EIMI

RiskBeforeReturn

I think you're asking the right question now, but I'd still reverse the order slightly. Rather than asking whether you should add a developed-markets ETF, first decide what geographic allocation you actually want for the next 30+ years. Right now CSPX + EIMI isn't simply a two-fund portfolio. It's an allocation decision: US large caps + emerging markets, with most other developed markets largely absent. That isn't necessarily wrong. The important question is whether it's intentional. If you want broader global exposure, then adding developed markets outside the US is one way to complete that structure. Another approach would be using a broader global fund as the core and only adding separate regional exposure where you deliberately want a tilt. But I wouldn't add Europe, Japan or anything else simply because it looks like a "gap" on a map. A portfolio doesn't need to own every possible market. It needs an allocation you understand and can stick with. \-With a 30+ year horizon, I'd write down three things before buying anything: \-What percentage do I want in the US? \-What percentage do I want in other developed markets? \-What percentage do I want in emerging markets? Then choose the simplest set of funds that produces that exposure. That also gives you something much more useful than another ETF: a target allocation you can rebalance back to for decades.

DadiStefanoni

Understood! Yeah, I get that time in the market beats timing the market, but I was mainly trying to decide if it's better to stick with what I have now or add that 3rd Developed World ETF to cover Europe/Japan/Pacific before deploying the capital. If you were in my shoes with this €50k, would you just keep it simple and deploy it into CSPX + EIMI now, or build out that Developed World leg first? Curious how you'd personally approach it.

DadiStefanoni

The €50k I mentioned is purely for investing, I already have a separate emergency fund set aside in my bank account that I won't touch. Regarding CSPX and EIMI, my plan is to hold them for a long-term horizon (30+ years). I chose S&P 500 and Emerging Markets because I believe in their long-term growth potential, but to be honest, I’m not as familiar with ETFs for the rest of the developed market (like Europe or Japan/Pacific). Do you think it's worth adding developed market ETFs to cover that gap alongside CSPX + EIMI, or perhaps sticking to just my two already chosen ETFs.

RiskBeforeReturn

Before changing the ETFs, I'd separate two questions that are getting mixed together here: \-Is the money currently sitting in your bank actually long-term investment capital? \-And if it is, what portfolio do you want that money to become part of? At 22, a long time horizon can be a major advantage, but that doesn't mean every euro in cash should automatically go into equities. Keep money for emergencies and anything you may need in the next few years separate. For the genuinely long-term portion, I'd think in terms of exposure rather than asking what looks good in the market right now. CSPX + EIMI gives you exposure to the S&P 500 and emerging markets, but that also means you've made a deliberate choice to leave out much of the developed world outside the US. That may be intentional. It may not be. The useful question is whether that allocation reflects the geographic exposure you actually want, rather than whether those two ETFs happen to be performing well today. If your horizon is measured in decades, I'd be very cautious about redesigning a long-term portfolio around what the market looks like in September 2026. Decide what you want to own, why you want to own it, and under what circumstances you'd change the allocation. Then today's market becomes much less important.

iamthestorm

For now! Who knows what will happen.  Personally it helps me sleep at night better as my portfolio is mostly CSPX, EIMI and EXUS. Take care of yourself.