22H
The basic structure looks solid. Your satellites give you a certain degree of de-diversification in your portfolio. Your selected stocks are more volatile than the index. I estimate that you have built in a 1.1-1.2 leverage on the Allworld through the individual stocks. The overall performance also speaks in favor of this.
You can do it. Personally, I think it makes limited sense. The original idea of core-satellite is not to increase risk, but to reduce it. In my opinion, uncorrelated assets as satellites would make more sense. Unfortunately, very few people here on GQ understand this, but you do have a PhD. 😅
You can do it. Personally, I think it makes limited sense. The original idea of core-satellite is not to increase risk, but to reduce it. In my opinion, uncorrelated assets as satellites would make more sense. Unfortunately, very few people here on GQ understand this, but you do have a PhD. 😅
•
33
•
21H
@Epi Thanks for the well-founded comment. I use a core-satellite setup in the sense of a growth bias, not in the classic way which mainly smooths out fluctuations. The core is a broad global equity base, which I expand when prices and cash flow allow. Around this, I run small, well-considered satellite positions, where I consciously accept more volatility in order to achieve possible additional returns. To prevent this tendency from dominating the entire portfolio, I work with practical guard rails instead of rigid rules: Each individual position remains only a limited proportion of total assets, the combined weight of the chip and AI hardware theme has an upper limit, the speculative pocket segment remains small, and I keep a modest defensive component with insurers and hedged gold as shock absorbers. I only rebalance if these guard rails are clearly exceeded or the market gives me a convincing reason to rotate so that I don't constantly tinker with the portfolio. In the future, I could add a small quality or equal weight tilt to reduce the megacap concentration without diluting the growth profile; however, I only do this if it suits the market situation and not according to a fixed timetable.
The bottom line is a deliberately higher equity beta, but with moderation: position sizes, topic caps and some ballast keep the risk in check. If the environment changes or individual segments grow beyond my comfort zone, I shift weight back to the core.
Eheh and the PhD reference: That wasn't a boast. I'm the first in my family with that degree and I work on the "poorer" side of the tech world in climate, non-profit and R&D. I mentioned it because I'm pursuing financial literacy as a path to social mobility, not to say how smart I am. Thanks for the feedback.
The bottom line is a deliberately higher equity beta, but with moderation: position sizes, topic caps and some ballast keep the risk in check. If the environment changes or individual segments grow beyond my comfort zone, I shift weight back to the core.
Eheh and the PhD reference: That wasn't a boast. I'm the first in my family with that degree and I work on the "poorer" side of the tech world in climate, non-profit and R&D. I mentioned it because I'm pursuing financial literacy as a path to social mobility, not to say how smart I am. Thanks for the feedback.
•
22
•