...and as of today, my portfolio stands at just under 310k (rounded up a bit), as a purely passive investor in those boring but tried-and-true ETF structures (from which I’ve strayed every now and then without taking a nasty fall—the IZF is hovering around 14% 😮‍💨😄). $VWCE (-0,25%)
$WSML (-0,1%)
$XMME (-1,48%)
$IWDA (-0,11%)
$BTC (+1,76%)

Is this a good result? Is the performance over this period a success or just average? Just 3–4 years ago, questions like these would have kept me up at night. But something has changed in my experience and mindset since then. I’ve fully embraced mindlessly automated investing, and I’m absolutely thrilled about it. No event on the stock market fazes me anymore. Instead, I’m calm, content, and proud that I’ve maintained my discipline. Investing does something to you—definitely not in a bad way. And you’ve always played a part in that, which is why I’d like to thank all of you for this consistently motivating and pleasant community here. You’re all great.

And somehow it’s also funny that in real life we’d all just pass each other by, even though the tone here is always friendly and welcoming—at least that’s been my experience here 😄

Thanks to everyone—here’s to continued sparkling returns.

And always remember that we’re all living in a very luxurious bubble.

True happiness often only comes when you use material wealth (as well) to do good for others :)

Best regards

Yours, _EvD_🤓

Why do so many investors sell their winners and hold onto their losers?

Why is a well-told story about a stock often more convincing than the cold, hard numbers?

And why does a loss in your portfolio feel worse than a gain of the same size feels good?

The answers aren’t found in financial theory, but in psychology—more specifically, in the work of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman.

His central thesis: The costliest mistakes on the stock market aren’t caused by a lack of information, but by the way our brains process the information we have. This has the greatest impact under conditions of uncertainty, time pressure, and complexity—in other words, precisely under stock market conditions. Kahneman describes thinking as the interplay of two systems:

System 1 works quickly, automatically, and emotionally

System 2 works slowly, consciously, and critically

Because a complete analysis of all data is practically impossible, System 1 usually takes the lead in market decisions—and relies on heuristics, or simplifying rules of thought—and that is precisely where systematic errors arise:

Loss aversion: Psychologically, losses weigh more heavily than gains of the same magnitude. Kahneman and Tversky estimate the ratio to be approximately 2.25 to 1 —a loss of 100 € hurts about as much as a gain of 225 € brings joy. In practice, this leads to the so-called disposition effect: Winners are sold too early (to “lock in” the profit), while losers are held onto too long (to avoid having to realize the loss)—exactly the wrong order.

Anchoring Effect: A number seen early on—the entry price, an old all-time high, someone else’s price target—becomes an internal reference point and shapes subsequent judgments, even if it has little factual basis. One’s own purchase price is the classic anchor: It is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a company is undervalued or overvalued today—yet almost everyone uses it as a benchmark.

WYSIATI (“What You See Is All There Is”): The information currently visible gives rise to a coherent, seemingly complete judgment—and what is not visible is ignored. A plausible narrative based on three data points is often more convincing than an inconvenient, incomplete set of facts. This explains why a well-told stock story is so seductive.

Overconfidence: Decision-makers overestimate the accuracy of their forecasts and their control over the outcome. This manifests itself in excessive trading frequency, overly large individual positions, and the feeling that they can “read” the market.

Additionally, Prospect Theoryexplains why this is no coincidence:

People evaluate outcomes not in absolute terms, but as gains or losses relative to a reference point —and they weigh probabilities in a biased way. Certain outcomes are overweighted, as are rare extreme events (the big crash, the tenfold gain), while the likely, unspectacular scenarios
are underestimated

.

Overall, in my view, the real disadvantage for retail investors rarely lies in access to information, but rather in these predictable reaction patterns. And that is the uncomfortable punchline: The strongest adversary in your portfolio is not the market, but your own System 1.

Sources:

Kahneman, D. (2011): Thinking, Fast and Slow

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979): Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk

$IWDA (-0,11%)
$CSPX (-0,01%)
$CSPX (-0,01%)
$EXS1 (+0,06%)

Starting in 2027, something is set to be introduced in Germany that could be of interest to any long-term investor:

The government-subsidized retirement savings account.

