DFND

MoschovakisCapital

What do you think about DFND?

mrtrentsd

- VTI, IOO, and SPMO all heavily feature U.S. large-cap tech stocks like Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia. This creates redundancy and reduces diversification. - VDHG includes VGS (global stocks) and VAS (Australian stocks), which partially overlap with IOO and CSL, but also adds bonds—helping balance risk. - HACK and CSL provide non-overlapping exposure to cybersecurity and Australian healthcare, respectively. - DFND may overlap with VTI in defensive U.S. sectors like consumer staples and utilities. Think about: - Reduce VTI or IOO weight to avoid overexposure to U.S. large caps. - Consider adding emerging markets (e.g., VGE) or small-cap international ETFs for broader global exposure. - If you want to keep VDHG, you might not need VTI and IOO at such high weights—VDHG already includes global and domestic equities. I personally only have BRK-B (Baby Berkshire Hathaway) & SCHG. And daytrade TQQQ mostly. 

NormalFucker

Update as per my knowledge Healthcare 25% CSL Clean energy and Minerals 15% ICLN - iShares Global Clean Energy ETF 7.5% LIT - Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF 7.5% Tech infrastructure - 30% HACK - Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF 10% SMH - VanEck Semiconductor ETF 10% NDQ-NASDAQ 100 ETF 0% Defence/Energy 15% DFND - VanEck Global Defence ETF Global Economic Utility 0% 100 - iShares Global 100 AUD ETF U.S. Economic Utility 0% VTI - Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Keep extra as a liquid for opportunity 😁

TestingLifeThrow1z

You're going to underperform the market. To overperform the market, you'd need VTI, QQQ, IOO and you can use spare charge on DFND and HACK. LIT and ICLN are terrible. Healthcare is a hit or a miss and has underperformed the market.

Safe-Breadfruit-1913

Thanks that helps a bit. Based on what you provided EUDF looks like a fine investment. Rheinmetall is probably a big reason for it's overvalued data, which in this case isn't a concern for myself. DFND while I don't have the aggregate data and can't make a solid claim because of that, I think it's composition is reasonable. GE, RTX, and Boeing aren't my favorite stocks but the expose you to US assets is good diversification in a EU defence ETF. If you want just one ETF I would recommend EUDF first and wouldn't advise against including DFND if you want. I would cut that third ETF for sure. Also you don't need to worry about overlap in ETFs or your holdings too much. If you have €100 and invest half in stock AAA and the other half in ETF ZZZ which has 10% AAA it's as though you have €60 in AAA and €40 in the ETF minus AAA. That's ok so long as you're aware of the overlap and account for that. Also legally I am not your financial advisor, this is merely advice from an Internet stranger.

nightwica

Thank you, I really appreciate this! For what it's worth, they have the following companies as a top: €DFND - GE (14%), RTX (10%), Boeing (7%), Airbus, Rolls Roye, Safran, Rheinmetall, Lockheed, General Dyn (in this order of biggest%) €EUDF holds - Rheinmetall (13%), Leonardo (12%), Bae Sytems, Thales, Rolls Roye, Saab, Safran, Airbus, Kongsberg Sorry I didn't type all of them out but these are the main. Lots of overlap as you can see...

Safe-Breadfruit-1913

US investor here, the tools I use to determine if an ETF are worth purchasing aren't working for these because I don't have access to those markets. I could not find anything on DFND one way or plan other and therefore can't make any call one way or another. €EUDF Seems fine and might be a bit overvalued but not to a scary extent considering it's a defence etf and investments are coming through. I'm limited in that I can't see what individual companies it holds or in what proportion but I can get access to the aggregate data. That data is something I wouldn't invest in but if a client wanted it I would not advise against it based on my limited information. €DFEN I would cut this one. Again I am limited in what I can see, in this case I don't have any aggregate data but I do have individual companies and their proportions; funny how that works. I recommend against it because it is very concentrated in a few highly speculative companies. I do not have access to the funds P/E ratio but I'm almost certain that it's very high. A basic strategy I have is to ask these questions: 1. If the company or ETF had this last quarter/year again forever (meaning net income not growth) is this company worth it? 2. Is there any reason why this will do poorly and is it accounted for properly? In this case the reason is no war in Europe and is the EU/US going to invest more into military than last year. The latter seems likely and is priced appropriately for that scenario. IMO

