The Basics Of Portfolio Construction

Published in Investing Strategy on 19 March 2010

Build a portfolio for all seasons.

There are numerous factors to be considered when building an investment portfolio. However, the more effort you put into addressing them, the more likely you are to meet your investment goals.

What follows is my personal view, which won't necessarily accord with what everyone would agree is best practice. I'd certainly advise that newbies to investing read widely about this area, which is of fundamental importance.

Investment aims

The first thing to do is to fix your investment aims and the time period that you wish to stay invested. This will allow you to determine your asset allocation strategy. Other factors that will also have a bearing on this include:

  • your personality and risk tolerance;

  • your present financial situation; and

  • your age and investment time horizon.

Certainly, if you have the opportunity, pay into your company pension scheme since you'll obtain tax relief by doing so. Secondly, don't invest money in stocks that you're going to need in the short term (within 2-5 years).

Diversification

Diversification is defined as the spreading of your portfolio across different asset classes, including equities, ETFs, bonds, property, alternatives and cash. This reduces the overall risk of your portfolio, compared with investing in just one asset class.

Of course, you need to be very careful in selecting any class of asset, as it doesn't necessarily follow that a given bond will automatically be safer than a particular share.

Some, such as the legendary investor Warren Buffett, have even argued that diversification is often an attempt to reduce risk by people who don't know what they are doing. I see the logic of his argument, which is that if you've really done your research you shouldn't need to diversify too greatly. 

He may be right, theoretically, but in practice many investors are lesser mortals and are better off diversifying a little. Still, having five sound investments will always be better than having 50 unsound ones.

Asset allocation strategy

You'll hear lots of fancy names for asset allocation strategies you should adopt and it's best not to get too carried away with them. However, you need to consider:

  • whether you need an income stream;

  • the underlying liquidity risks of any investment (i.e. can you sell it when you need to)

  • inflation risks; and

  • your desired rate of return.

I myself have adopted a simple 'core-satellite' approach, with most of my portfolio in fairly low risk assets and a small proportion in riskier areas that I hope will deliver outstanding returns.

I personally wouldn't put more than 25% of my savings in equities at any one time. I'd also keep between 20% and 30% in cash. Equities can be volatile so that is why I prefer to drip feed money into them, while the cautious creature in me likes to have cash on hand for a rainy day or emergencies or simply to buy underpriced assets. The balance is in bonds of varying types, with a little in gold.

Correlation

I'd be the first to admit that probably my investment portfolio isn't well balanced and shows a worrying trend to mirror my own risk-taking nature.

One area that I know needs more attention is the correlation of the assets within my portfolio. There's no point diversifying if the price of all the assets you hold drops at the same time! 

Performance

It is also useful to benchmark the performance of your investment portfolio. Most typically it is done against an all equity index -- as most aim for equity-like returns as a minimum. For example, many international fund managers use the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) World Index (a global benchmark). 

More on investing basics:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

BarrenFluffit 19 Mar 2010 , 11:44am

Excellent summary; good work.

rober00 19 Mar 2010 , 7:03pm

Rubbish!! Your approach is a receipe for disatster in my opinion. It is neither one thing or another. You show no clear objectives to your approach or any attempt to clarify your outcome.

For anyone starting out in the investment game I would completely ignore this approach and its phylosophy.

miscible 19 Mar 2010 , 9:02pm

As far as I can see, you haven't identified yourself here. Whilst I respect your right to anonymity, if might be interesting to the novice investor to know for instance roughly how old / how wealthy you are, how much debt you are in, and to what end you are investing. KR, misc.

FunkyIndexFinger 22 Mar 2010 , 2:45pm

Diversification is all about removing or limiting risk specific to a particular asset category, or specific stock. Thus it can be called removing specific risk. It does not remove what is known as systematic risk.

There are some theories on maximum efficient frontiers for diversification, which put a boundary on the most amount of risk you can remove from a portfolio. Those theories postulate that specific risk can be removed efficiently, by many combinations but that after a few well selected balanced stocks any more diversification has little improvement on specific risk removal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_risk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_risk

The above links can explain it better (and in more detail) than I can.

So whilst it is best for small investors to minimise specific risk by diversification, it is a very different ballgame for those with multi billion pound portfolios. Such people move markets with their money, and are a risk in their own right!

For example, imagine Warren Buffet starting taking an interest in a few AIM listed stocks. Then decided to sell. It is little wonder that the only investments with sufficient scale for large portfolios is currencies.

curedum 22 Mar 2010 , 4:50pm

There are many theories about optimum asset allocation, but essentially you need to aim for a balance of assets which matches your circumstances and temperament. For example, I abhor gambling so I avoid investing in shares with negligable yields (when the reason for buying is purely speculative), even though this might theoretically reduce the overall "risk" of my portfolio. Ultimately you've got to be comfortable with your investments.

RobinnBanks 23 Mar 2010 , 2:43am

Peter Lynch calls it Diworseification, for it makes sure you only reap the average return of all your holdings, and not the top rate of your best investments. Holding a diworseified portfolio of bonds, property, funds, gold etc, and some shares, ensures mediocre results.
Shares give the best return, so hold mainly shares. If they go up and down, sell them when they are up, then buy them back when they are down.

curedum 23 Mar 2010 , 11:27am

Whilst it is true that historically shares have out-performed other asset classes over long periods of time, there have been extended periods when shares have done poorly. Your investment time-frame (related to age and other commitments) will influence the degree of volatilty you can tolerate, and of course - as they say - "in the long run we're all dead". But if you have 40 years of investing ahead and like an exciting ride, by all means put everything into emerging markets!

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.