It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
+1Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no
An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?
An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no
are-two-cryptos-better-than-one-6040-portfolio?Given crypto’s extreme volatility, instead of sourcing from broad equities, an investor could pull from the riskiest areas of the equity sleeve like innovative growth companies. One might assume that the cryptocurrencies have a higher correlation to riskier stocks. However, bitcoin and ether’s correlation to the broad growth index from July 2020 through June 2024 is similar to the broad global index, ranging from 0.33 to 0.82, so this avenue likely wouldn’t result in a different outcome.
Bitcoin and ether’s galactic returns may be compelling to investors, but their volatility can have a colossal impact on a standard 60/40 portfolio, and diversifying within crypto still leads to a heightened risk profile. Their newfound accessibility through ETFs has many investors eager to add one or both cryptocurrencies to their portfolios, but one must be aware of how they change the risk composition
At present, do we all have a favorite LCV Fund that we can reallocate LCG outsized gains?while value and growth stocks might seem the unlikeliest rebalancing opportunity, as they are subsegments of the same investment universe, their fortunes have substantially diverged. In 2022, the Morningstar US Growth Index shed 36.7% of its value, while the US Value index lost less than 1.0%. That was the opportunity that rebalancing seized
I try to discipline myself to "milk" the cow when I am blessed with a 20% + gain (YTD) in my portfolio...where to put it is the more difficult question.in this universe, as opposed to the alternative world of hypothetical studies, assets don’t regularly record the same long-term returns. Which begs the question: Over that same 9.5-year period, using the same portfolio assumptions, what was the actual benefit of rebalancing?
Not much, as it turns out.
Swapping between growth and value stocks remained helpful. Otherwise, though, rebalancing reduced the portfolios’ returns.
when-rebalancing-creates-higher-returns-and-when-it-doesnt?The rebalanced portfolio may forgo some gains, but it will not surrender its relative safety. Consequently, the risk/return trade-off remains intact. That said, there may, in fact, be a trade-off, rather than an unambiguous benefit. Rebalancing can provide a free lunch—but, as this column has shown, it does not always do so.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla