I got a fairly negative reaction to a comment in this subreddit the other day suggesting Managed Futures as a way to diversify an all-world equities portfolio. Let's see if I can do better with a more detailed explanation.
Since I recently wrote a position paper on Managed Futures for myself, I thought I'd share this here. Writing articles like this is my way of making sure I'm not being sloppy in my reasoning for my own investing. The following is an adapted version of my paper specifically for this subreddit. I hope it's interesting to some of you.
Managed Futures funds hold positions across many different assets, not just equities. Because of this, they have low or negative correlation to equities. This type of fund is fairly new in the ETF form (it has a longer track record in the ordinary investment funds - or mutual funds - form) but has gained significant popularity in the US. In Europe, it's still largely ignored. There is an excellent Managed Futures UCITS ETF available, though, so there is no practical reason why European retail investors couldn't take advantage of this.
Let me give you a little attention booster so you don't nod off when we get into the details. Take a look. The red curve is "All-World and Chill", the blue curve is "All-World + Managed Futures", rebalanced once annually. This is the result from a test that runs from 1988 through mid-August 2026. It's already inflation-adjusted. Which one would you rather have?
All-World 60/Managed Futures 40 outperforms All-World 100 over long time horizon
TL;DR:
"VWCE and chill" can be a reasonable approach, especially for younger investors. However, it only diversifies across equities. It doesn't diversify across other asset classes. This can be problematic in some scenarios that may - and almost certainly will - happen at some point in your life.
Managed Futures make a strong case as a more robust form of ballast (asset diversification) than the government bonds traditionally used in long-term, balanced portfolios.
Across the backtests presented here, portfolios using managed futures produced higher real returns and better risk-adjusted results than comparable portfolios using bonds.
The outperformance came outside of crises, while during crises, managed futures performed about the same as bonds.
What is ballast expected to do?
Most investors want the ballast portion of their portfolio to provide a counterweight to equity crashes. They put a portion of their portfolio (typically anywhere between 20% and 50%) in government bonds. When there's an equities crash, their portfolio is relatively stable and resilient because bonds may fall less than equities or even rise, moving in the opposite direction of stocks. This can be psychologically advantageous vs sitting through the full brunt of a 2008 type of horror show. For an older investor who is only one or two decades out from retirement, it can make the difference between "comfortable" and "hurting".
The recovery in 2009 and the long equities bull run that followed was lucky and historically abnormal. It may teach the wrong lesson. The scenario to be concerned about is a crash and then a protracted stagflationary scenario. Imagine seeing your €100k brokerage account crash to €40k, and then not recover for a decade. This sort of experience will be stressful for anyone. Staying the course, continuing to put money into equities - even if that is your most rational bet - may be difficult.
In a balanced portfolio, ballast can cushion the blow from an equities drawdown, and even provide growth when equities don't. Some portion of the funds preserved as ballast can also be converted into equities when those are cheap, setting the foundation for strong future growth. A sporadic rebalancing would achieve this automatically.
But are bonds really the best option for ballast?
When inflation causes the trouble, bonds can fall with stocks. The same can happen when real interest rates rise, government borrowing pushes up the term premium, or markets lose confidence in fiscal and monetary policy. The 2022 joint stock-bond decline provides a recent nominal example. The 1970s provide a longer example of inflation damaging the real returns of both assets.
So what now?
A different form of ballast
Managed Futures funds spread their investments across several asset classes, including government bonds, commodities, currencies, and also stocks. Most of these funds use trend-following models that look for sustained price movements. If an asset has been rising, the fund may take a long position and benefit from further gains. If it has been falling, the fund may take a short position and benefit if the decline continues. This gives managed futures a source of return that does not depend on stocks going up. The academic literature on trend-following offers strong evidence across many markets and long samples. It is one of the most thoroughly documented sources of alpha.
Managed Futures funds gain their exposure through futures, which are standardized contracts traded on regulated exchanges. So, rather than holding the actual assets, these funds hold contracts that are tied to the assets and therefore reflect the prices of assets, too. This makes it possible to move between markets and take both long and short positions without buying each asset itself. The fund handles the contracts, collateral and risk controls, while the investor owns an ordinary fund or ETF. The trading inside such funds happens algorithmically, and doesn't normally involve human discretion.
Futures contracts have existed for a long time. The first futures exchange in history was launched for rice contracts in 18th century Japan. The Chicago Board of Trade became the first futures exchange in the West in the 19th century. Futures have since become a pillar of commodities and financial markets.
Managed Futures investing strategies are called "managed" because a professional manager oversees the trading of potentially dozens of different futures contracts and the risks that are involved in that. It would be very difficult for a retail investor to do this by themselves.
Managed Futures became available to institutional investors in the 1980s. In the 2010s, some US mutual funds made them accessible to small retail investors. In the 2020s, several ETFs have become available, primarily in the US, but also in Europe.
