Non trovato

PowerWordChill · 2024-10-29T08:48:19.746393Z

Ab wann ist mein Portfolio diversifiziert? - Sind 30 Aktien Genug? Neulich wurde die Frage gestellt: “Wie viele Werte sollte ein diversifiziertes Depot eurer Meinung nach haben? Freue mich auf eure Meinung hierzu” Und wie es im Internet brauch ist, wurde viel Meinung und Halbwissen daher gebrabbelt. Die Antworten schwanken zwischen: “nur $BTC ” und “30-50” Schaut man in andere Foren, so tauchen Zahlen um die 30 immer wieder auf. Aber wie kommt man auf diese Zahl? Die 30 leiten sich aus dem Zentraler Grenzwertsatz ab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem Allerdings ist diese für uns als Anleger nicht zutreffend. Dieser gilt nämlich nur unter der Annahme, dass man die Stichprobe ZUFÄLLIG auswählt. Diese gilt dann auch nur für das jeweilige Subsegment des Aktienmarktes. Ihr müsstet also 30 zufällige US-Largecaps kaufen und das dann wiederholen für: US MidCaps US SmallCaps International LargeCaps International MidCaps International SmallCaps Emerging Markets Wenn wir also ein diversifiziertes Portfolio aus zufällig ausgewählten Aktien haben möchten, dass als Benchmark den ACWI IMI $SPYI hat, dann benötigen wir mehr als 200 Werte. Beim MSCI World $IWDA wären es ca. 120 Werte, Dies hat mit der Realität wenig bis gar nichts zu tun, da sich Investoren ihre Werte ja nicht zufällig heraussuchen. Durch die Vorlieben und Abneigungen des Investors, wird Selection Bias mit in das System eingebracht. Um diesen auszugleichen, benötigen wir also weit mehr Werte als im vorangegangenen Beispiel. Es gibt hierzu einen schönen Artikel auf Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/11/illusion-of-diversification.asp Euer Manager Risk lässt sich nicht mit Stock Picking weg diversifizieren. Eine der Hauptgründe hierfür ist auch, dass seit 1926 nur 4% aller Aktien im S&P500 für 100% der Gewinner Verantwortlich waren. Das Manager Risk ist also dadurch definiert, diese Gewinner nicht zeitig genug identifizieren zu können, oder nicht ausreichend Gewicht bekommen. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 Die Antwort auf die Frage: “Wie viele Werte sollte ein diversifiziertes Depot eurer Meinung nach haben?” Ist… *Trommelwirbel - ddddddrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr......…* Gar nicht! Und wenn überhaupt dann nur mit einem riesigen Portfolio, aus ca. 1000 Werten, das so nah am Markt klebt, dass man es auch sein lassen kann. Was ja logisch ist, sonst würden aktiv gemanagte Fonds nicht so schlecht abschneiden. *enttäuschtes Stöhnen* Da >95% aller Fondmanager (und Anleger) auf 20 Jahre ihre Benchmark underperformen, ist es eventuell eine gute Idee diese Risiko nicht einzugehen. Aber was ist wenn ich Aktiv Manager Risk tragen möchte und Stock Picking betreiben möchte? Mein Tipp: 90% in einen Breiten Welt ETF Und die restlichen 10% in ein STARK Konzentriertes Portfolio aus 10 Aktien oder weniger. Nur High-Conviction-Stocks. Die Logik dahinter ist ganz simpel, wenn deine Top 10 den Markt nicht outperformen, werden es deine top 20 auch nicht. Anmerkung: Wenn ihr anderer Meinung seid, dann gern her damit. Allerdings kann das Wort “Diversifikation” für jeden etwas anderes bedeuten. Ich bin hier davon ausgegangen dass man die nicht-Systematischen Risiken entfernen (diversifizieren) möchte. Zum Beispiel, Political and Legal Risk, Entrepreneurial Risks, Manager Risk, Model Risk... Wenn das Wort für euch eine andere Bedeutung hat, werdet ihr auch zu anderen Ergebnissen kommen.

PowerWordChill

@PowerWordChill

2Mes·

At what point is my portfolio diversified? - Are 30 shares enough?

The question was asked recently:

"How many stocks do you think a diversified portfolio should have? I look forward to your opinion on this"

And as is customary on the Internet, a lot of opinions and half-knowledge were bandied about.

The answers vary between:

"only $BTC (-1,54%) " and "30-50"

If you look in other forums, numbers around 30 appear again and again.

But how do you arrive at this figure?

The 30 is derived from the central limit theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

However, this does not apply to us as investors. This is because it only applies under the assumption that the sample is randomly selected.

