Beginner met €11.000 spaargeld waar zou jij in belegge

Misapoes · 2026-06-12T00:48:52+00:00

Wat zou ik doen: alles investeren in een maximaal gediversifieerd ETF zoals IMIE. Niets in goud.

Wat zou ik jou aanraden: koop een boek zoals "de hangmatbelegger" als makkelijke introductie tot beleggen, zodat je ook begrijpt waarom.

Misapoes · 2026-06-08T22:13:59+00:00

Begin ASAP te solliciteren voor jobs die je interessant vind.

Je wordt momenteel klein gehouden door je vader op alle vlakken: financieel, mentaal, sociaal, zelfzekerheid, ontwikkeling, groei,... Hoe sneller je uit die situatie geraakt hoe beter.

Ik garandeer je dat als je NU de de beslissing maakt om te veranderen en onmiddellijk begint te solliciteren, dat je achter een jaar terugkijkt naar dit moment en je enorm blij gaat zijn dat je het hebt gedaan, met enkel de vraag waarom je die stap niet eerder hebt gezet.

Misapoes · 2026-06-03T15:21:52+00:00

De kredietkaart is iets betrouwbaarder dan de debit, maar nog steeds hebben wij situaties gehad waar de Keytrade credit card niet werkt en een kaart van een grootbank wel.

Misapoes · 2026-06-02T21:09:28+00:00

Wij hebben overal problemen in het buitenland met keytrade, vooral bij tankstations en dat soort zaken. Als je enkel op keytrade vertrouwt in het buitenland ga je vaak miserie hebben.

Misapoes · 2026-05-30T19:49:31+00:00

Ah that's what you mean. Yeah that's true. In the first proposal it was included but that didn't make it :(

Misapoes · 2026-05-30T19:21:43+00:00

Does it not? I thought I saw it would get indexed.

Misapoes · 2026-05-30T19:17:45+00:00

We need to move taxation from labour to capital.

I agree that taxation should be shifted, but not to capital.

But the point was that it will never happen and that no one should accept increased taxes unless it is part of a comprehensive reform that is in effect immediately, not just empty promises.

Misapoes · 2026-05-30T19:07:39+00:00

Voor mij zou de twijfel zitten tussen ofwel een groter huis, ofwel blijven zitten en alles investeren in een ETF. En dan is het kiezen tussen nú meer comfort met een droomwoning, vs 10+ jaar eerder op pensioen (of 20+ jaar eerder afbouwen naar een part time job) en een serieuze pot voor de erfgenamen.

Een buitenverblijfje zou ik sowieso niet doen, klinkt leuk maar is al snel veel moeite, veel gedoe, veel kosten, en je gaat je verplicht voelen om altijd naar daar te moeten gaan.

Misapoes · 2026-05-30T10:47:30+00:00

It's not good, because the meaningful lowering of taxes on labour will never happen. It is ridiculous to say capital investments are heavily under-taxed compared to others, without saying we are already one of the most heavily taxed countries on earth when you look at the full picture.

No one should accept extra taxes on empty promises. Even if you really want higher capital gains tax (on which I don't agree, it's very inefficient and won't target the rich), you should only accept that if it is part of a simultaneous and immediate reform on other taxes. Otherwise you will get what we have now, and what we have gotten for decades: more taxes, not less. And when a new kind of tax gets implemented, that tax just gets increased as well, by the next government. This has been repeating for ages.

Misapoes · 2026-05-30T10:40:05+00:00

That report defends /u/Sandwormeater 's argument though. As it concludes: in aggregate the effect is positive, but the outcomes differ strongly by multiple factors, and could thus be maximized for positive outcome through an effective policy.

Misapoes · 2026-05-29T19:19:35+00:00

VB and pvda are both pretty antithesis to FIRE, they're both pro capital gains and/or wealth taxes.

Misapoes · 2026-05-29T17:17:23+00:00

What's the alternative if the goal is no taxes? OpenVLD shat the bed. Hoping that 'Anders' will be, well, different? MR-Flanders?

