This is the fourth of five posts laying out my Investment Policy Statement in detail. This post examines my target allocation.
In post two I already explained how my allocation splits my investment portfolio by geography (UK:US:Oz:Other) and by asset class (equity: fixed income: cash).
My geographic breakdown roughly follows the ‘matching principle’, under which I want my portfolio to mirror the countries I spend my life in. I live and work in the UK. I spend about two months of each year abroad on holidays, roughly one third in Oz, one third in the rest of the EU, and one third further afield (definitely including the USA). I can imagine spending more time in either the EU (France? Spain? Italy?) or in Oz.
I modify my geographic breakdown based on where the best stock markets for me are. This brings the USA up a lot. The USA not only accounts for about a third of global markets, but I trust its regulations more than most others’. Also it has well over half the world’s interesting tech stock capitalisation; I quite like tech stocks, and if they paid dividends i’d like them even more. One final factor is that I find the fixed income ETFs and high yield equities available in the USA far more interesting and varied than those I can find elsewhere. Until recently I could find a UK-tradeable Australian fixed income ETF at all, for instance. So the UK gets 55pc, the USA gets 25pc of my portfolio, Australia gets 6pc. Non-english speaking markets get ‘the rest’. I am definitely light on the European and Asian markets and should probably reduce my UK weight; 50pc weighting would be easy enough. But for now I have not done this.
I am pretty aggressive in my appetite for risk, and fortunate enough to be high enough net worth that I hope I could cope with quite a drop in net worth. So equities get a high weighting. Right now this is 80pc.
This leaves two obvious questions:
Continue reading “My IPS, 4 of 5: Target allocations”