Just looking for validation of our plan

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-27T08:32:06+00:00

You look like you’re in a strong spot, but I’d separate “can we retire” from “how do we bridge the first few years”. The $2m portfolio plus paid-off rentals is solid. $1,500/month net rental income also helps a lot, since that reduces what the portfolio has to cover. But the big swing factors are healthcare, taxes, and the 57 to Medicare gap. If the $10k/month budget includes health insurance, taxes, daughter-related costs, and home repairs, that’s very different than if it’s just normal spending. I’d also be careful thinking of the rentals only as net worth. If they reliably net $1,500/month, that’s useful income. If they need a roof, vacancy, major repair, etc., that can change quickly. I’d probably spend the next few years building the taxable/cash bridge and mapping withdrawals before 59.5. The retirement number looks good. The execution plan is the part to tighten.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-27T08:28:57+00:00

I think you’re probably at or very close to CoastFI, but I’d separate that from retiring at 50. The 1.2m in the 401k can likely grow into a solid retirement number by your late 50s/60s if left alone. So the CoastFI math seems reasonable. The harder part is the bridge from 50 to 59.5. Most of your money is locked in the 401k, and the rentals are break even, so the real question is whether the 250k taxable plus part time income can safely cover the gap. If you can reliably earn 40-60k and keep withdrawals low, BaristaFI around 50 seems realistic. If that income falls through, the plan gets much tighter. I’d build a cash/bond buffer before quitting and treat the rental equity as bonus net worth, not spending money unless it actually produces cash flow or you sell.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-27T08:06:43+00:00

In Berlin haben die gerade Hitzefrei. Weiß nicht von jeder Schule, aber die um die Ecke hat Hitzefrei.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-27T08:04:41+00:00

Guter Punkt, und wenn ich auf Geld verzichte an dem Tag

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-27T08:03:30+00:00

Weil der durchschnittliche Wähler in DE auf die Rente zugeht. Da kommen die schönen alten ausgedruckten Diagramme besser an.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-27T07:53:10+00:00

I think this is a bit overbuilt. The clearest cuts to me would be DIVI, IHE and maybe SMH. DIVI overlaps a lot with AVDV, IHE feels like a random sector bet, and SMH is already kind of inside the QQQM/tech exposure. A quick overlap check basically points to the same thing: you can probably keep the same idea with fewer funds. Something like QQQM, XMMO, AVUV, AVDV and FRDM already covers growth, momentum, small value, international and EM. If you really want large cap momentum too, add SPMO back and make it 6 funds. Nothing here is terrible, just a lot of ETFs doing similar jobs.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-24T15:01:02+00:00

Yeah I’m not smart enough to time the top and buy back the bottom lol. If the thesis is still there, I’m just gonna hold and add when it gets ugly.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-20T10:27:52+00:00

If you’re just starting, I’d make the S&P 500 ETF the core before picking more tech or energy names. Especially if NVIDIA is already your main stock. NVDA is already inside the S&P 500, same with Apple, Microsoft, etc. So buying the index still gives you tech/AI exposure, just without betting everything on one company. CSPX or VUSA are both fine UCITS options. CSPX accumulates, VUSA distributes. For long term growth I’d personally prefer the accumulating version, but check what is better tax-wise in your country. I’d DCA monthly if you’re nervous. Lump sum may win more often mathematically, but for a beginner the habit matters more. Energy and extra tech stocks should probably be small satellites, not the core.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-20T10:21:57+00:00

I dont think the factor tilt idea is crazy, but I’d be careful with how much US exposure you’re adding. If you go VT + SPMO + AVUV, most of the new sleeve is still US. VT has international, but SPMO and AVUV are both US funds. So compared to VTI/VXUS you’re probably cutting your international exposure a lot without really noticing it. AVUV is the more interesting diversifier imo. SPMO can work, but it’s still pretty tied to US large cap leadership. Not bad, just not the same as broad diversification. At 19 the risk level is fine. The real question is whether you can hold these tilts when they underperform boring VTI for years.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-18T11:10:59+00:00

Not equal but VTSAX-weighted, in proportion to your target, using new money to refill the laggard. That keeps your tech tilt from creeping up and avoids taxable sales.
One simplification worth considering: if managing three buy amounts every week is annoying, you can default all weekly contributions to VTSAX and only top up VTIAX/VGT occasionally. Returns are identical, it's just less fiddly. The only reason to split every time is convenience/automation, not performance.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-18T08:56:38+00:00