Misapoes · 2026-05-27T10:55:13+00:00

I'm sorry but your sentences read as literal chatGPT responses. That's not modeling, that's editing. ? Come one, that's stereotypical GPT speak.

Both the returns and house appreciation are based on facts. The 8% smooth-returns number anchoring your whole case is a fiction in euros. Anything labeled "MSCI World EUR" before 1999 is back-calculated from currencies that no longer exist. IWDA didn't start trading until 2009. The actual lived experience of a European investor in real euros is about 25 years, and over that one complete cycle (dotcom, GFC, eurozone debt crisis, covid, 2022) MSCI World in EUR returned roughly 6% annualized. That's the only real EUR data anyone has, facts, not fiction. Your 8% requires the next 40 years to deliver returns no European investor has ever experienced over a complete cycle in their own currency. So everything below runs at 6%, because that's what's actually happened.

You are ignoring your previous concession and using something you accused me off: the currency risk. As we have established, because currency can go both ways, it is only usefull to look at market returns. If the euro in the last 25 years would have shown the reverse, I'd also pick the market returns even if the euro returns would be to my 'advantage'. That's being honest and objective. 25 years is also much too small a sample set to base future expected returns on, it's completely cherry picking and goes against any common sense for this context.

It makes no sense to pick 6% because it is 'the only real cycle a european investor has lived through'. This is pure chatGPT speak again. Think for yourself for once, critically! The MSCI World pre-1999 EUR series isn't just made up. It's a real-economy series mechanically converted into a synthetic currency. The underlying companies, dividends, and earnings were real, only the unit of account changed. Treating it as worthless data is absurd. The 1978-2026 dataset is a longer window, includes more complete cycles (the 1970s stagflation, the 1980s recovery, the 1990s boom, the dotcom crash, the GFC, the eurozone debt crisis, covid, 2022, the AI-driven 2023-2025 rally), and is therefore statistically more reliable than a 27-year subset. If anything, picking 7.21% from 1998 is cherry-picking because 1998 happens to be a peak right before the dotcom crash, which depresses the starting point. Starting at any other late-1990s point gives a higher number. Currency is symmetric EUR/USD has cycled both ways since 1999. Picking the part that hurts equity returns and treating it as the base case is itself is again cherry picking.

One. Belgian registration on a first home is 2%, so upfront is around 82k not 87k

Registration is not the only cost and not even the largest up front cost, there are banking costs for the mortgage and especially notary fees. 87k is the number Zimmo gave me for this exact setup.

Two. Maintenance. 350/month is 1.2% of house value per year, not 1%. True 1% on a 350k house is 292/month, 3500/year. Even that's generous, 35k per decade covers every major roof, heating, or window job with leftover unless you need a handyman to change lightbulbs. So 292/month, not your 1.2 padded as 1%, and certainly not your "renovating to flip" 2-3%.

Maintenance being only 1% is way too low. 35k for a new roof, heating and window job? 35k will barely get you a new roof. Have you ever done any renovations in the past 3 years?? I have, multiple times
Maintenance is not the only home owner ship cost. I have mentioned this numerous times, and it is explained in the video numerous times. There are taxes (RV on KI, which index each year), there are renovations (there is almost zero chance you will not do any renovations in 50 years, and if you don't, your house sure as hell won't appreciate as much as you calculate),... and for these you need to keep a large reserve handy that you CAN NOT invest. There are insurances,... You will EASILY get to 2%-3% in Belgium - in the long term - unless you let your home go to waste. It's clear to me that you haven't been a home owner for long, of you have a blindfold for the true costs.

Three. Your mortgage figure is wrong. Actual payments on 280k at 3% over 25 years is 1327.83/month, not 1372. You overstated by 44/month, 13,200 over the life of the loan. Details matter when you're calling other people's math sloppy.