Saelaird

DFND at $7.70... all being well. Not a huge position, just a little tickle, but I'm long for the long term.

mouse_maze

I DO like your answer and appreciate it. Honestly, that was a big post to write and I bet it was to read as well so I appreciate any feedback even if it may not align with my goals. I'm trying to sort out a really big part of my life and having random internet strangers help has a real impact on me and my future. I apologize in advance for countering some of your points because I'm not doing it to be disagreeable, it is just my personal experience has led me to view things a certain way. **re:financial planner** \- I've had lots of these throughout my life. I currently have private banking and one portfolio valued about about $700k or 800k handled by the wealth management division of a large bank in Canada. My experience is that these folks are good at relationships, using big bank risk management tools & allocation, and getting access to analysts/bank recommendations. They are bad at getting ahead of trends, predicting where innovation will happen, and quickly reacting to changes in the market. Despite having put more money and more time into using managed wealth building, my personal portfolio has consistently outperformed and done so drastically. For my personal case, this means that I don't feel working with a financial planner beyond letting them mess with a token amount is a good use of my time. That said, the options you suggested are reasonable and there is no reason I can't do the allocation into any of those myself. MMFs I certainly should be using just for holding cash and I like that you are reminding me of it. The other options could be good for handling a portion of the volatility risk gap I mentioned. I don't have experience with any of those. Perhaps I can find a good ETF that can help. But I think I should only use a portion of the volatility management part in those because I still want some growth. I mentioned DFND as my preferred choice since it has a very low volatility during big dips of the past and reasonable growth. The vanguard total market ETF definitely outperforms, but doesn't seem to do so during a dip. Do you think this is a reasonable view based on my experience? **re:dividends** \- I agree with you that other options perform better (and thanks for the awesome tool! definitely going to use that more). I'm look for regular income though. I already get great growth from the options portfolio I hold. I think dividends might be appropriate for getting regular income. I personally find it hard to take income from holdings designed for capital gains when then market pulls back (whereas dividend funds keep paying regardless). But that might be a mental block that I need to work through. Just so I understand your suggestion, do you think my approach is not good? Or do you think it is reasonable but that solid non dividend focused ETFs is a good tweak that I should at least consider?

PapaCharlie9

You're not going to like my answer, but it might be time to hire a financial planner to help you fill these gaps. I know it's tough to find a good one, but if you find a good one, you'll get the best solution for this problem. What a financial planner would do is ladder your asset allocation for liquidity. You'd have some portion in cash and cash-like instruments (MMFs, T-bills, CDs, etc.), some portion in bonds (1 to 10 year maturities, maybe a barbell heavily weighted to the short maturity end, given the interest rate forecast), some portion in commodities or TIPS for inflation protection, and some portion in broad equity indexes. Nothing targeted at dividends or buy-write. You'd then have a drawdown plan that was crafted to either stretch your money out for a lifetime, even with flexible spending for vacations or major purchases, or to leave you with a estate for after you die. The other thing you are not going to like about my answer is that alt funds (QYLD) and dividends are not the answer. At least, those ETFs aren't. Here is [a backtest over the last 4 years that compares VTI to QYLD and DFND](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=2018&firstMonth=1&endYear=2022&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VTI&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=QYLD&allocation2_2=100&symbol3=DFND&allocation3_3=100). You can see for yourself how much you would have given up by overweighting in those two funds. And that's with dividends reinvested. If you instead intend to spend the dividends, change the reinvesting option to No and see the gap in performance get even bigger.

ChampagneWastedPanda

DFND is way easier to play than LMT