How Often Should You Adjust Your Investment Portfolio?
Whether you did it yourself, consulted an advisor, or used your company’s 401(k) online planning tool, you had to answer some basic questions, including: what’s your risk tolerance?
Do you remember your answer?
Most of us invest for the long-term. We save to prepare for life’s big-ticket items, such as buying a home, starting a family, paying for college, and securing our retirement. While those priorities aren’t likely to change, our tolerance for risk probably will.
So, whether you remember your answer or not, it makes sense for you to revisit your risk tolerance and adjust your investments accordingly. But how often should you do that?
As with most financial questions, there’s no clear-cut answer. However, there are some guidelines to help you make the best choices for your situation.
What does it mean to balance your portfolio?
A portfolio’s ratio of stocks to bonds is directly related to risk and reward: the higher the percentage of stocks you hold, the more risk you take on in order to increase your chances for higher returns. Over time, the stock market will probably outperform the yield on bonds, but not without some fluctuations along the way.
Generally speaking, younger investors are willing to take on more risk. While there’s no standard rule of thumb, a mix of 80% stocks and 20% bonds is aggressive, but not overly so. With time on their side, a younger investor can feel confident that the rewards of stocks outweigh their risks.
But for someone close to retirement, that same 80/20 mix may be too risky. If there’s a downturn in the market, there may not be time to rebound, especially as the investor will be drawing down that portfolio when they retire. In that case, a ratio closer to 60/40 would more closely align with the investor’s risk tolerance.
Takeaway #1:
It’s logical to assume less risk as you get older.
But the question remains, how — and when — should you adjust your portfolio?
Sell high and buy low or play the hot hand?
Suppose you have a portfolio with 80% stocks and 20% bonds. And let’s say that one of your stocks is doing so well that your ratio is now 85% stocks and 15% bonds. Should you reassess your position?
If you want to maintain your original ratio — and don’t forget, those aren’t just numbers, they reflect your risk tolerance — the answer is yes. The conventional wisdom on how you do that may surprise you: sell your high performing stock and put that money into bonds to get back to your 80/20 balance. Yes, you read correctly: sell what’s making you money and buy more of what isn’t.
There's a solid rationale behind this strategy. If that one stock represents too much of your portfolio, you’re putting yourself at risk if the price plummets — the “too-many-eggs-in-one-basket” problem. This tactic also forces you to practice the “sell high, buy low” philosophy that many of us agree with but few of us follow. That high-performing stock is going to peak at some point, it’s just a matter of when.
This is a different way to think about risk and reward. What would make you feel worse: selling a stock that continues to perform well, or holding onto a stock that starts to drop?
Takeaway #2:
The gains you make with your investments are literally money in the bank. Focus on that and not on what could have been.
Practice oversight, not micromanagement
Like being a good parent or a successful boss, avoid micromanagement when it comes to your investments. Even in the best of times, financial markets fluctuate. Events will occur that you have no control over, from pandemics to political upheavals. Unless your livelihood depends solely on the stock market, don’t pay too much attention to the short-term bumps in the road.
A smarter approach is to monitor significant changes in your own life. If you win the lottery, you should definitely take a hard look at your asset allocation. The same holds true for more realistic occurrences such as a change in marital status, an unexpected inheritance, or a sudden change in your health.
You can also take solace in a Vanguard study of stock and bond performance since 1926. While it’s true that stocks historically outperform bonds, allocation shifts don’t make that big of a difference in the long run. For example, a 60% stock/40% bond allocation during that period yielded an 8.6% average annual return, while an 80%/20% split yielded 9.4% — not significant enough to keep you up at night.
Remember it’s a marathon, not a sprint
While we all want to get the most from our investments, we’re better off taking the long view. Riding a rollercoaster can be thrilling, but it’s not without cost and it’s certainly not for everyone.
It’s fine to set up a regular schedule to review your portfolio. Most financial advisors meet with their clients at least annually. You can go over your position, ask questions, and discuss your options. If your portfolio’s balance shifts 5% or more, that’s a signal to take a look at your allocations, but you may or may not decide to do anything about it.