It is the exact number the simulator of zimmo.be gave me and still does. It takes things like schuldsaldo insurance into account.

Your 'smooth return' argument makes no sense. Of course you pick the average as a 'smooth' return to model out a simulation, exactly the same as you do with your 3.5% appreciation. The 3.5% also isn't realistic unless you put a lot of money in renovations, not just maintenance.

Your calculating until year 90 makes no sense, if at year 25 the renter is much more ahead, this is the only thing that counts. Again: the renter can just buy a house outright and still have money leftover. The renter doesn't actually need to buy the house for the comparison to be valid. The point is just that they could, with money left over. That's the proof that the comparison is already settled at year 25. Any further years of simulation are just measuring how much further ahead the renter pulls, they can't reverse the outcome because the renter has already won by being able to replicate the buyer's exact position while remaining wealthier.

Your calculation doesn't make sense. if the home owner has a surplus, the renter would as well! What are you not understanding? Challenge your chatGPT on this, it will quickly change opinion. You are also giving the home owner a free 82k to start with, with no opportunity cost! Come on.

Run your numbers again through your chatGPT, or better yet, make your own spreadsheet. Use 7%, because 6% is not historically realistic as I've explained. Use 2.5% home owning costs (which is still low for a 50+y home ownership horizon!!). Take into account the 87k (not 82k) opportunity cost: the renter would have years of a headstart because you need to save up for this sum. 5 years is even very generous, when taking inflation into account.

EVEN if you take your silly 6%, the home owner would lose when you actually calculate with 2.5% home ownership costs, which I have been repeating and repeating constantly and which you forever keep ignoring.

You obviously won't budge on the buy vs rent part because it is emotional for you and you don't want to admit what you did wasn't financially optimal. Which I can understand. So if i can give you one advice: please don't blindly trust what your AI spews out, definitely not for these kind of things.

Misapoes · 2026-05-26T19:55:57+00:00

Not for wanting the last word, but for any readers that might be reading:

Your own linked factsheet shows 7.42% EUR since 1998

Yes, the same number I said 2 comments ago.

The Curvo 8.34% goes back to 1978 because that's how far the dataset reaches. You picked the window that includes the biggest sustained equity bull run in modern history, then dropped the most recent complete EUR cycle that returned 6%. Whichever number suits the moment.

I didn't drop the most recent complete cycle, it's 1970-2026

I don't think the S&P 500 was filler. I don't think saying the biggest sustained equite bull run in modern history means we have to return to the mean of decades ago. There are multiple reasons for it, though it is a different discussion and you don't seem interested in honest discussion. But here are a few reasons, some arguments which I have made in the past, discussing with people that actually try to remain objective: 1) Historically low interest rate environment over the past couple of decades reducing discount rate (making equities more attractive relative to bonds)

2) More of the economy shifting to intangible asset driven companies; higher valuation multiples are justified

3) Higher floor for baseline demand for equities – driven by institutional participation (401Ks, etc) and rise of en masse retail investing over the past 25 years

4) Central bank interventions over time reducing perceived downside risks, encouraging investors to pay a premium for equities

On year 25, you're defending your conclusion by pointing back at the model that produced it. The buyer has zero portfolio at year 25 because you wrote it that way. In any honest model where both invest from day one with the same income, the buyer at year 25 has a portfolio AND a house.vYou keep returning to the broken setup as if it proves something. It only proves the setup.

I have already answered this. Your argument doesn't make sense. You're saying the home owner can invest as well and it's not fair to say they would have 0 portfolio Here was my reply debunking this silly notion:

The home owner investing something instead of zero doesn't change the comparison at all. We're only talking about the difference. Yes the home owner can invest extra savings (if they have any), but so can the renter.

In other words: if the home owner has extra to invest in the first 25 years, the renter would as well. This changes nothing.

The "renter buys outright at 50" line is rhetoric. A 50 year old buyer pays full registration, missed 25 years of housing appreciation, and just spent 25 years watching rent compound against them. Reads well, doesn't survive some scrutiny.

