A recent article in the FT by Sir John Redwood details what he thinks your portfolio should look like. The FT Fund is a dummy portfolio intended to demonstrate how investors can use a wide range of ETFs to gain exposure to global stock markets while keeping down the costs of investing. But…
If you are an investor with Charles Stanley, where Sir John Redwood is chief global strategist, and your portfolio looks nothing like what he suggests, would you not be concerned? If the chief global strategist thinks this is what a portfolio should look like, should your portfolio not be changed to meet the thoughts of the chief global strategist?
I often hear investors being told that their portfolio is ‘unique’ by asset and wealth managers. Why? If your risk is 50/50 equities and bonds, should your portfolio look materially different to everyone else who has a 50/50 risk portfolio? And if you have a different portfolio, then for the same risk, some investors will perform better. Some worse. Is that fair?
This is not just a Charles Stanley story, it’s relevant to so many wealth and asset managers. Whilst a ‘bespoke’ portfolio makes you “feel” important, is it the best decision?