Thanks for the article Joel. (link here: https://blog.seedly.sg/cryptocurrency-portfolio...) I understand that this article is just based on your research and what most people on internet say, but I just wanted to point out something I personally disagree with:
One Crypto is no longer an option anymore, it is a must-have in any portfolio. I'd argue that depending on one's age, minimum of 10% in crypto will do you good in the long term. The younger you are, the more you should allocate to crypto.
I'm not a financial advisor but I am confident enough to say that crypto is guaranteed (100% chance) to outperform every other asset classes on earth by a magnitude.
I might be biased, coz I have 95% of portfolio in crypto. But mark my words, crypto will outperform everything you hold.
You are young, you have time, you can afford to lose, don be a boomer and buy gold and bonds.
Two
Do not rebalance. Ever heard of 'cut your losers and let your winners run'? This advice is typically for trading but it could be useful for investing as well.
Why sell an asset that outperform to buy another asset that underperform?
I'm not saying to never rebalance, you should, but only if the % divert too much and makes you uncomfortable.
For example you initially allocate 10% to crypto, and in the very very likely (yes, likely, not unlikely, this isn't a typo) event that the 10% grow to 50% of your portfolio and you feel uncomfortable, then cut it. Cut to 20%, or 30%, or whatever you're comfortable with.
If the 10% grows to 15% and you rebalance it by selling 5% crypto, you are just rebalancing for the sake of rebalancing. You will not see your portfolio size grow by too much. You're just going to have an above market performance, but not an extraordinary performance. There is a vast (life-changing) difference between the two.
Last personal note Many investing advices are outdated.
Example: 'Buy companies that pay dividend' - dividend stocks price flat for 10 years, while growth stocks grew by 50x. Tell me you still prefer the 4% a year dividend?
Have your own thesis, and don't blindly follow the 'traditional investors', they are successful indeed, but they may not have kept up with the trend (heck, the legendary investor Warren Buffet ignored tech stock for years just because he didn't understand it, and then purchased Apple and it is now almost 50% of his entire portfolio)
Cheers
Thanks for the article Joel. (link here: https://blog.seedly.sg/cryptocurrency-portfolio...) I understand that this article is just based on your research and what most people on internet say, but I just wanted to point out something I personally disagree with:
One Crypto is no longer an option anymore, it is a must-have in any portfolio. I'd argue that depending on one's age, minimum of 10% in crypto will do you good in the long term. The younger you are, the more you should allocate to crypto.
I'm not a financial advisor but I am confident enough to say that crypto is guaranteed (100% chance) to outperform every other asset classes on earth by a magnitude.
I might be biased, coz I have 95% of portfolio in crypto. But mark my words, crypto will outperform everything you hold.
You are young, you have time, you can afford to lose, don be a boomer and buy gold and bonds.
Two
Do not rebalance. Ever heard of 'cut your losers and let your winners run'? This advice is typically for trading but it could be useful for investing as well.
Why sell an asset that outperform to buy another asset that underperform?
I'm not saying to never rebalance, you should, but only if the % divert too much and makes you uncomfortable.
For example you initially allocate 10% to crypto, and in the very very likely (yes, likely, not unlikely, this isn't a typo) event that the 10% grow to 50% of your portfolio and you feel uncomfortable, then cut it. Cut to 20%, or 30%, or whatever you're comfortable with.
If the 10% grows to 15% and you rebalance it by selling 5% crypto, you are just rebalancing for the sake of rebalancing. You will not see your portfolio size grow by too much. You're just going to have an above market performance, but not an extraordinary performance. There is a vast (life-changing) difference between the two.
Last personal note Many investing advices are outdated.
Example: 'Buy companies that pay dividend' - dividend stocks price flat for 10 years, while growth stocks grew by 50x. Tell me you still prefer the 4% a year dividend?
Have your own thesis, and don't blindly follow the 'traditional investors', they are successful indeed, but they may not have kept up with the trend (heck, the legendary investor Warren Buffet ignored tech stock for years just because he didn't understand it, and then purchased Apple and it is now almost 50% of his entire portfolio)
Cheers