No offense but how would you like to monitor 139 stocks in your portfolio? Moreover, many have such a small weighting that they are irrelevant. ETFs all make no sense because everything is double and triple. Everyone has a different strategy and that's totally ok, but would limit myself to 1-2 max. 3 ETFs in your place and reallocate. And clean up all the small positions.
••
@MR1609 the small positions cost me just again partly high order fees while they are now a cost-free (TER of ETFs mostly 0.10 -0.25%) "admixture" and partly would also be interesting to see how the individual values have developed - looking back in 20-50 years. I have entered the portfolio on Getquin and Parqet and therefore see the 30-40 relevant larger positions constantly.
Double and triple the ETFs are not, because some have currency differences, others are Equal Weight (S&P 500 = each company 0.25% share), etc. In many ETFs (MSCI world / FTSE All world) I do not like the high U.S. share and the incredible cluster risks emanating from the top 10 positions (FAANG). Nevertheless, there would certainly be some interesting candidates for which one could free up capital by selling the small positions. Currently, however, I have sufficient liquidity deposited, so I wait for now.
Double and triple the ETFs are not, because some have currency differences, others are Equal Weight (S&P 500 = each company 0.25% share), etc. In many ETFs (MSCI world / FTSE All world) I do not like the high U.S. share and the incredible cluster risks emanating from the top 10 positions (FAANG). Nevertheless, there would certainly be some interesting candidates for which one could free up capital by selling the small positions. Currently, however, I have sufficient liquidity deposited, so I wait for now.
••