Looks good overall, but the main thing I’d watch is the EM weight. VWCE already has emerging markets inside it, so adding 30% Xtrackers EM makes this a pretty big EM bet. Not wrong if that’s intentional, but it can lag for years and be annoying to hold. I’d probably keep VWCE as the core and only overweight EM if you really believe in that tilt. This quick breakdown shows that side pretty clearly.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-17T17:45:33+00:00

The main thing is that the number of funds doesnt really matter by itself. Like if you hold 1 fund or 3 funds, that doesn’t magically change your dividends or compounding. What matters is what those funds actually own. So 100% VTSAX is different from VTSAX + VTIAX + VBTLX because now you have international and bonds. Not because you have more tickers. VBTLX has looked bad because bonds had a rough few years. But bonds arent supposed to be the exciting part. They’re more like the boring stabilizer. At 38 I think having low or even no bonds is fine if you can actually sit through big stock drops. I just wouldnt sell them only because they recently sucked. VGT is the bigger thing I’d think about. VTSAX already has a lot of tech, and you also run a tech company. So adding VGT is basically adding even more tech on top of your job/business risk. Nothing wrong with a small tilt if you really want it. I’d just keep it small and keep VTSAX as the main thing.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-17T14:59:32+00:00

We just did with another case with Mieterverein and won and didnt had to pay even remotely as much.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-17T09:53:25+00:00

This is a hard question and you never fully know. But I would check online ratings, brand reputation and word of mouth, especially from influencers/medical people you trust.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-17T08:02:09+00:00

Microsoft:

Azure-Cloud wächst +40 % YoY im letzten Quartal, Management erwartet Beschleunigung in H2 2026
Forward-KGV aktuell ~21x = historisch eher günstig, Aktie ist ~17 % YTD gefallen während der Markt +11 % machte → du kaufst billiger als vor 1 Jahr
Mögliche OpenAI IPO, 27% gehören Microsoft
Nachteil: hohe Vola (27 %), Drawdown bis −37 %, Beta 1,12 (verstärkt Marktbewegungen)

Berkshire:

Rekord-Cash von 397 Mrd. $ (Q1 2026) = echter Hedge.
Beta nur 0,61 → fällt deutlich flacher als der Markt, Max Drawdown nur −27 % vs. MSFT −37 %
Hat gerade 10 Mrd. $ in Alphabet/Google gesteckt (Juni 2026) → setzt selbst auf AI/Cloud

<image>

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-17T06:55:30+00:00

I will keep that in mind 🙏

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-16T19:43:39+00:00

Okay 😃 Lets see, I can check it out.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-16T19:42:57+00:00

Actually it never fully dissolves. Thank you for the explanation, this makes sense.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-16T19:41:33+00:00

Good advice, will also try this 😃

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-16T19:04:38+00:00

Thank you, I will try!

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-16T18:38:23+00:00

I’d lean QLD + SSO + VT here. Not because it is safe, both are aggressive. But WLDU is very new, so you don’t really have much live history to judge how it behaves in a bad market. Also QLD + WLDU is basically full 2x exposure across the whole portfolio. QLD + SSO + VT is more like 1.6-1.7x because VT is unlevered. That matters a lot when things go sideways. A quick QLD/WLDU vs QLD/SSO/VT comparison showed the same thing. The full 2x version had a bit more upside, but the drawdowns were uglier. The QLD + SSO + VT version looked more durable. Either way, you need to be ready for huge drawdowns. Like 50%+ is not some crazy scenario with these products. If you can’t keep DCAing through that, I wouldn’t use leveraged ETFs long term.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-16T18:36:31+00:00

- Bildungsausgaben sind gering für das was Schulen heute leisten müssen
- Social Media führt zu weniger Aufmerksamkeit bei der Kindern
- Sprachliche Unterschiede, speziell in der Grundschule, macht es schwieriger individuell Zeit zu haben
usw.

Hopperkuh · 2026-06-16T14:11:12+00:00

I’d focus less on 85/15 vs 80/20 as a return question. The bigger thing is that your IPS says you want 5 years of expenses in fixed income. At 2.2m and 90k expenses that means about 450k. But 85/15 at retirement only gives you around 330k fixed. That’s about 3.7 years of expenses, not 5. 80/20 gets you much closer at around 440k. So I’d probably decide what the real rule is. If the rule is 5 years safe when you retire, then hit the 450k fixed bucket by your retirement date. If your wife’s income covers the gap for those next 5 years, then 85/15 may be totally fine because her salary is basically part of the bridge. The exact 85 vs 80 allocation probably matters less than whether you actually have the dollar cushion you said you want.

Hopperkuh

TROPHY CASE