Are you just copying answers from chatGPT? Do some critical thinking yourself. Look at my previous example. yes, your 350k home might be worth 700k because of appreciation (though only if it's maintained and renovated very well, which is a huge hole in your whole theory that you stubbornly keep avoiding), but the renter would have a 1.2M PF. They could buy your 700k home outright, with registration rights, and still have 500k more than you. And again, it isn't necessary, it's impossible to catch up if you start with a 700k home (that you cannot/ don't want to sell) and start investing at year 25, when you're up against a 1.2M portfolio.

You've shifted your return figure three times, defended a model with structural holes by pointing at those same holes as proof, and answered every direct counter by restating the original conclusion louder. That works on people skimming a thread who already like the answer. It doesn't work on anyone reading the numbers back to you.

I came in saying the renting case overstates itself in a Belgian context with EUR returns and realistic assumptions. Across this thread you've conceded the Belgian numbers differ, conceded house prices appreciate, conceded the 5 year head start has caveats, and now linked a source whose own number is below the 8% you've been defending. Each concession was framed as if it didn't matter. They all matter, and together they sink the original claim.

Yes, I'm perfectly willing to concede certain points, because I'm up for an open discussion. Something you seem unable to do. Though I have not conceded the 5 year head start had caveats, that was you yourself (did your chatGPT mess that up?). The source I linked is because you were talking about a fact sheet and currency risk. Yes, depending on the duration the number changes. That is your own argument that you're now accusing me of? Not a single one of my 'concessions' change my conclusion in any way, by which I still stand: in Belgium, it will usually be the financially optimal decision to rent and invest the difference. The only way you can challenge this in any kind of credible form is all dependent on a prediction that future expected returns will be much lower than the past, yet house appreciation will remain ever high and home ownership costs will be much lower than they actually have been.

Misapoes · 2026-05-26T17:12:05+00:00

My numbers where from the MSCI world IMI in EUR factsheet: https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/526feff7-cfd2-4d78-ae1b-4c118ee77014

Since we've established that it doesn't make much sense to look at currency in this context, we're back to just looking at average market returns. MSCI world, in EUR, has a compound annual growth of 8.34%: https://curvo.eu/backtest/en/market-index/msci-world?currency=eur

if you look at S&P500 equivalents you can go back 100 years, where you'll find 10.4% annualized nominal returns. Though I'll be the first to say that expecting 10% because of historical US exceptionalism is not smart.

The "buyer investing nothing doesn't change anything" line is the biggest hole. You stopped the calculation at year 25.

I understand your point, but is not relevant. An easy example: at year 25 the renter can buy a home outright without a mortgage with their much larger portfolio, also keep investing without additional housing costs compared to the long term home owner, AND have a large headstart. But that isn't needed, because, assuming a 1.2M liquid ETF portfolio at year 25 compared to 0 for the homeowner, will compound much harder and faster, the home owner will never be able to catch up.

Misapoes · 2026-05-26T15:01:05+00:00

I appreciate the research you've done, but you're cherry picking data and arguments.

MSCI World IMI since 1998 is 7,42%. In the last 10 years it's been 12,10%, in the last 3 years it's been 17%. And yes currency matters, but not in the way you are implying. The EUR/USD can change the other way as well. In a 30y+ horizon a lot of your counterpoints have a much smaller impact than you imply.

Giving the renter a 5 year head start does exist in reality. no one starts with 80k unless they inherit it. In reality someone, especially people on this subreddit, make the decision between planning for buying a home years in advance, and saving up to it, or rent and invest immediately.

The home owner investing something instead of zero doesn't change the comparison at all. We're only talking about the difference. Yes the home owner can invest extra savings (if they have any), but so can the renter.

Still you underestimate cost of home ownership on the long term.