This then only applies to the respective sub-segment of the stock market. So you would have to buy 30 random US large caps and then repeat this for:

US MidCaps
US SmallCaps
International LargeCaps
International MidCaps
International SmallCaps
Emerging Markets

So if we want to have a diversified portfolio of randomly selected stocks with the ACWI IMI as a benchmark, we need more than 200 stocks. $SPYI (+0,25%) as a benchmark, then we need more than 200 stocks.

With the MSCI World $IWDA (+0,35%) it would be about 120 stocks,

This has little or nothing to do with reality, as investors do not pick their stocks at random. Selection bias is introduced into the system through the investor's likes and dislikes. To compensate for this, we therefore need far more values than in the previous example.

There is a nice article about this on Investopedia:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/11/illusion-of-diversification.asp

Your Manager Risk Can't Be Diversified Away with Stock Picking.

One of the main reasons for this is that since 1926 only 4% of all stocks in the S&P500 have been responsible for 100% of the winners. Manager risk is therefore defined by not being able to identify these winners early enough, or not being given enough weight.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447

The answer to the question:

"How many stocks do you think a diversified portfolio should have?"

Is... *drum roll - ddddddrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.........*

Not at all!

And if at all, then only with a huge portfolio of around 1000 stocks that is so close to the market that you might as well leave it alone. Which is logical, otherwise actively managed funds wouldn't perform so badly.

*disappointed groan*

Since >95% of all fund managers (and investors) underperform their benchmark over 20 years, it may be a good idea not to take this risk.

But what if I want to take active manager risk and do stock picking?

My tip:

90% in a broad world ETF

And the remaining 10% in a STRONGLY concentrated portfolio of 10 stocks or less.

Only high-conviction stocks.

The logic behind this is very simple, if your top 10 don't outperform the market, your top 20 won't either.

Note:

If you disagree, feel free to say so. However, the word "diversification" can mean different things to different people.

I have assumed here that you want to remove (diversify) the non-systematic risks.

For example, Political and Legal Risk, Entrepreneurial Risks, Manager Risk, Model Risk...

If the word has a different meaning for you, you will come to different conclusions.

Finanzielle-Freiheit

@Finanzielle-Freiheit

2Mes·

How many stocks do you think a diversified portfolio should have? I look forward to your opinion on this

23 Commenti

Stefan21@stefan_21

2Mes

Lol, didn't know 1. that others here are so crazy that they only hold Bitcoin and 2. that they also recommend it as a diversified portfolio😂😂

A quote from Leon Wankum comes to mind:
"Bitcoin is an ETF on global ingenuity" - think about it🤪

•

Visualizza tutti 2 ulteriori risposte

Kate💎 🙌.@Iwanowitsch

2Mes

Diversification is weakness. That's why I'm currently reducing my portfolio considerably. I started with 77 positions and now have 54. As humans only have ten fingers, you shouldn't hold more than ten positions. Focus is a powerful force ;)

•

Stefan21@stefan_21

2Mes

@Iwanowitsch "Diversification is selling the winners to buy the losers" - Michael Saylor

•

PowerWordChill@PowerWordChill

2Mes

@stefan_21 "Diversification is a protection against ignorance' - Warren Buffett

•

PowerWordChill@PowerWordChill

2Mes

@stefan_21 just noticed that your Saylor quote describes rebalancing rather than diversification 😅

••

Stefan21@stefan_21

2Mes

@PowerWordChill Are you already questioning Saylor's definitions?
No, of course that's true, in essence it's rebalancing - but that doesn't make the quote any less funny😂

•

MrMister@MrMister

2Mes

Mathematically, I would take at least 2 sigma. What does the Gaussian frequency distribution tell me as an investor: Nothing!
If you have one share from the basic sectors, I think you are diversified!
- Consumer goods
- Retail
- Commodities
- tech
- Security
- Healthcare
- Energy
Etc.

•

PowerWordChill@PowerWordChill

2Mes

@MrMister What does diversification mean to you?

With your approach, you are only diversifying the sector risk.

And according to your criteria, the Ftse100 or the Euro Stoxx 50 are also diversified investments.

••

MrMister@MrMister

2Mes

@PowerWordChill but of course.
There is much more to it than that. Of course, the company you choose should have a certain standard.
I don't have to be mega diversified to be successful. In fact, I think that too much diversification makes you less successful because it doesn't include the essential factors. Diversification and redundancy only generate less volatility.
Personally, I can deal with higher volatility.

My most important factors are these:
- Sales growth over the last 5 years
- Profit growth over the last 5 years
- P/E RATIO
- Share price of the last 5 years
- Product portfolio of the company

Which companies do I invest in now?

