SCHD
Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
stock NYSE ETF

The new post looks like a typical bad portfolio rather than outright trolling, so it has been approved.
You would actually be better off with a 75/25 dropping the QQQM and SCHD. Neither one is a good part of a portfolio individually and in combination they largely cancel out tilts, leaving you with something like a total U.S. equity market except for higher costs and worse diversification.
(Regarding your aside about growth, QQQM isn’t actually a growth fund and you don’t actually want a growth fund because “growth “ as an investment style doesn’t mean what you probably think it does—it’s closer to the opposite)

When the dollar drops by 10% in a year holding cash is fucking idiotic.
Invest abroad. VOO up 17%. Euro markets? 38%. Latin America? 48%. S Korea? 100%.
The US market is shit outside of AI/chips. Small and mid cap funds turned around 7-10% last year in a bull market that even ETF’s like VOO barely profitable if you count the global loss in value of the currency.
Better to have that cash in Gold and SCHD or EWY. Reminds me, gonna ditch my last 5k of that turd and buy more stock in less stupid countries.

Impossible to answer. Do you have a pension? Are you taking Social Security? What percent of your monthly expenses are covered by guaranteed income? Do you have a separate emergency fund?
If you have already retired, I would avoid risk but .. include some exposure to growth. Assuming 75% of your current income is guaranteed, I would suggest 30% SP500 and the rest in a dividend fund like SCHD. That should generate about $28,000 a year in dividends while also keeping some modest growth.
More details would help.

I backtested your proposed portfolio vs a simple 2 fund portfolio of 70% SCHG and 30% SCHF. I used QQQ instead of QQQM because they have the same portfolios but QQQ has been around longer. $10,000 invested in Nov. 2011 (the inception date of the newest of the funds, SCHD) with reinvested dividends yielded the following results as of Dec. 2025:
* Portfolio 1: 40% VTI 25% QQQ/QQQM 25% VXUS 10% SCHD = **$68,573** CAGR +14.56%
* Portfolio 2: 70% SCHG 30% SCHF = **$77,342** CAGR +15.53%
https://valueinvesting.io/backtest-portfolio/dRoxuy
I don't think anyone who isn't retired or nearing retirement needs SCHD. Too much opportunity cost.

I am 28 years old and I have just opened a Roth IRA account through fidelity. I am currently enrolled in an employer Roth 401k and put in about $836 per month and that includes company match. Currently sitting at about 52k and it is 100% invested in FXAIX (dividends get reinvested into it).
With my Roth, I am planning to be a little more diverse. I am planning on maxing it out starting this year. Currently looking at the following: 40% into VTI, 25% into QQQM, 25% into VXUS, and 10% into SCHD.
With me being 100% invested in a S&P tracker in my roth 401k, is this a good lineup for my Roth IRA account? Anything different you would do?

I Think it is nice to have Dividend payors in a retirement account... Personally I put in 6k a year into my roth... And then I have VOO(50%)Vangaurds real estate fund forget the ticker(10%)VUG(10%). Then I use SCHD(5%)JEPI(5%)ULTY(5%)MAGY(5%)cash incase(10%) I want to purchase a lump sum of something.
I do this because it allows me to almost triple what my yearly contributions can be

>thanks for proving my point that people here project their own individual perspectives here.
Thanks for completely missing my point that there is no relevant "individual perspective"
If you invest $100, would you rather have it grow into $150 or into $110?
There's an objectively correct answer.
The goal of investing money is to get a good risk-adjusted return. SCHD has objectively done a bad job of that for half a decade.

I would’ve done
SCHG SCHD VTI

Man this isn’t a hard game if you’re a dividend investor your options are many FDVV SCHD VYM VIG DGRO ect all you have to do is put money in and just wait. You’re not going to get far with what you listed

CEFS PBDC SCHD AMLP

Same 0%. Still have growth names, plus traditional dividend payers, MLP, SCHD, DGRO, QQQM.

