Foreword:

An investment reserve can be a great thing, it smoothes out volatility and in extreme phases you have the opportunity to implement something meaningful in your portfolio, which has a very calming effect psychologically.

Unfortunately, the expected additional return from buy the dip often fails to materialize, as the opportunity costs eat everything up again.

Very nicely described here by Gerd Kommer:

https://gerd-kommer.de/buy-the-dip/

But what if we turn a few screws, don't hold our investment reserves in cash and buy leveraged?

I have thought too much about this topic and built a model for a war chest, which I am also implementing myself.

Building up the reserve:

Investment Reserve

-------------------------------------------

EURO

10.0% Money Market / 0-1y Bonds EUR $CSH2 (-0,02 %)

10.0% Inflation linked Gov. Bonds $IBCI (+0,16 %)

10.0% German Gov. Bonds 7+Y $X03G (+0,59 %)

-------------------------------------30%

US Dollar

10.0% Money Market / 0-1y Bonds USD $XFFE (-1,26 %)

10.0% Inflation linked Gov. Bonds $XTIP (-3,08 %)

10.0% US Gov. Bonds 7-10Y $US7 (-2,35 %)

-------------------------------------30%

Swiss Franc

20.0% Swiss Gov.Bonds 7-10Y $CH0440081393 (+0,35 %)

-------------------------------------20%

Swiss Gold

20.0% Gold $EWG2 (+0,67 %)

-------------------------------------20%

==========100%==========

The reserve must be structured in such a way that it is not torn apart in a crisis. In the best-case scenario, parts of the reserve should even rise during crises.

This is why part of it consists of government bonds; in economic crises, interest rates are generally lowered, which is why long-term bonds should rise. Currency crises are also conceivable, which is why we diversify across currencies. (EUR / USD and CHF)

As inflationary phases can certainly occur, I have decided to include inflation-indexed government bonds and gold.

The total of 4% in money market funds exists in order to have a volatility-free position.

This reserve is not a standalone, it should be seen as part of a global portfolio and can make up between 10% and 30% of the total portfolio.

It is not intended to generate returns, but merely to compensate for inflation and to remain stable in value during crises.

The strategy:

As an anchor point we use the all-time high of the $ACWI (USD) from -10% we invest step by step. We try to buy the ACWI with increasing leverage. As there is no 2x ACWI, FTSE All-World, MSCI World or similar, we have to build our own as best we can. I don't want to use certificates because they have a counterparty risk. That's why I only use ETFs and ETCs.

Mode 1 ACWI -10% - Lev. 1.25x - Correction

5.00% MSCI USA 2X Lev. $CL2 (+0,89 %)

11.0% World ex USA $EXUS (+1,58 %)

4.0% Emerging Markets $EIMI (+1,05 %)

-------------------------------------20%

Mode 2 ACWI -20% - 1.82x Lev - Crisis

12.0% MSCI USA 2X Lev. $CL2 (+0,89 %)

6.8% Euro Stoxx 50 2X Lev. $LVE (+1,08 %)

1.7% FTSE 100 2X Lev. $LUK2

4.5% Japan $PRAJ (+1,24 %)

-------------------------------------25%

Mode 3 ACWI -30% - 2.35x Lev - Escalation I

12.0% MSCI USA 2X Lev. $CL2 (+0,89 %)

4.8% Euro Stoxx 50 2X Lev. $LVE (+1,08 %)

1.2% FTSE 100 2X Lev. $LUK2

9.5% Total World 3X Lev.$3VTE

-------------------------------------27,5%

Mode 4 ACWI- 40% - 3x Lev. - Escalation II

27.5% Total World 3X Lev. $3VTE

-------------------------------------27,5%

==========100%==========

Rebalancing

After the crash is before the crash, the investment reserve must be replenished.

After the price has recovered a distance of approx. 60% from the low to the top (ACWI), I would recommend selling all Total World 3X Lev. positions and thus filling the reserve.

The rest of the reserve can then be filled with your savings rates and partial sales of the 2x positions.

Since we do not put the return from this "trade" completely back into the bond, but keep a part of the "Do-It-Yourself-Leveraged-Getto-ACWI", we build up a small leverage over time, at favorable conditions.

Problems and risks:

Especially if it goes down further than 50%, things can get ugly.

In the 2019 financial crisis, for example, we would have made -58%. As a result, the recovery would have taken 1 year longer than if we had bought a normal ACWI. However, in all other corrections (including Corona), we would have come out of the crisis better with this strategy and would have generated an annual outperformance of 1-2% p.a. after tax (varies depending on the period).

In long bull markets, without significant corrections, this strategy underperforms. In sideways markets, we should outperform a 100% equity portfolio due to the interest income.

It is not entirely clear which part of the investment reserve will be sold first and which last. Depending on the nature of the crisis, some shares may rise and others may fall.

If it is a debt crisis, for example, it may not be wise to sell your gold right at the beginning. If it is an economic crisis, long-dated bonds are king, although inflation-linked bonds will probably suffer somewhat.

If you don't want to be caught on the wrong foot here, you can always sell 50% of the best-performing asset and 50% of the worst-performing asset at the same time.

Which wouldn't be a good thing if we had two cycles in quick succession before we had the opportunity to rebalance.

Colorful pictures:

I have recreated the period from 01.01.2018 to 01.01.2025 in ExtraETF.

Unfortunately, you can't currently share the portfolio there, which is why I've used a few screenshots here.