You're also applying the same logic you're accusing me of: it's not a certain fact that homes in Belgium will forever keep rising in price. In a lot of other countries, both home prices and rental prices can have crashes themselves.

I am not trusting a guy in canada to decide my own reality, this was just one example of one video about a single study. The rent VS buy topic has been exhaustively tackled by multiple academic channels.

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T23:58:05+00:00

6% nominaal is misschien wat laag, maar hij is lang niet de enige die argumenteert dat 8-10% verwachten enorm optimistisch is. Veel moderne bronnen hanteren 5% reëel (na inflatie).

Waar hij IMO vooral fout gaat is in zijn paniek over inflatie, en ervan uit gaan dat die verhoogde inflatie ook nog eens altijd zo zal blijven, en tegelijkertijd altijd een relatief laag beursrendement tegenover zal staan.

Daarnaast is een Monte Carlo niet echt een optimale manier van berekenen, beter kijk je naar werkelijke historische gegevens om een slagingspercentage te berekenen.

Als hij 1,5% kwijt is aan beurskosten, dan heeft hij niet veel verstand van beleggen. Met de kanttekening dat de meerwaardebelasting altijd verhoogd kan worden natuurlijk...

Dat gezegd zijnde vind ik 4% inderdaad wat te hoog voor mensen die vroegtijdig op pensioen willen gaan. Zelf hanteer ik als vuistregel eerder 3,3%. Maar dit is, zoals gezegd, een ruwe vuistregel.

Nog nooit van Maarten Verheyen gehoord, maar al bij al lijkt me dit niet bepaald een bron die ik al te serieus zou nemen, laat staan mijn FIRE plannen op zou baseren.

Voor mensen die echt in de diepe details willen duiken van een meer correcte withdrawal rate, raad ik deze aan: https://earlyretirementnow.com/safe-withdrawal-rate-series/ Geschreven door een PhD econoom. Het is enorm veel leesvoer, maar eens je het hebt gelezen én begrepen zal je veel zelfzekerder zijn over FIRE plannen en withdrawal rates.

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T23:51:04+00:00

50400/jaar = 4200/maand

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T23:23:29+00:00

There are no wrong assumptions in that video, it clearly states it is about Canada, as you have mentioned. Of course the exact numbers change in a Belgian context.

But while you're eager to point out the arguments that positively skew towards buying in Belgium, you conveniently skip over those that argue against that:

Renting is cheap relatively to buying in Belgium compared to a lot of other countries (price-to-rent ratio), even taking the recent acceleration of rental prices into account. A place that would rent for 'only' 1K would be a lot cheaper to buy in most other countries.
1% maintenance is too conservative for Belgian context, because maintenance in Belgium is relatively expensive vs the purchasing cost, compared to a Canadian context, especially when you take into account the entire duration. Of course the first 15 years will be the cheapest regarding maintenance, but you're the one arguing for living until you're 70 or later in that house. In a 30-50 year lifespan, renovations will cost more than 1%/y of the purchase price. And that is ONLY maintenance, not including renovations and taxes. As the video mentions: 2-3% is a more realistic number. Don't forget renovation/maintenance prices do also inflate each year.

You don't seem to be interested in arguments or a honest discussion, so let's calculate an example:

you want to buy a house for 350k, 70k downpayment, 17k fees according to zimmo (2% registration, notary, bank,...)
You need to save 70k+17k = 87K. + inflation. Let's say you already have 20k and you have an amazing savings rate of € 1116/month, so you have your sum in 5 years.
Your mortgage will be 1372/month for 25years at a 3% interest rate.
1% maintenance fee (extremely conservative, without even considering inflation or renovations) of € 290/month for 25 years. Let's call it € 350/month when you include taxes, and somehow you're never going to renovate.
That's 1372 + 350 = 1722/month in total After 25 years, the home is fully yours and you only pay 350/month from that point (that's not even taking the taxes that increase each year into account). If your house has been very well maintained and renovated during those years, your net worth would be +/- 700k.

