3D·

Portfolio conversion

Hello, I am currently considering changing my portfolio and switching to a core-satellite strategy.

My main part should be the $SPPW (+0.6%) with approx. 45%. After that, dividend stocks will follow: $NOVO B (+2.41%) with 10%, $O (-2.05%) with 5%, $MO (-1.05%) with 5%, $MAIN (-1.78%) 5% and $PG (-1.12%) at 10%.

The growth values should consist of $NVDA (+0.78%) , $AAPL (+0.28%) , $2330 and $ASML (+1.56%) with 5% each.

Would you sign this or would you change something?

Table with values for an easier overview:

MSCI World SPDR - 45%

Novo Nordisk - 10%

Realty Income - 5%

Altria - 5%

Main Street Capital - 5%

Procter & Gamble - 10%

Nvidia - 5%

Apple - 5%

TSMC - 5%

ASML - 5%

Changes I have made so far:

Reduce Novo nordisk and procter & gamble to 5% r and add 5% gold and btc each.

14 Comments

DividendenAlpaka@DividendenAlpaka

My inner Monk has determined that 5% is still missing...
Otherwise, I share the motto that no individual value should exceed the 5% threshold.

•

financial_ninja_1301@financial_ninja_1301

@DividendenAlpaka I didn't even notice the 5%... but thank you.
What would you do with $PG and $NOVO B? Just to 5% but then where to put it?
Would you also not make the ETF position above 5%?

••

DividendenAlpaka@DividendenAlpaka

The ETF can easily be over 5%. However, I would limit $PG and $NOVO B to a maximum of 5%. You can think about $BTC or gold instead.

••

financial_ninja_1301@financial_ninja_1301

@DividendenAlpaka Would you buy BTC AND gold or just one of the two (either one at 10% or both at 5% each) or the ETF at 40% and one at 10% and the other at 5%?

••

DividendenAlpaka@DividendenAlpaka

I personally prefer 5% in each case. But what applies to me does not necessarily apply to you. After all, I'm not an investment advisor. Important: Do your own research and adapt your strategy to your personal needs.

•

Audiemus@Audiemus

@DividendenAlpaka Interesting, I see 100%

••

financial_ninja_1301@financial_ninja_1301

@Audiemus i changed the percentages because it was actually wrong, i had the etf at 40%

•

Aktien-Investor@Aktien-Investor

@DividendenAlpaka I also share the view that no single stock in an ETF should exceed the 5% threshold... it makes no sense that the 10 largest positions in a 1,600 share ETF together account for >25%...

•

Ozzel@Ozzel

A big change - switching to a clear core-satellite structure definitely makes sense, especially if you are planning for the long term and want to get a better overview.

The core with 45% in the SPPW (MSCI World) is solid and broad enough to serve as a foundation. This gives you a global positioning and allows you to capture market growth - it fits.

The dividend side looks well balanced: With Novo Nordisk you have quality, with $O and $MAIN stability in the US market, and $MO as a cash flow machine brings a little more risk, but also a decent return. $PG rounds off the whole thing defensively - so overall a balanced dividend segment with a mix of quality and cash flow.

The growth side is also strong: Nvidia, Apple, ASML and TSMC are all heavyweights in their fields and technological leaders. The weighting of 5% each looks sensible - this way you bring innovation into your portfolio without leveraging too much.

Something you could consider depending on your risk profile:
- Add a little emerging markets or health/defense/tech as thematic ETFs to give the satellites an even broader base.
- Alternatively, if dividends are particularly important to you, you could at some point supplement SPPW proportionally with a World High Dividend ETF, for example.

Otherwise: clear structure, sensible weighting, long-term resilience. Can definitely be endorsed.

•

All-in-or-nothing@All-in-or-nothing

I would do a lot ändern🤷🏼‍♂️

••

financial_ninja_1301@financial_ninja_1301

@All-in-or-nothing what then

••

All-in-or-nothing@All-in-or-nothing

First of all: apart from the fact that you wrote Core-Satellite, I don't recognize any real strategy.

Your satellites are a colorful bunch of companies, some are round-trip bets (Novo), some are reliable dividend payers, others are real growth companies. The basic idea behind the satellites is to push your performance, but I don't see that happening with many of the stocks you mentioned.

The portfolio is not very diversified, as it simply only contains equities (1 of various possible asset classes).

As far as the percentage weighting is concerned, I am happy to agree in principle with the previous speakers regarding a maximum of 5% for individual stocks.

Finally, I am simply not a fan of artificially clumping my own risk by adding the largest stocks of a core ETF to my portfolio as individual stocks. In fact, with the percentage weighting you're aiming for, you're already above the maximum 5% per individual stock mentioned above😉

••

financial_ninja_1301@financial_ninja_1301

@All-in-or-nothing I have the core with the etf and then I have 5 dividend shares next to it. The other 4 are there to give the whole portfolio some growth.
Due to the previous comment from another person, I have now reduced the two dividend positions from 10% to 5% and then added 5% gold and 5% bitcoin each.
I have added Nvidia and Apple as individual stocks, despite the fact that they are already represented in the etf, in order to boost growth in general.

••

All-in-or-nothing@All-in-or-nothing

@financial_ninja_1301 My comments above still apply. Even 5% BTC and 5% gold will not contribute significantly to their intended purpose. Gold is intended to stabilize a portfolio or reduce the MaxDD of a portfolio, while BTC is primarily intended to generate as much return as possible with higher volatility. So 90% of your portfolio is still only in equities (1 single asset class). This means that if the market really goes down, your portfolio will go down almost 1:1 antreten🤷🏼‍♂️.

I am primarily concerned with an awareness of largely uncorrelated assets in order to achieve the most attractive risk/reward profile possible.

You may be right on target with your doubling in the ETF and the individual stocks in terms of "more growth", but again: you are artificially increasing your risk and the dependency of your entire portfolio on the price movements of individual stocks.

And, but of course this is also just my personal opinion: I would rather see a core as at least 50% of the portfolio. Keep it simple!

I still don't think the satellites you listed are the right way to achieve a real excess return. Then you might as well just take a distributing All World ETF if you want dividends and the market return, it's less effort and less of a headache.

••