imported_Lothar
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 4,559
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
You want at least 45 uncorrelated securities to make a well diversified portfolio and 4-5 ETFs should give you that easily.
One does not need such wide moat diversification.
I beg to differ. You get diminishing returns around 30 securities but to get "close enough" to the systematic risk to where adding another security is basically pointless you need ~50 uncorrelated securities.
I disagree.
One shouldn't need more than 20 companies or so.
If you pick more than that then you're just picking for the sake of picking stocks and probably aren't doing your own research.
Top 10 alone account for a little over 70% of my mom's portfolio.
If you can buy more of your best idea, why put money into your 20th-best idea?
The more positions you have, the more average you are.
Diversification is a highly subjective term.
What exactly qualifies as a "well diversified" portfolio? 50 unrelated companies you say.
If I buy 50 stocks do they have to be 2% of the portfolio each for the portfolio to be called diversified?
What if I buy 50 stocks with the top 10 accounting for 70% of my holding, the next 10 accounting for 20%, and the remaining 30 sharing 10%?
What if I buy 50 stocks and one company accounts for 51%, while the remaining 49 companies account for 1% each?
If diversification is more about just picking a bunch of unrelated companies(like the "50" figure you seem to advocate) rather than picking a few companies you truly believe in, I'd prefer to keep doing what what I'm doing(the later) at the expense of it being called undiversified.
