Not exact matches
First, my usual disclosure: I run an asset -
allocation portfolio that is low cost, global and
made up of mostly passive indexes and other strategies; I also run a
tactical portfolio that serves behavioral purposes.
Seeing signs of reflation at work, the GIC recently
made some strategic and
tactical adjustments to our asset
allocation models.
This approach works well if you have a strong strategic asset
allocation plan and you don't want to change that overall plan while you
make your
tactical moves.
Another
tactical tool that allows investors to risk manage without having to
make allocation bets is to employ sector rotation.
Bradley believes that active managers can add value by
making tactical shifts in asset
allocation — though not too often, and always within a fairly narrow range.
Juicy Excerpt: The problem is that the people who engage in
tactical asset
allocation are not clear on when
allocation changes should be
made or how large they should be on how they will know whether the changes will be successful or not.
Which is why the notion of increasing your odds for success by increasing the number of decisions you and / or your managers are
making by adopting a
tactical asset
allocation approach is, in the end, counterintuitive.
In contrast, a
tactical asset
allocation decision to raise cash
makes it possible to acquire shares of stock or bond ETFs at lower prices in the future.
Flexibility
makes a
tactical asset
allocation strategy superior to a static or fixed asset
allocation which would not allow an investor to
make changes to there target asset
allocation.
Would I
make a
tactical decision to lower the current
allocation to stock even further?