I chose this period because I am familiar with it and it had both negative and positive interest rates. In addition, there were a total of 3 drops of more than 10% and a bond crash.

Note during the negative interest rate phase, the portfolio held no bonds (except the inflation-indexed ones) and instead held negative interest cash.

Here you can see a

100% FTSE-All World $VWCE (+0,64 %) vs

80% FTSE-All World + 20% investment reserve.

Hello dear community,

Recently my portfolio and its logic was presented in an article by Business Insider and analyzed by Konrad Kleinfeld from SPDR. There was some exciting feedback, but of course I would also like to activate your swarm intelligence and get your feedback 🙂

First of all: Although I am pursuing a core-satellite strategy, the "satellite" does not aim to outperform, but is simply for fun and offers room for investments that do not fit into the logic of the core. The satellite consists largely of ETFs (e.g. in commodities, real estate, private equity, REITs, etc.), but only accounts for <10% of the overall portfolio and is not included here.

My goal is broad diversification that goes beyond a pure market capitalization-based index as well as long-term returns.

In doing so, I rely on a rule-based approach and diversify along factors based on the selection criteria of the indices. As I deliberately do not want to make any sector or regional bets in the "core", but instead focus purely on the selection criteria of the indices, the relatively significant dividend block serves to reduce the US lump, as high-dividend companies are more frequently found in Europe.

Since the portfolio is quite granular, the portfolio overview function would be very confusing, so I hope it is easy to understand in text form:

1. MSCI World Block (40%):

$SPPW (-0,02 %) MSCI World (10%)

$XDEM (+0,2 %) MSCI World Momentum (10%)

$XDEQ (+0,97 %) MSCI World Quality (10%)

$XDEV (+0,75 %) MSCI World Value (5%)

$WSML (+0,26 %) MSCI World Small Cap (5%)

Momentum, Quality and Size in the sense of the "normal", market-capitalized MSCI World are weighted slightly higher, as they have historically performed better and should logically perform better in a long-term positive market environment.

2. emerging markets block (20%):

$SPYM (+1,16 %) MSCI Emerging Markets (6.67%)

$SPYX (+1,69 %) MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap (6.67%)

$5MVL (+1,28 %) MSCI Emerging Markets Value (6.67%)

⚠ There are currently no ETFs on the MSCI EM Quality and MSCI EM Momentum indices that are available in UCITS form and tradable in Europe. Therefore, the logic of the EM block does not yet exactly reflect the structure of the World block. As soon as these ETFs are available, the block will be adjusted accordingly. Consequently, the "normal" MSCI EM as well as the value factor and small caps are currently equally weighted here.

3rd Dividend block (30%):

$VHYL (+1,1 %) FTSE All-World High Dividend Yield (5%)

$TDIV (+2,01 %) Developed Markets Dividend Leaders (10%)

$ISPA (+1,13 %) Global Select Dividend 100 (10%)

$ZPRG (-0,81 %) S&P Global Dividend Aristocrats (5%)

As mentioned, this block serves 1) to reduce the US lump, is also distributing and thus provides cash flow, which 2) is used for rebalancing at the end of the year (so I don't have to spend any additional capital on this, which has a psychological effect for me) and 3) the monthly distributions motivate me to continue investing intensively. In addition, 4) the tax-free allowance is utilized without having to actively sell shares in the other "blocks". The top 10 holdings of the individual ETFs differ greatly here despite the common denominator of "high yield". However, the financial sector is a large lump. The weighting here is derived from the high yield and diversification in the sense of complementing the other "blocks" (i.e. little tech and little US).

4. hedge bonds (10%):

$IBCI (+0,16 %) Euro Inflation Linked Government Bond (10%)

My equity allocation is (roughly) based on the rule "120 minus age", so 10% is currently left for bonds. The purpose of a bond block in the portfolio is stabilization and further diversification. With shares, I give a company capital, i.e. I become a stakeholder in the company. Corporate bonds have the same logic, because here I am also giving capital to companies. That's why I opted for government bonds in the eurozone. TIPS have performed comparatively well here in the past and the logic of inflation-linked interest rates also appeals to me.

📈 Additional considerations:

1. i deliberately do without the "Low / Min Volatility" factor, as i assume a rising market in the long term and would like to participate more in the positive phases instead of reducing the vola.

2) I don't see overlaps between ETFs as a problem, but rather as a deliberate overweighting of companies that fulfill several criteria at the same time. Of course, many companies currently overlap in the classic MSCI World and the Quality and Momentum variants. However, the selection criteria are different and as soon as a company no longer meets the quality criteria, for example, it automatically drops out of the index and the weighting is reduced without me having to actively do anything about it.

3) I have actively decided not to invest in a multi-factor ETF because I want to have transparent control over the allocation of the individual factors and many of the factor ETFs available combine the selection criteria underlying the individual factors in such a way that the corresponding product would have performed well in the past, which of course represents a hindsight bias and does not necessarily correlate with future performance.

💡 To those of you who have read this far:

First of all, thank you for your time! The portfolio is intended to dynamically reflect a section of the market that could develop positively in a diversified manner based on the different selection criteria of the indices, without taking bets on specific sectors or regions. What do you think of the allocation and the strategy? Do you see any room for improvement or things you would do differently?

Thanks for reading, showing interest and thinking along. 😊

#etfs
#portfolio
#portfoliocheck