Optimizing using the S&P 500 index to represent U.S. stocks, and then actually using a growth mutual fund (that owns 75 stocks) would result in
much less diversification than the report stated.
Not exact matches
The investment minimums for most bond funds are low enough that you can get significantly more
diversification for
much less money than if you purchased individual bonds.
It never seems to occur to them,
much less to their advisers, that buying a company without having sufficient knowledge of it may be even more dangerous than having inadequate
diversification» Phil Fisher
But you will have some
diversification and with
much less work that is required to follow individual names.
In FF there is
much less need for
diversification which is viewed in FF as only a surrogate, and usually a damn poor surrogate, for knowledge, control and price consciousness.
For example, in a 401 (k) I was recently looking at, the target - date funds had an expense ratio of about 0.65 % and included about 10 funds, but the
diversification was pretty good, and 0.65 % is
much less than other 401 (k) choices I've seen.
They can also offer better
diversification & lower correlation in your portfolio — the possible opportunity & upside you see may be
much less dependent on the economy & the market (but far more dependent on that potential transformation & value being realized).
The benefit comes from the added
diversification: the U.S. market is
much bigger than Canada's, and it's
less concentrated in commodities and banks.
Investments should (hopefully) be a positive sum game, so the average investor makes money, so assuming the «average investor» ends the year with 105 % of what he started with
diversification will ensure you get closer to 105 %, not
much more or
less.