SCHD

I look at SCHG, and the max growth since inception looks great. It comprises all the best tech stocks, the best growth stocks. Nvidia. Apple. Meta. Amazon. Google. And even SCHG pays a dividend (albeit a tiny one). It has even beaten VOO's returns in the last several years. So, my goal is to own a bunch of SCHG for the growth, and a bunch of SCHD for the dividends. So far, now I own 7 shares of SCHG, 132 shares of SCHD.

I'm about to start doing that once I get a handle on my new paychecks.
So far I can commit $30 bi-weekly and invest on SCHD on my banks brokerage (just so I don't see it)

its only 2.35%? Why not SCHD?

Well considering we have decades (im assuming you do)…VIG. On the surface youll find VYM/VYMI look similar to each other but they are more for those who need the income now (retirees). VIG and SCHD increase their dividends at a very healthy rate. So although youll see returns arent as good as the growth ETFs, its because they increase dividends so that your DRIP snowball keeps growing at a larger rate every year rather than statically. And it WILL take decades for it to matter. But that is what they are designed for. Similarly hiw ETFs are designed for long term growth. You know youre not going to get crazy returns, but it is something *safe* that you can project enough to set a long term goal.

Compare total returns against SCHD your darling.

Honestly this is how it starts. People laugh at cents a day but they forget every meaningful income stream starts tiny. No one wakes up to £50 a day in dividends without going through the boring phase first.
What matters more is that you’re reinvesting and adding consistently. If you keep buying while you’re young, that 38 cents turns into a few dollars a day, then tens, then hundreds. It’s slow and then suddenly it isn’t.
Also dividends aren’t the only win here. SCHD growing plus payouts compounding is doing more work than people realise. Keep stacking, ignore the noise, and check back in 10 years not 10 weeks.

Well…if youre new…id stay away from covered calls, especially if you dont know how to even do the math on dividends. Im not being mean, i applaud your desire to build wealth, but it takes decades and safer strategies. Lets start by looking at QQQI though. I have a few issues for you: its WAY too sector heavy-tech-to be safe for income. I dont like how little history it has. AND its expense ratio is high. Try to lower your tax base. SCHD is 100% qualified and more diverse.

The study is actually massive its called The rate of return on everything and it covered 16 advanced economies, like the US, UK, Australia, Japan, over 145 years. Its the largest project of its kind in history. This was the first time anyone synchronized house prices, rental yields, and inflation globally across a century and a half thats why it achieved the gold standard status.
On your other question about other data, it actually looks a little worse. Almost every other major study confirms this. 
Robert Shiller who won a nobel prize for this found that US house prices didnt really beat inflation at all for the 100 years between 1890 and 1990. The real Inflation adjusted appreciation of US housing was essentially 0%.
The other is ultra famous index in Amsterdam that has tracked the same street since 1628 Even though these are some of the most desirable properties in the world, the real value only doubled over 4 centuries. They found real growth of only 0.2% per year
The other popular one is ​DMS Global Investment Yearbook by I think is by Credit Suisse/UBS This annual report by Professors Dimson, Marsh and Staunton. The world authorities on asset returns. Recently found that since 1900 the quality adjusted real capital gain for residential property was actually -2% in some periods once you account for the cost of maintaining the homes quality.
I agree that a smart buyer can do better by buying below market value. But you have to be careful with that argument. Its the same logic an expert hedge fund manager or day trader would use. They might beat the market but their returns arent accessible to most because they require a specialized skill set and 40+ hours of work a week.
Its actually a point many economists make, people like shiller and william bernstein argue that beating the housing market is less about the investment and more about returns on effort.
For most people housing is a buy and hold asset. If you compare a house to something passive like Gold, SPY or SCHD the difference is massive. With SCHD you get a 3 to 4% yield completely passively the money just hits your account while you sleep. To get an extra return in real estate you have to spend years researching negotiating and managing.  
At that point you have to ask is the extra 2% you made on the house a return on your money, or is it just hourly wage for the hundreds of hours you spent over the years finding the deal.