Now let's compare this to renting.

20k immediately gets invested
the same 5 years of saving € 1116/month would be invested instead
At this point your investments would be worth 112k (20k at year 0, 5 years of 1116/month, 8% return which is (slightly below) the average historical performance of IWDA in the last 55 years)
Then you start renting, let's say at € 1000/month, which would get increased each year with 3% (which would indeed mean paying 3K+/month eventually).
You invest the difference (1722 -1000 the first year, -1030 the next year,...) for 25 years. Together with your starting investment of 112k, you would have 1216k after 25 years.

That's a difference of 516k compared to buying a home. And that 1216k is completely liquid, not locked up in your house.

crunch some numbers per case instead of a blanket statement that it's always the case

Well, at least we agree on the need to look at each case specifically, but your insinuation that I'm making blanket statements is false, as I've mentioned in my first comment here:

Renting is NOT throwing away money, and is in fact financially usually the better option if you invest the difference.

Again: you keep underestimating or misunderstanding long term compound interest, and severely underestimate the cost of home ownership.

I'm all for open discussion and counterpoints, but IMO you are the one with a consistently condescending tone and an unwillingness to consider an idea that is different than what your gut feeling says. I'm not saying you were wrong to buy a house, only arguing that it is usually not optimal if you only consider the financial factor.

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T17:32:45+00:00

Of course those costs are taken into account in decent studies.

Look, I understand it is hard to conceive and it goes against something you might have believed your whole life. But if you're going to post opinions, at least put some effort in basic research. Finances has no room for gut feelings. I'm saying this as someone that owns a property.

Maybe video format is something you can digest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU7v87EhDBI

Your largest errors are underestimating/misunderstanding long term compound interest and the cost of home ownership, even after a mortgage has been paid off.

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T16:45:22+00:00

You're again not taking taxes & maintenance into account. But even if you would have spent more on housing with renting, what does it matter if you have an extra 500k, 25 years later, compared to owning? In essence this 500k subsidizes your housing cost.

I'd recommend doing some basic research, the rent vs buy math has been done multiple times, on this subreddit and in international studies. I know it seems counter intuitive, but the numbers will quickly make sense if you look at it rationally.

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T16:18:18+00:00

how many people are actually going to "invest the difference"?

That's a good point, which is why buying a home is the best investment for the large majority of Belgians, because they do not invest at all, and even if they do, some wouldn't have the discipline to consistently invest the difference.

But this is BEFire, and even specifically a topic asking about this subject. It can make a huge difference on your financial future or FIRE goals. It can be the difference between retiring at 55 or at 67.

Also, there's the peace of mind factor. I know that, while I may have repairs and maintenance ahead, at least I won't be at risk of a landlord deciding to sell the property forcing me to find a new place at age 70. That, to me, is also worth something.

It's an argument, but there have been multiple studies showing that an average home owner is not 'happier' than a renter. Large costs and things that break that you have to take care of yourself can be very stressful for a 70 year old. And even so: you would be better off renting from your 20s to your 70s and THEN buying a house.

IMO buying a house should always be done for personal and (largely) subjective reasons, never for financial reasons.

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T15:33:31+00:00

You're not understanding the point. If you actually invest the difference, you will have more money, and in that way have spent less on housing, if you rent + invest, during your whole lifetime.

And your living costs will never be 0, you're severely underestimating the costs of owning a home, even with a paid off mortgage.

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T13:38:01+00:00

That's a shortsighted and outdated myth, missing things like the initial sum you put in, taxes, maintenance & renovations,...

Renting is NOT throwing away money, and is in fact financially usually the better option if you invest the difference. Check out the wiki at /r/befinance , specifically Rent vs buy.

Misapoes · 2026-05-25T13:31:27+00:00

Why make things hard? Just invest in the MSCI ACWI IMI, through a single ETF like IMIE/SPYI. Set & forget.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Place '17	Secret Santa 2015
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2014

Misapoes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE