Wide Economic Moat" rating. These are companies that Morningstar analysts believe will outperform over the next 20 years. From these companies, the most undervalued are filtered (delta market price to fair value). The companies are then equally weighted

-$WEBA (+0,18%) (US | TER 0.07 % | TD n.A. | EUR 0.5 bn invested vol. | 1Y underperformance vs. NASDQ -17 %pt.)

• Index methodology: Equal weighting of NASDAQ100 stocks

-$S6EW (+0,11%) (Europe | TER 0.30 % | TD 0.06 % | EUR 0.1 bn invested vol. | 3Y underperformance vs. Euro Stoxx 600 -15%pt. | 5Y underperformance -18 %pt. | 10Y underperformance -11 %pt.)

• Index methodology: Screening of the Euro Stoxx 600 according to - UN defined - ESG criteria (no coal, weapons, tobacco,..) and subsequent equal weighting.

Conclusion - what remains?

Equal weight strategy aims to reflect the high concentration of stocks/sectors & countries much less in the conventional indices (which are market capital weighted) by including the stocks in equal proportions. This reduces the cluster risk while at the same time increasing the exposure of smaller and medium-sized companies.

In the long term, however, there has been outperformance in recent times (with the tech boom). In my view, there is a strong performance overlap with the small-cap ETFs, so I would definitely not put both in my portfolio & would rather stick with a small-cap ETF, partly because the current selection of equal-weight ETFs is not yet too broad.

The choice between equal-weight and market-cap ETFs ultimately depends on individual risk tolerance, investment horizon and assessment of future market developments. Equal-weight ETFs can serve as a diversification instrument in a balanced portfolio.

#smartbeta
#etf
#equalweight

The big world ETF guide

Reading time: approx. 12 min

1) INTRODUCTION

Anyone entering the world of investing and wanting to start investing often wants one thing above all else: Simplicity.

A globally diversified ETF offers just that: an uncomplicated way to participate in global economic growth at low cost without having to familiarize yourself with complex investment strategies. But when it comes to choosing the right global ETF, many beginners are faced with the question: Which is the right one for me? me?

In this article, I will introduce you to various options for building a diversified world ETF portfolio. We start in the first section with the "one ETF for everything" solution, which is particularly suitable for investors who prefer not to deal with the topic at all. These one-ETF solutions can be saved like a piggy bank and are probably the most passive form of investment.

For investors who find the single-ETF solution too boring or under-complex, we turn to so-called multi-ETF solutions - i.e. investment ideas that include several ETFs. In the final section, we will take a closer look at a special variant that can be considered complex and requires more activity.

If you are a beginner, you can safely stop reading after the first section on the one-ETF solution, as this section contains all the information you need for a simple but effective investment in ETFs. The interested and advanced reader will then get their money's worth in the last section.

2.) THE ONE-ETF SOLUTION

Let's start with the simplest of all conceivable options: one ETF for everything. But even with the simplest form of building a world portfolio, it's the small but fine details that count. Each variant includes specific ETF suggestions with which you can realize such a one-ETF solution.

2.1 MSCI World

Probably the best-known world index is the MSCI World Index. This focuses on the largest companies in the so-called developed markets. The index contains the 1500 largest companies from 23 industrialized countries and comprises around 85% of the market capitalization of the world's industrialized nations [1]. The USA has by far the highest weighting, accounting for around 70% of the entire MSCI World Index. The second-highest weighted country is Japan with around 6%, followed by the UK with around 4%. German equities account for just over 2% of the index. The largest 10 positions - with illustrious names such as Microsoft $MSFT (+0,15%) Apple $AAPL (+0,12%) or Nvidia $NVDA (+0,61%) - already make up 24% of the overall index.

The easiest way to invest in the MSCI World Index is via an ETF. The most cost-effective option is the Amundi $MWRD or SPDR $SPPW (+0,02%) which only incur annual costs (TER) of 0.12% [2]. These are accumulating ETFs that do not distribute the income from the individual shares but reinvest it at fund level. If you prefer regular distributions, you can also choose a distributing ETF such as $MWOE (+0,02%) or $HMWO (+0,02%) you can also choose a distributing ETF.

2.2 FTSE All World

Another classic in the field of world indices is the FTSE All World. In addition to the industrialized countries, it also includes so-called emerging markets (emerging markets). The index includes the 4000 largest companies from around 50 countries [1]. In addition to the industrialized nations, the index therefore also includes shares from China, India, Brazil and Taiwan, for example. The total weighting of the USA in the FTSE All World is around 60% and the 10 largest positions account for around 21%. About 90-95% of global market capitalization is covered by the FTSE All World.

The biggest difference to the MSCI World Index is that the FTSE All World also includes emerging markets and is therefore even more broadly diversified worldwide. According to [3], the cheapest accumulating ETF on the FTS All World Index with an expense ratio of 0.15% is the one from Invesco $FWRG (+0,02%) . However, the FTSE All World ETF from Vanguard $VWCE (+0,03%) enjoys enormous popularity here on Getquin (@Lorena). Distributing variants would be the $FTWG (+0,02%) from Invesco or the $VWRL (+0,02%) from Vanguard.

2.3. MSCI ACWI IMI

Probably the most broadly diversified index is the MSCI ACWI IMI. The somewhat unwieldy name stands for MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) Investable Markets Index (IMI). This comprises over 9000 shares from industrialized and emerging countries.

The biggest difference to the FTSE All World apart from the fact that the number of shares in the index is more than twice as high, is that the MSCI ACWI IMI also includes small caps and thus achieves an even broader diversification. According to MSCI, the index covers approx. 99% of global market capitalization.

With an expense ratio of only 0.17% and at the same time the only accumulating ETF on the MSCI ACWI IMI is the $SPYI (+0,01%) from SPDR. The distributing variant has also been available since June 2024 $SPSA (+0,02%).

In my opinion, the MSCI ACWI IMI the all-in-one package when it comes to broadly diversified global investing. I therefore personally use the $SPYI (+0,01%) and the $SPSA (+0,02%) for my child's custody account.

The following chart provides an overview to illustrate this:

To calculate the real performance, I have created sample portfolios with the corresponding ETFs. For the MSCI World I chose the $SC0J (+0,03%) as it has been tradable in Germany since June 2009. For the FTSE All World, I opted for the classic $VWCE (+0,03%) from Vanguard, which has been available in Germany since July 2019. For the MSCI ACWI IMI, I opted for the $SPYI (+0,01%) which has been available to buy in Germany since 2011.

As a result, the maximum comparison period is July 2019 to the present day. During this period of just over 5 years, the MSCI World ETF $SC0J (+0,03%) has performed best with a performance of around +102% (+13.6% CAGR). The FTSE All World $VWCE (+0,03%) follows with a performance of +90% (+12.4% CAGR) and in last place is the $SPYI (+0,01%) with +85% (+11.8% CAGR).

Unsurprisingly, the MSCI World is ahead in the selected comparison period. This is mainly due to the significantly higher weighting of the USA in the MSCI World and the absence of the emerging markets, which performed comparatively poorly in this period. Although the ACWI IMI is similar to the FTSE All World, it performs somewhat worse, as the small caps also lagged behind the broad market in the comparison period.

As past performance is no guarantee of future performance, this does not automatically mean that the MSCI World will perform better than the other two variants in the coming years. That is why I personally continue to prefer the MSCI ACWI IMI for long-term investment $SPYI (+0,01%).

3.) THE MULTI-ETF SOLUTION

Why keep it simple when you can make it complicated? That's what many investors think - myself included. There are several ways to construct a global portfolio with more than one ETF to allow a certain degree of flexibility. However, this is only necessary if you consciously over- or underweight certain countries, factors or sectors. This may be because you have a very positive view of emerging markets or because you consider the 70% US share in the MSCI World to be too high.

However, flexibility and personal views also entail more complexity and work than the one-ETF solution. As soon as we have more than one ETF in the portfolio, the question of weighting, rebalancing and when to rebalance at all automatically arises. This also increases transaction costs, and rebalancing can lead to early taxation and an interruption of the compound interest effect. To justify this, you should be very sure that the one-ETF solution is not the ideal solution for you personally after all.

A detailed performance comparison is provided after the presentation of the world portfolio solutions at the end of this section.

3.1. 70/30 Portfolio MSCI World & Emerging Markets

A classic variant to cover the emerging markets missing from the MSCI World is a portfolio consisting of an MSCI World ETF and an MSCI Emerging Markets ETF. A weighting consisting of 70% MSCI World and 30% emerging markets is established and often quoted.

Compared to the FTSE All World, this is a higher proportion of equities in the emerging markets, as this is only around 10%. You should therefore consider a 70/30 portfolio above all if you want to overweight the emerging markets compared to the FTSE All World.

The cheapest MSCI Emerging Markets ETF with a TER of 0.18% is the $AEME (-0,49%) from Amundi. China is the largest position with a weighting of 24%. It is followed by India with a good 20% and Taiwan with around 19%. In the 70/30 portfolio, the country weighting is currently 48% USA, 7.2% China, 6% India, 5.6% Taiwan and 4.1% Japan. Germany is represented with around 1.6%. The total expense ratio of the 70/30 portfolio is 0.187%.

3.2 FTSE All World & Smallcaps

As already described in the previous sections, the FTSE All-World already contains a 10% share in the emerging markets. Only the global small caps are missing. In order to still cover these, an MSCI World Small Cap ETF can be used. In so-called factor investingthe small-cap factor is one of the best-known factor premiums [4] - small-cap stocks should achieve higher average equity returns. However, the details of factor investing will not be discussed here. You are welcome to use the source cited [4].

A portfolio consisting of 85% FTSE All World and 15% small caps is an example of a possible world portfolio that takes small caps into account. The practical implementation could be realized with the FTSE All World ETF $VWCE (+0,03%) from Vanguard and the MSCI World Small Cap ETF $WSML (+0,03%) from iShares. However, the expense ratio for the $WSML is already comparatively high at 0.35%. The overall portfolio has a TER of 0.24%.

3.3 Modular portfolio

If you want even more leeway when creating a global portfolio with ETFs, you can take the next step and put together a portfolio based on the modular principle. Instead of using the traditional division into industrialized countries and emerging markets, you select the individual world regions separately and determine their weighting yourself. This approach offers great opportunities and freedom, but at the same time significantly increases complexity.

Such a modular world portfolio could look like this, for example:

• 50% USA via S&P500 ETF $SPXS (+0,16%)
• 20% Europe via MSCI Europe ETF $XMEU (-0,04%)
• 20% emerging markets via MSCI Emerging Markets ETF $AEME (-0,49%)
• 10% Japan via MSCI Japan ETF $LCUJ (-0,31%)

The selected weightings and regions are of course subjective and depend on the individual preferences of the investor. The world's strongest stock market in the USA is represented by the well-known S&P500 index. The entire European region, including non-EU countries, is covered by the corresponding ETF. The advanced industrial nation of Japan is represented by a special ETF, while China, India and Taiwan are included in the portfolio via the Emerging Markets ETF. The total expense ratio of this example portfolio is 0,097%.

3.4 Performance comparison

Due to the start dates of the ETFs used, a performance comparison is possible here from August 2019. For the performance comparison, I have created corresponding sample portfolios here on Getquin and rebalanced them at annual intervals. rebalancing at annual intervals.

The rebalancing proceeded as follows:

• the weighting of the portfolio is checked once a year
• if an individual weighting deviates by more than 30% from the target weighting, the entire portfolio is adjusted back to the original target allocation

Specifically, I have (arbitrarily) chosen June 15 as the cut-off date for rebalancing. The annual review of the weighting is a compromise between effort and cost. Rebalancing too frequently would cut profits too quickly; rebalancing too infrequently, on the other hand, would blur the intention behind the portfolio, as the weightings of the positions would move too far away from the original weighting.

Overall, the 70/30 portfolio was rebalanced once during the period mentioned, as the share of the MSCI Emerging Markets had fallen below 21% (30% below the target weighting of 30% in the portfolio). No rebalancing was necessary in the FTSE All World & Smallcap portfolio. By contrast, the modular portfolio had to be rebalanced twice. As you can see, more ETFs usually mean more work.

The performance of the individual world portfolios over 5 years was:

• 70/30 portfolio+80% (+11.7% CAGR)
• FTSE All World & Smallcaps: +86% (+12.3% CAGR)
• Building block portfolio: +87% (+12.5% CAGR)

No portfolio has outperformed the MSCI World (+102%) over the last 5 years, which is hardly surprising given the lower proportion of US stocks in the portfolios. In retrospect, the best performance over the last 10-15 years would probably have been achieved with a 100% US allocation. However, the aim of a global portfolio should not be to achieve the maximum possible return, but to achieve the return of the global equity market with the lowest possible risk.

4) CAN IT BE A LITTLE MORE EXCITING?

Some people may now be thinking: why always just these boring ETFs when Bitcoin $BTC (-2,06%) exists? Interest in Bitcoin has continued to grow worldwide in recent years and Bitcoin ETFs now offer easy ways for private and institutional investors to invest in Bitcoin. Just recently, Blackrock rated a Bitcoin allocation of 1-2% in a portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds as risk neutral compared to investing in the Magnificant 7 Stocks [5].

Furthermore, the US share in the portfolio cannot only be represented by the supposed standard index S&P500. Many more risk-averse investors also like the NASDAQ 100, which primarily contains high-growth tech companies.

Example may-be-somewhat-more-exciting-world-portfolio:

• 25% NASDAQ 100 over $EQAC (+0,12%)
• 25% S&P500 Equal Weight over $XDEW (+0,18%)
• 20% Europe over $XMEU (-0,04%)
• 15% Emerging Markets over $AEME (-0,49%)
• 10% Japan over $LCUJ (-0,31%)
• 5% Bitcoin $BTC (-2,06%)

The total 50% US share in the portfolio is divided into the NASDAQ 100 and an equally weighted S&P500. The equally weighted variant was chosen to avoid too much overlap with the heavyweights in the NASDAQ 100 and to create a broader base. The 5% Bitcoin weighting corresponds to a more risk-averse approach than the 1-2% suggested by Blackrock and still keeps the volatility of the overall portfolio within a reasonable range.

As in the previous examples, I have created a sample portfolio on Getquin and carried out an annual rebalancing check. As Bitcoin is generally somewhat more volatile, I set a wider range than the 30% deviation from the target weighting: the rebalancing was only triggered when Bitcoin accounted for either more than 10% or less than 2% of the total portfolio on the reporting date.

According to these rules, a rebalancing was triggered exactly twice in the period from December 2018 to date: 2021 and 2024. In June 2021, the Bitcoin share in the overall portfolio reached 20% and 75% of the BTC position was sold. The rebalancing also triggered the sale of a smaller share of the NASDAQ 100 ETF. The proceeds were then used to reallocate the remaining ETFs. In June 2024, Bitcoin also reached the upper limit and another rebalancing took place.

In the selected period from December 2018 to the present day, the may-yet-be-somewhat-more-exciting world portfolio achieved an overall performance of +176% (18.4% CAGR), clearly outperforming the MSCI World (+122%). The main drivers of this outperformance are firstly Bitcoin (which traded at around €3,700/BTC in December 2018) and secondly the NASDAQ 100, which clearly outperformed the MSCI World during this period.

The outperformance would of course have been much greater with a higher Bitcoin or NASDAQ100 share. In my opinion, however, the chosen overall weighting of 30% reflects a good compromise between opportunity and risk. The highest maximum drawdown of the overall portfolio in the period under review was around -20%.

5) CONCLUSION

Despite the wide range of investment options, I believe that for most investors the world ETF is the best solution for long-term wealth accumulation. Nowadays it is easier than ever to acquire a low-cost world portfolio based on an ETF.

For investors who want a little more spice, numerous options have been presented to build their own world portfolio - you don't have to build your own ETF like @Simpson 🙃

Which portfolio do you find most interesting? If you are interested, I would be happy to provide you with the (more complex) sample portfolios on Getquin for you to view.

Stay tuned,

Yours Nico Uhlig (aka RealMichaelScott)

#etfs
#stocks
#guide

Sources:

[1] Stock Finder: https://aktienfinder.net/index-profil/MSCI%20World-Index#:~:text=Der%20MSCI%20World%20ist%20ein%20globaler%20Aktienindex%20und,im%20Dezember%202024%20-%20Alle%20wichtigen%20Infos%20hier.

[2] justETF: https://www.justetf.com/de/search.html?search=ETFS&index=MSCI%2BWorld&sortOrder=asc&sortField=ter

[3] justETF: https://www.justetf.com/de/search.html?search=ETFS&index=FTSE%2BAll-World

[4] Gerd Kommer Website: https://gerd-kommer.de/factor-investing-die-basics/

[5] Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/12/12/115-trillion-blackrock-recommends-a-2-bitcoin-allocation-comparing-it-to-the-mag-7/

So, after my lukewarm stumble onto the stage of the community recently, now for real:

Hello everyone (friendly nods to all),

I've been a mostly silent reader for a while now, but I'd like to introduce myself - even if I don't know what I'm up to - in keeping with local custom:

I am 55 & a civil servant in the Federal Civil Service, which puts me in the fortunate position (I hope) of not having to rely on additional income from investments for a materially bearable retirement (in twelve years' time, I would just about reach retirement without deductions after 40 years in the civil service). Investment is therefore essentially a consumption alternative, a safety cushion and - later - intended for my sons (living with their mother, 17 & 13 years old; each with their own portfolios / savings plans). My investment horizon is therefore open ended (or determined biologically or by the legitimate major needs of the offspring).

My investment history - still perceptible in the portfolio presented here - begins in 1996/1997 with the first (and later unfortunately also the second) placement of the $DTE (-0,03%) T-share and the IPO of $PSM (+0%) ProSieben (which has since more than made up for its initial investment through dividends, good boy). At some point, he inherited the current e.on position from his grandparents $EOAN (+0%) e.on position and a position in $VOW3 (+0%) Volkswagen, which I sold several years later on the advice of my savings bank at the time (bygones).

Then nothing for a long time (studies/traineeship, career start - I was "investing in my current account" and couldn't even manage to process my business trip expenses on time, tststs).

With a wife and children came the need to make provisions (the little guys simply cost a tidy sum through the cycle), which I initially did through sporadic ad hoc investments:

In particular hubris, at the beginning of the subprime crisis I trusted the investment banks to have everything under control and bought shares in $DBK (+0%) Deutsche Bank (close to ATH), Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch (the relics can be found as a minus at $BAC (+0,27%) Bank of America for Bear Stearns and - invisibly - a tax loss carryforward to offset the now quite respectable $JPM (+0,12%) J.P. Morgan position for Merrill Lynch), $DBK (+0%) with additional purchases slowly creeping back into a "perhaps at some point back to zero" zone.

Otherwise, a number of active funds ($n/a LU0557858130, $n/a LU1143163779, $n/a IE00BG7PHW03, $n/a LU1496713741, $n/a DE0008474750, $n/a GB0030932676, $n/a (+0%) LU1864952335 and predecessors), of which only $n/a (+0%) Pictet Water had actually performed noticeably positively on a time-weighted basis.

From around 2015, I then gradually started to populate the current portfolio with various equity and ETF savings plans at ING ($GOOG (+0,08%) Alphabet C, $AAPL (+0,12%) Apple, $KO (+0,16%) Coca-Cola, $NESN (+0%) Nestlé, $BAYN (+0,15%) Bayer (ouch!), $SIE (+0%) Siemens, $DIS (+0,08%) Walt Disney, $PFE (+0,08%) Pfizer, $PR1J (+0,57%), $FLXC (-0,7%), $FLXK (+1,11%), $EXS1 (+0,01%), $LCUK (+0,01%), $C060, $XMUS (+0,16%), $DBXW (+0,02%), mostly at 50 euros/month), supplemented by a few nicely timed individual purchases in $AAPL (+0,12%) , when it was still trading at around 80 euros before the 3:1 stock split, as well as $MT (+0%) AcelorMittal and $BHP (+1,47%) (mini position, but with a nice dividend yield since then).

