Determining How Much to Allocate to Each Investment

by Charles Rotblut, CFA

Determining How Much To Allocate To Each Investment Splash image

The influence any single investment has on your overall portfolio’s performance depends significantly on its position size. Position size is the percentage of portfolio dollars allocated to a specific investment, such as a stock. To use a simple example, say an investor has a $100,000 portfolio invested in 20 stocks. Under an equal-weight scenario, each stock would have a position size of 5% of the overall portfolio’s value. In other words, $5,000 would be invested in each of the 20 stocks.

Focus on Dollars, Not Shares

Notice how the number of shares is not discussed. When allocating, focus solely on the amount of dollars and not the number of shares. If you focus on shares, you could end up buying 100 shares of a stock trading at $20 and 100 shares of a stock trading at $50. The dollars at risk are $2,000 and $5,000, respectively—a big difference. If you allocate $5,000 to each stock rather than being concerned with how many shares you are buying, the amount of money at risk is the same for the two stocks.

...To continue reading this article you must be registered with AAII.

Gain exclusive access to this article and all of the member benefits and investment education AAII offers.
JOIN TODAY for just $29.
Register for FREE
to read this article and receive access to future AAII.com articles.

Log in
Already registered with AAII? Login to read the rest of this article.
  
Charles Rotblut, CFA is a vice president at AAII and editor of the AAII Journal. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/charlesrotblut.


Discussion

Manuel Zenick from Maryland posted 3 months ago:

Regarding the question of rebalancing, with interest rates very low and likely to rise slowly given the recent action by the FED it would appear that bond prices will fall. Therefore I am skeptical about whether to be in bonds at all right now. Would it make more sense to rebalance into conservative stocks with low volatility and avoid bonds?


Bob Voyt from Michigan posted 3 months ago:

I have been 95%+ invested in equities for the past five years with excellent success. Feel the potential for return on average far exceeds that for bonds.


O. Timothy Moore from Oregon posted 3 months ago:

It would seem that using a combination of Chuck Lebeau's Average True Range (3 times ATR) to set a stop loss, and Van Tharp's money management of risking no more than 2% of capital (and preferably only 1%) would address the issue of how many shares of a given stock to purchase. Coupled with Kirkpatrick's or Carr's Relative Strength models to pick the stocks to invest in, and one has a program which reduces the risk factor above significantly and answers both how much to invest in a stock and how many shares to purchase.

And then with the difficult question of when to sell - the one time where the investor has the least control, use Lebeau's Chandelier Exit.


Edna Derrick from Virginia posted 3 months ago:

I am reluctent to commit any new money into bonds as interest rates are almost certainly to go up. Also, the rates are so very low. That bring up the difficult question of rebalancing at this time of the year.

ED


Tony De Marco from Delaware posted 3 months ago:

I read of an interesting way to rebalance. Just put your dividends into a cash account and when enough is accumulated, you buy some of whatever you need to rebalance. No tax consequences either.


Jerry Mead from Illinois posted 3 months ago:

I agree with Tony. Dividends producing mutual funds automatically transferred to a fixed income fund paying a rate at least equal to inflation (3%) works to keep allocations somewhat balanced. I also use the trailing performance YTD of the top 10 mutual funds (returning over 10%) in the portfolio to allocate new funds from the accumulate dividends of the fixed income fund. Keep an eye on current YTD performance to make changes as needed to allocations based on large movements in fund performance.


Joseph Addonizio from California posted 3 months ago:

This article is sophomoric piffle coming from a CFA,meant for AAII members.I see that this is for beginning investors,but are they in fifth grade?Thanks,fellow members,for providing the most insightful input to this site.


Bernard Dowd from Illinois posted 3 months ago:

Good basic info. For the more "sophisticated" investor, allot a % of your portfolio for "gambling" or "playing" the market and can tolerate loss.


Walter Knapp from New Jersey posted 3 months ago:

What's wrong with a trailing stop loss order for the re-adjustment amount of your winners. Thus letting your winners run and still having some downside protection.


Charles Rotblut from Illinois posted 3 months ago:

Manuel/Bob - Avoiding bonds only works if you have the temperament to stick with stocks in a falling market environment. Bonds can offer a counter-balance for stocks during corrections and bear markets. If worried about interest rates, you can consider bonds or bond funds with durations of five years or less.

O. Timothy - If following the systems work for you, great. But, at only 1% or 2% of allocated dollars, the impact of any winning stock won't be significant. Plus, trading and transaction costs will be higher.

Tony/Jerry - Allocating dividend, and interest distributions, to cash is certainly a method for rebalancing. Since this article is oriented to novice investors, I purposely try to avoid giving too many options to avoid confusion.

-Charles


George Bradshaw from North Carolina posted 3 months ago:

I like the concept of letting your winners run, but acknowledge that there needs to be some limiting criteria. My approach is to have no holdings below 1% or above 5%; my average is around 3%. Kind of like the 2.5 times criteria however. Bonds, gold, preferred stocks, cash is around 20% of my holdings; will add to bond positions when returns warrant.


You need to log in as a registered AAII user before commenting.
Create an account

Log In