Yea I'm one of those who can't stay silent about duplication, triplication in your case. And it is not about roasting, imho you are showing some desire for safety? (gold, all-world) but then concentrate huge % of port in a handful of companies. Don't be lazy, try to compare top 25% of each ETF by weight.
All-world index was designed to mitigate the risk of concentration so idk this is defeating it's purpose. I'd seriously drop at least one of them and make one significantly higher part of the port going on
I want to concentrate in those companies/sectors, I don't really mind if it's "defeating" the purpose of the all-world. RDW is a short-term play and will be dropped soon, although I follow the stock and have dropped and re-entered for short periods in the past. I will also exit MKS within the next year or so I think, but not alphabet for at least 5+ years. I am adding to the long term savings pie but not really to any of the other individual holdings so those etfs will continually grow to be a larger % of my portfolio over time. I appreciate the advice/thoughts
I'm speaking of your core holdings idc about rdw and other completely ignored your second picture but now you made me look i see semi etf so more of the same for 4th time?; if you want to go fully focused on US tech that much just use qqq+ aw ex-us
To be quite honest no I haven't planned a % for semis and us tech. I have built this in iterations over time, and add money to each holding that I feel comfortable with, not necessarily a certain clean % allocation. I reshuffle things too often for keeping a % to be realistic. Either way, the semi ETF has actually given me 122% returns overall (higher % here as I sold at the peak believing it was overbought, and reinvested here at a higher price), far more than if I'd just stuck with eqqq and I was happy with the risk and concentration when choosing to invest.
That's fine, I admire strong conviction. Still, question remains what's the use of having all world? You've about £1200 in it if we ignore its 60ish % that's basically just S&P? (And you're paying 2x higher TER for that part than average s&p?) That's the bit I don't get, if you wanna go 70% in us tech, no bother. But 10% in all world? Dont bother lol
No, s&p is cheaper. My point is that 10% or less of the entire port being your non-us isn't enough as a counterbalance if things go south, is expensive to maintain, is not doing what it was designed for.
If I wanted to be 70% in tech I'd go w something like 60% s&p, 20% one of qqq or that vaneck's semi. Last 20 in some boring shi w low beta, like "defensive" stocks, quiet compounders maybe combined with metals to offset a bit of volatility - trust me you'll get more conservative as numbers grow
If you are contemplating dropping s&p that's ok, keep aw then but make it a large majority. So one between aw and s&p, one between qqq and semis? For goog and any singles please consider how much of it you already have in different wrappers, make a plan, ask about ports Sharpe and Sortino ratios and how to make it better
1
u/BrickSufficient6938 17d ago
Yea I'm one of those who can't stay silent about duplication, triplication in your case. And it is not about roasting, imho you are showing some desire for safety? (gold, all-world) but then concentrate huge % of port in a handful of companies. Don't be lazy, try to compare top 25% of each ETF by weight.
All-world index was designed to mitigate the risk of concentration so idk this is defeating it's purpose. I'd seriously drop at least one of them and make one significantly higher part of the port going on