Don’t worry about quick wins or big payoffs. Instead, enjoy the peace of mind that investing in your future brings.
This content and information was created by a third party and not The College. The College assumes no legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any such content and information and the views expressed therein do not necessarily represent the views of The College.
Subscribe to Newsletter
Related Posts
The Best of Both Worlds
![](/sites/default/files/inline-images/gettyimages-1145882183.jpg)
From the privacy issues raised by listening systems like Amazon’s Alexa to the growing discussion of Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms’ role in spreading disinformation, society at large is starting to recognize that technology in general, and artificial intelligence (AI) systems in particular, need to be better monitored and integrated into our lives. The financial services sector, for its part, faces a similar reckoning with the rise of robo-advisors: however, choosing to work with AI rather than against it may offer both sides of the financial planning divide a chance to benefit.
Since the earliest days of automation, there has been concern about machines eventually supplanting the jobs humans currently do, leading to not only economic instability but social concerns about surrendering control of our lives. Naturally, this leads to animosity and the sense that machines everywhere are “taking our jobs” and that they must be prevented from doing so. During the 2008 financial crisis, when confidence in the financial services system was severely shaken, several companies arose on the basis of using what they called “robo-advisors”—in actuality, collections of computerized programs and algorithms—that would quickly, efficiently, and dispassionately offer portfolio building to a wide array of clients. The appeal of machine-based advising was attractive to many investors who no longer trusted human advisors to manage their money responsibly, as well as to clients who didn’t have enough assets to attract human advisors looking for high-net-worth clients; in this way, robo-advisors helped democratize portfolio building. But many in financial services attacked the robo-advising model as an overly simplistic system that couldn’t possibly match the nuance, experience, and intuition that make real people so valuable long term. They saw robo-advising as direct competition that was seeking to replace them, and robo-advising firms, for their part, did nothing to dissuade them.
![](/sites/default/files/inline-images/gettyimages-1146488500.jpeg)
Since then, however, the attitude in the financial services industry toward robo-advisors has markedly changed, based on a realization that is occurring among professionals in various fields: while machines may be able to do certain things better and faster than people, they often lack a “human quality” needed to make wise decisions that may for one reason or another buck traditional logic. Machines just can’t think outside the box like we can (yet); therefore, even though they can and should be used to perform jobs humans can’t accomplish on their own, they require guidance and a human touch to work to their full potential.
The fact is, robo-advisors undeniably provide many advantages to savvy financial planners. They can sort through and process vast amounts of data to make decisions that are more timely and more informed than any human financial advisor could hope to produce. Robo-advisors can also be tailored to specific tasks, from risk management to client goals or investment outcomes, to provide specialized and laser-focused advice in fields like estate planning, life insurance, retirement planning, and portfolio allocation. Above all, they can lower costs to firms that utilize them by offering a cheap and efficient service of high quality that is an asset to any business, as well as cut down on the possibility of human error. It seems many in financial services are beginning to recognize this: according to a 2018 poll, almost 90% of wealth managers surveyed said they viewed robo-advisors positively. A growing number of firms use their in-house robo advisors to perform various tasks like assessing new clients and making financial wealth management recommendations based on a variety of potential situations and factors.
![](/sites/default/files/inline-images/gettyimages-1150572145.jpeg)
As humans, we’re notoriously slow to accept large-scale change, and this is true both of the robo-advising trend and in the financial services industry. Robo-advisors can help with this by giving wealth management professionals the hard data they need to adapt more quickly to changing financial environments and ensure continued profitability for firms.
AI and Wealth Management: A Mutually Beneficial Partnership
While it’s true that AI technology like robo-advisors may not always be able to offer the flexibility and imagination of human wealth managers, it’s equally true that robo-advisors offer enormous benefits to firms committed to harnessing their computing power. Therefore, the most obvious solution to the robo- vs. human advisor dilemma would seem to be a partnership: just as a human miner could find a new line of work in guiding a mechanical drill, robo-advisors don’t need to compete against traditional wealth management firms when they could instead work together. Once financial professionals begin to consider the benefits of using robo-advisors as part of their operations, the possibilities for helping clients meet their financial goals are endless.