With supply chain problems and inflation emerging at the end of corona/beginning of Ukraine, I then started to invest in another portfolio, the actually far too expensive $SPAG (-0,47%) iShares Agribusiness and $EXV6 (-0,11%) iShares STOXX Europe 600 Basic Resources as a hedge against the rising cost of living that had gone wrong (had bet on more pronounced sectoral greed-flation).

Since I have since followed the recommendations of $VWCE (+0,03%) resp. $ACWI (Glashaus!) in the meantime, the aggregated lump and the $AAPL (+0,12%) and $GOOG (+0,08%) was getting a bit scary, but I didn't want to touch the corresponding equity savings plans (more on this in a moment), I put my basic trust in the long-term out-performance of the US equity market into practice by investing in two "equal weight" index funds, namely with $WEBA (+0,18%) on the NASDAQ100 (also with a savings plan) and $XDEW (+0,18%) on the S&P500 (one-off investment only).

Some of this, especially the earlier investment history, is foreign to my Getquin portfolio history, as I only entered this after a portfolio reorganization in early 2023.

Over the years, my employer has steadily introduced stricter regulations for private financial transactions, which currently makes it practically impossible for me to invest in individual names or funds with certain predominant industry shares. However, in an exemplary manner under the rule of law, previously existing savings plans were protected in the respective iterations of the tightening, so that I jealously continue the remaining share savings plans (see above lump at $GOOG (+0,08%) and in particular $AAPL (+0,12%)).

I currently save monthly as follows (savings rate): Grandfathering: $GOOG (+0,08%) (100), $AAPL (+0,12%) (50), $DIS (+0,08%) (50), $PFE (+0,08%) (50), $KO (+0,16%) (50); "regular": $VWCE (+0,03%) (currently 520 with annual 4% dynamic), $SPAG (-0,47%) (100), $WEBA (+0,18%) (100), $EXV6 (-0,11%) (100), $10AJ (+0,07%) (100) and - before first-time execution - (100). $SDIP (+0%) (100).

In addition, I have reflected certain market assessments at the respective point in time through individual purchases in country ETFs (long-term catch-up potential of the emerging markets through $HMEF (-0,49%), $FLXC (-0,7%), $FLXK (+1,11%) - $FLXI (-0,64%) was now too expensive for me and the Indian economy was not sufficiently represented by companies listed there; the sleeping innovation giant Japan through $PR1J (+0,57%), "luxury always works" even in times of inflation through $DX2G (-0,01%)Europe - especially CH and UK - as a general counterweight to the US through $VEUR (-0,06%) and the sensible Nordics by $XNZN (+0,02%)), so that there is now a colorful bouquet of ETFs. However, I am not fundamentally dissatisfied with this, especially as far as these are distributing & savings plan-capable in my ING portfolio, so that their distributions (from 75 euros) are automatically reinvested ($VEUR (-0,06%) - is so large that this could work for each of the quarterly distributions, $DX2G (-0,01%), $PR1J (+0,57%)).

I think that as long as I am still subject to my employer's investment restrictions, I will only make marginal changes to this. For a "fire and forget" portfolio, however, I could imagine switching to a 70/20/10 portfolio in the medium term. $WEBG (+0,03%), $HMEF (-0,49%), $SDIP (+0%) (@ING: please $SDIP (+0%) savings plan, thank you!). Let's see what the end of PFOF brings on the cost side, especially for savings plans.

So, that's it; thanks for your patience and perseverance. You're welcome to give me tips, but as I said, my hands are largely tied (and I don't think much of the crypto tulip bulbs until they become an actual means of payment, not just for buying sinister services on the dark web)...

Here's to a successful investment community (&thanks for having me)!