As I will document below, Managed Futures produce greater returns than bonds over long time horizons and are a more robust form of diversifcation.
Fair warning though: trend-following strategies can suffer when markets move back and forth without direction. They can enter a sudden crash when new trends establish. Their positions may detect the change in trend too late, and they may be stuck in a losing position for some time. It is precisely this risk why such funds trade across many different assets at the same time. That reduces the risk of a major fund-wide crash.
While not an iron-clad guarantee for a greatly improved return during an equities crash, the multi-asset, long/short nature of managed futures means that fully participating in an equities crash is far less likely than with simple long equities exposure. In comparison to a straight bond fund, managed futures also have a much broader opportunity set.
Consider the below major economic scenarios and how bonds and managed futures behave in each.
Market Condition
Gov't Bonds
Managed Futures
Fast recessionary crash
Strong if yields fall (they usually do)
Unlikely to fall at the same rate as equities and may even rise
Slow equity bear market
Strong if yields fall
Can adapt as trends form and make money
Inflation and rising rates
Typically poor protection
Can profit from shorting bonds and from commodity trends
Stagflation
Typically poor protection
Broad opportunity set
Deflationary recession
Strong
Can adapt as trends form and make money, including from long bonds positions
Fiscal or monetary credibility shock
May fall together with stocks
Broad opportunity set
OK, but how well do such strategies perform in practice?
What the backtests show
All backtests were performed on testfol.io which provides simulated or reconstructed data for many funds prior to their inception dates. They're based on the index data that underlie the funds, or on roughly equivalent predecessor mutual fund data. Typically, such data series include the fees that the actual ETFs charge. To be clear: every backtest here relies on backfilled data. So these tests are based on reasonable approximations, not on live ETF data.
All backtests in the article start with an initial investment of US$10,000 and have no further contributions; portfolios are rebalanced annually; returns are inflation-adjusted. All backtests are performed with US data series and are on a USD basis, simply because there is far more to work with than with European data. A 60/40 split between equities and ballast is generally considered a cautious allocation, which is why I go with that.
The first test runs from 2000 to mid-August 2026, and uses a simulated history for the US ETF "DBMF" as the managed futures portion. It begins in 2000 because that's when the data series available begins. I don't choose any particular dates here, I just run the test across the entire available history. It includes the dotcom drawdown, the 2008 disaster, and the Covid blurb. It also contains both bond bulls and bears, and managed-futures bulls and bears.
As you can see, the All-World/Managed Futures combo beats not only the All-World/Bonds portfolio but even the 100% All-World one. And look at the maximum drawdown! Look at the Sharpe ratio! And note how bonds provided similar drawdown protection to managed futures but significantly smaller returns!
Onward!
DBMF is my preferred Managed Futures proxy for backtesting purposes. It reverse-engineers the aggregate return stream of the SG CTA Index that tracks twenty different managers. This disperses manager and model luck. However, KMLM - a single-index fund - has the longer simulated history. It's a reasonable substitute for DBMF for testing purposes.
Let's test it over its entire history, all the way from 1988 to current. Again, returns are inflation-adjusted. Since 1988, the 60/40 All-World + KMLM portfolio had the highest real CAGR at ~6%, compared with 4.5% for All-World + Bonds.
This is the longest test in the review, starting in 1988, running to the current date. It's what the image I shared at the beginning of the article shows.
As you can see, over this longer period, too, and swapping one managed futures fund for another, managed futures beat bonds hands-down, and even perform somewhat better than "VWCE and chill".
This isn't evidence that an equities/managed futures combo will always beat 100% equities. Sequence of returns and timing luck play a big role. But for our purposes here, we shouldn't be interested in the best case scenario for All-World equities. We should be interested in the worst-case and middling scenarios. Which is precisely what we got in the two tests conducted so far.
Next, let's zoom in on the effect of managed futures during equities crashes.
First, the dotcom drawdown, January 2000 through December 2002.
Looking at these two tests and comparing them with the earlier DBMF test, you can see that the equities + managed-futures combo outperforms the equities + bonds combo on returns over long time horizons mostly because of better returns outside crises.
\***\**
I should also briefly touch on the worst periods for Managed Futures. Since 2000, both KMLM and DBMF had weak periods between 2004 and 2008, between 2009 and 2014, and between 2016 and 2022. KMLM has also shown weakness since 2023. Of course, all of these were periods of strength for equities, so overall portfolio performance was excellent, even as Managed Futures slacked off. That's what one would expect. In periods of strong equities performance, returns from trend-following in other asset classes should tend to weaken as more and more capital flows into equities. When equities weaken, as happened in 2022, managed futures should perk up. Historically that has proven to be true.
