I am a little concerned by your repeated responses that you want to be FI in 5-7 years and are wondering if a particular proposed fun will get you there. What that sounds like is "will the fund get me high enough returns to get me to my goal in that short a timeframe?" That is exactly the wrong way to look at investing. The reality is, the shorter the timeframe you are working with, the less your rate of return matters, because the power of compounding does not have much time to work. What does matter? The amount you save, compared to the amount you spend. See
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/. It sounds like you're saving somewhere between 60-65% of your net income. That puts you on about a 10-12 year timeframe. Which is still pretty awesome! But if you want to get to 5-7 years, you need to get your savings rate up to 75-80% of your net income.
So don't chase gains. Sure, it might get you there faster -- but it also has a much higher risk of crashing and burning and keeping you at work for another 20 years. Figure out what asset allocation you are comfortable with
for the long-term, figure out what combination of lifestyle and savings rate you are comfortable with for the long-term, and then set it and forget it.
Added bonus: if you have an asset allocation that is appropriate for your risk tolerance, you don't need to change it, ever. IIRC, the 4% rule is based on a long-term asset allocation of 80/20 -- much more aggressive than some folks suggest for retirees, but (a) a 40-50 year retirement requires greater returns over the long-term, and (b) even at that so-called "aggressive" asset allocation, the studies show the long-term results are pretty damn "safe" (i.e., it takes some really, really bad and unusual circumstances to make people run out of money).
One idea that might feel more comfortable to you is to do the ladder idea. What that means is that you keep most of your money in investments, but anywhere from 1-7 years living expenses (depending on your risk tolerance) in CDs or individual bonds. The way you do this: for the first however many years you are working, build up your 'stache of investments in the stock market (VTSAX, or whatever other broad market fund/ETF you choose). Then, when you are a few years out from FIRE, you start funding your ladder. Say you want 3 years' expenses covered: when you are 3 years out from your target FIRE date, you buy enough CDs to cover your expected annual expenses, with a maturity date of 3 years. Then you do the same thing the next year, and the next. When you FIRE, your first set of CDs is maturing, so you cash that in, and you have your living expenses right there in cash. You then sell enough of your investments to buy more CDs that mature in another 3 years to replenish your ladder, so the ladder keeps rolling.
Why is this any different than just making annual withdrawals? Because if the market has crashed,
you don't have to sell -- you have three whole years' expenses saved, so you don't need to worry about it! You just continue to live of of your CDs for up to three years -- without worrying, without feeling like you need to sell in a panic when the market is low, because you have more than enough cash to ride out anything short of the next Great Depression. Then when the market does come back around, you start replenishing the ladder again. Maybe that means now you have to sell more investments to buy two or even three years' worth of CDs -- but that's ok, because now you're selling at a good price again.
I think this approach can be very helpful for people who are nervous about keeping so much in the market and want to feel "safe." For me personally, I like it, because it means I don't have to worry about asset allocation at all -- since I will have several years' of expenses safely covered, I can just put all the rest of my money in VTSAX and let it ride.