USA:
NVIDIA - / Semiconductor/ Tech
Apple - multinational/ tech
Microsoft - multinational/ tech
Arista- Network/ Tech
Amazon - Warehouse/ Retail/ Tech
JP Morgan - Banking
Pultegroup - Building
Berkshire - Multinational
P&G - Consumer Staples
Palo Alto - Cybersecurity/ Tech
Walmart - Warehouse/ Retail

Germany:
Rheinmetall - Mechanical Engineering/ Armaments
Atoss - Human Resources/ Tech
Suss- Semiconductor/ Tech
Mutares - Private Equity
Siemens - mechanical engineering multinational
Munich Re - Insurance
Krones - Packaging industry

GB:
Linde - gas/ commodities
Wisdom Tree Gold - Gold/ Commodities

France:
LVMH - Luxury

Japan:
Itochu - Warehouse/ Trade

What else do I have in my portfolio?
Warrants on the S&P500 Index

Am I not diversified now because I am currently trying to stay out of healthcare?

Am I making more profit than many others? I think so, the future will tell.

•

Uwe@SchlaubiSchlumpf

2Mes

And yet another rocket. I actually no longer hold any individual shares and am fully committed to beta and alpha (or something like that).

Legal Risk somehow sounds like you could create a funny risk factor index. Companies are overweighted, have a high value X, which is defined as the sum product of the number of lawsuits against the company and the value in dispute of the lawsuit. 🧐🤯

•

PowerWordChill@PowerWordChill

2Mes

@SchlaubiSchlumpf However, there are risks for which you are not systematically compensated. I suspect this is one of them.
Whereby you probably have an above-average amount of legal risk in the value factor.
The companies are usually so cheap for a reason. 😘

••

Uwe@SchlaubiSchlumpf

2Mes

@PowerWordChill oh right, in the end we realize that the premium is correlated 😭

•

Stulle 🥪@Stullen-Portfolio

2Mes

#gqevergreens

Very true.

•

ToDaMoon@randomdude

2Mes

What else is important to me in terms of diversification:
Different strategies help to reduce the volatility of the portfolio. Sometimes B&H performs better, sometimes GTAA. My asset growth should outperform the stock market as far as possible, but still be as straight a line as possible. I have no desire for heavy drawdowns.
And even with (ETF) products, I don't think it's advisable to put all your eggs in one basket. You have a problem if you have several 100K in $SPYI and SPDR discontinues its European business.

•

PowerWordChill@PowerWordChill

2Mes

@randomdude So if StateStreet discontinues its EU business, the money is not gone.
You probably don't even have to sell anything, as the EU business will probably be bought by Amundi / DWS.

As for the GTAA, you had equity-like returns with lower volatility, but you don't get that for free.
Your sequence risk is greatly increased, you also have manager risk and bear a higher model risk due to the complexity.

You can only see such risks in the chart when they have actually occurred. 😘

••

ToDaMoon@randomdude

2Mes

@PowerWordChill On the first point: I was precisely concerned with the "probably not sell", because that means "possibly sell". Unlikely in the case of the ACWI IMI index (therefore not a good example), but Amundi did close down ETFs after the Lyxor purchase. And if you lose ~10% in the payout phase due to taxes, that is very annoying.
Regarding GTAA: On the one hand, the risks are priced in. On the other hand, I have not claimed that these or other strategies are risk-free. But the risk/reward profile is different from that of globally investing, market capitalization-weighted ETFs where you do DCA.

••

PowerWordChill@PowerWordChill

2Mes

@randomdude Annoying yes, but when investing for the long term, it's really only important that I don't take any unsystematic risks that could really kill the portfolio.
That's why the tax story is not an issue for me at all.

Incidentally, I also have a leveraging strategy going at the moment, but more on that later. 🤫

•

ToDaMoon@randomdude

2Mes

@PowerWordChill In my view, the level between me and the market - i.e. the ETF product or its provider - definitely belongs in a risk assessment. You can come to different conclusions, but in my view you can't ignore it.

•

Fabio Fontanelli@Fontaene

2Mes

Thanks for the contribution

•

Name@income_engineer_178

2Mes

So just buy over 1000 individual stocks and manage the winners appropriately ? :)

Sounds like a plan, then I just have to sell a few shares 🤣

•

SCHLiCHTE_capital@SCHLiCHTE_capital

2Mes

Over time, I have realized that everyone has different feelings about this. I started with the classic ETFs and now feel comfortable with a strong focus on Bitcoin and tech stocks. A few pharmaceutical stocks and more conservative stocks from various sectors as an admixture. Diversification reduces the return.

••