If I had to pinpoint the biggest problem for
most asset allocators I would probably say short - termism.
I would want to tell
most asset allocators that there is little to no magic in alternative investments.
For a number of years, I have mused over the equity premium puzzle, and have generally written that the premium return that equities earn over stocks is less than
most asset allocators assume.
Instead,
most asset allocators should focus less on generating the highest return and more time on trying to achieve the appropriate return that will help them achieve their financial goals within the scope of their personal needs.
Not exact matches
One of the
most significant difference between Instant X-Ray and
Asset Allocator is how the data is entered.
«Over the course of the year, we established a variety of product and distribution partnerships with private banks, brokerage firms and wealth managers across the region — a strong indication that advisers and
asset allocators are increasingly looking to ETFs as the
most cost - efficient, flexible building blocks for their client portfolios, in a fee - based environment.
Most other funds seem to be managed by «top - down»
asset allocators who bring little, or no, knowledge to the nitty - gritty details that affect the companies and securities in which the typical fund has invested.
Both the Defined Risk Strategy and
most tactical
asset allocators attempt to actively minimize exposure to down markets.
Furthermore, these academic views, which are discussed at some length below, seem to have been adopted virtually in their entirety by
most money managers, including the managers of
most mutual funds, especially those who are non-fundamental, top - down
asset allocators.
Tech companies are delivering products the public likes and generating strong earnings, but as global
asset allocators «we are pivoting away from US stocks: the overall US stock market is the
most expensive it has been in the last ten years.»