And no—I don’t just mean the next Riester plan.

For the first time, this new model will make it possible to invest in a return-oriented account with government subsidies, without a traditional contribution guarantee.

Put simply:

You invest for the long term.

The government matches your contributions.

And your money can grow in the capital markets.

What’s currently planned?

The new subsidy was actually improved even further during the legislative process.

For the first €360 of your own contribution , there is a subsidy of 50%.

For additional contributions up to a total of 1,800 € per year there is 25%.

This results in up to:

€540 in basic government allowance per year

is possible.

And child allowances may also be of interest to parents.

This means, if fully utilized:

€1,800 of your own money +

€540 in government support

€2,340 per year

that can go toward your retirement savings.

And now it gets interesting.

How does this differ from the old Riester plan?

The new retirement savings account is intended to be significantly more capital-market-oriented.

Among other things, it should be possible to invest in the stock market over the long term via funds and ETFs.

There’s also a subsidy-eligible account without a guarantee.

Of course, this means:

Higher potential returns = higher risk.

But that’s exactly what I find interesting.

Because if you still have decades until retirement, a broadly diversified stock portfolio can be much more attractive in the long term than a product that sacrifices a large portion of its potential returns for guarantees.

And now for my actual question for you:

Would you open a portfolio like this?

Personally, I find the idea exciting:

My regular investment account remains my regular investment account.

And in addition, I could build up a government-subsidized retirement savings component.

Not either stocks or retirement savings.

But rather:

Stocks + ETFs + government subsidies.

If the government is already co-financing part of my savings plan, why not at least explore this option?

Of course, you have to take a close look beforehand at the costs, investment terms, eligible securities, and—later on—the taxation of the payout.

Because “government-subsidized” doesn’t automatically mean “good product.”

The product has to be the right fit in the end.

But one thing is certain for me:

Anyone investing for the long term should take a very close look at this option in 2027.

And perhaps we investors should start looking into it now—before the first banks and brokers launch their products on the market.

What do you think:

Would you contribute €1,800 a year to such an account if it came with up to €540 in subsidies?

Or would you rather stick entirely with your regular investment account?

#Altersvorsorge
#Aktien
#ETF
#Investieren
#Rente
#Finanzen
#Vermögensaufbau

$MSCI (+1,5%)
$SPY (-0,13%)
$IWDA (-0,11%)

I've been thinking for a while now about selling all my individual stocks and just continuing to invest in my three ETFs ($IWDA (-0,11%) , $VHYL (+0,29%) , $TDIV (+0,29%) ) in order to be in a more stable position for the future. Most of my holdings are already included in at least one of the three ETFs anyway. Today I took the next step and $MRK (-1,08%) , $6501 (+1,08%) and $WUW (+0%) sold off to increase my position in $VHYL (+0,29%) . In the long term (> 5 years), this strategy should pay off.

What do you think of this strategy?

The entire position in the S&P 500 Information Technology ETF
$IUIT (-1,46%) was sold and specifically invested in McDonald’s $MCD (+0,65%) , PepsiCo
$PEP (+1,06%) and the L&G Global Quality Dividends ETF
$LDGL (+0,52%) .

The reasons for this decision:

• Less volatility: Following the sharp price increases in the technology sector, I would like to make the portfolio more defensive and reduce its exposure to highly valued tech stocks.

• More cash flow: The focus is shifting more toward regular dividend income rather than solely on price appreciation. The goal is a steadily growing monthly cash flow.

• Attractive valuations: In my view, both McDonald’s and PepsiCo are currently trading at attractive valuation levels. Both companies have strong brands, robust business models, and a decades-long history of rising dividends.

• Greater diversification: The L&G Global Quality Dividends ETF adds high-quality dividend-paying companies from around the world to the portfolio and ensures broader diversification.

• Reduced concentration risk: The technology sector now also has $IWDA (-0,11%) . This rebalancing reduces dependence on a few large tech companies and makes the portfolio more balanced.

For me, this is not a move away from technology—tech remains a significant component of the portfolio via the MSCI World. Rather, the goal is to broaden the portfolio, reduce concentration risk, and place greater emphasis on stable cash flow, quality, and predictable long-term dividend income .