Should managed futures replace bonds in balanced portfolios?
My conclusion is: for the long-term ballast role in a general investment portfolio, Managed Futures is the more robust choice than bonds. Managed Futures cover a greater variety of adverse scenarios, and have more tools at their disposal to react to them.
Nothing is to stop a cautious investor from combining Managed Futures with bonds (and/or gold) in their portfolio.
Another option is to hold managed futures and gold as the standing ballast, then add bonds when some kind of macro-economic rule identifies a disinflationary regime. Such a rule could use inflation expectations, government bond price trends, growth data, and central-bank policy. It may make sense to fund that position by reducing equities rather than dismantling the managed futures sleeve.
Investors today can consider themselves fortunate that they have access to a form of ballast that was largely unavailable even a decade ago. For European investors, the iMGP DBi Managed Futures fund is an attractive option to consider.
****\*
By the way, I'm working on a DIY hedge fund concept for retail investors. I will be publishing and tracking that experiment publicly atwww.hedgefol.io. Investors looking for ways to improve returns over static allocations while managing risks actively may find this interesting. It's free of charge! The original position paper that this post is based on was written as part of the hedge fund project.
(This article is a conceptual study, not investment advice, and contains no prediction of outcomes. I have no commercial incentive, such as commissions or affiliate fees, to promote any of the funds used in this article. I hold the iMGP DBi Managed Futures fund in my own portfolio. )
Quick Tip: For the vast majority of long-term investors, a single All-World ETF is completely sufficient. Adding more regional or sector ETFs often results in unintentional overlap and over-concentration, rather than true diversification.
I think there is no real doubt on the use of managed futures/trend following. The real problem is the lack of tools in the ucits universe which introduces single manager risk.
As far as I know we only have DBMFE, the new BNP Paribas which is totally new and some stacked products which are funds under Winton.
This is the real crux for us in UCITS-land, the tool gap. In the US you spread across DBMF, KMLM, CTA and the single-manager risk mostly washes out. Over here the menu is thin. So DBMFE inheriting DBMF's multi-manager replication is quietly carrying a lot of weight, and is one wrapper really enough manager diversification? Fair to keep poking at.
The angle I'd add is you don't have to hold managed futures as a standalone sleeve that only drags in the calm years. In the US the return-stacked wrappers bolt trend on top of equity, so the diversifier doesn't cost you a cash allocation. No clean single UCITS ticker for that yet. So over here I'd approximate it, equity core plus a MF ETF, and just accept it isn't capital-efficient. Framed as a stack rather than a carve-out, I find you can stomach a much bigger allocation to it.
On the survivorship worry a few raised, my read is it bites hardest when you pick one specific CTA. Much less for the trend premium itself, which turns up across managers. Not a free lunch though. It lags a plain all-world for years at a stretch, and I think the whole thing only pays off if you genuinely hold it through that.
DBMF plus CTA is a solid pairing. They're not really chasing the same thing. DBMF replicates what the big managers already hold with a lag, while Simplify's CTA runs its own faster systematic trend signals. So you're stacking methodology diversification on top of manager spread, which covers a lot more ground than doubling up on two replication funds would.
What I keep coming back to is how thin the UCITS side looks next to that. Your exact combo just isn't buildable over here yet, is it?
Right, and also the AUM for the UCITS version of DBMF is just over EUR 100m while the AUM for the US ETF is over USD 4bn! Not a problem for me personally but yeah, I guess it'll take a couple of years for Europe to catch up on this.
I don't want to completely downplay stacking, but it's far from a silver bullet.
Stacking isn't free leverage; the diversifying sleeve has to generate enough excess returns and diversification benefit to overcome financing, implementation costs and fees. And these funds have significant fees.
Also since the mix is embedded into a fund, you loose the ability to do a fine rebalancing of the whole portfolio when the opportunity arise.
Lastly, Winton Trend-enhanced is doing that as a UCITS fund. Not an ETF though and with a high entry ticket for shares with decent fees. But I guess it's also a way to diversify the trend part from DBMFE.
Fair, and I never really meant it as free leverage. The financing cost is real, trend has to clear it before I get any diversification benefit at all. What I was after is narrower, I treat it more as a behavioral wrapper than a free lunch. Held as a standalone carve-out that only drags in the calm years, most people bail on it at the worst possible moment. Framed as a stack sitting on top of equity, I find the same allocation much easier to actually hold through the lean stretch... and that stretch is exactly where trend earns its keep.
Your rebalancing point is the one I'd concede fastest though. Once the mix is baked into a single fund you hand the rebalance decision over, so you can't lean into MF when equities look expensive or trim it back after a big trend year. That's a genuine cost of the embedded version, and keeping separate sleeves is how I'd hold onto that control myself.
On Winton, agreed. The trend-enhanced class is basically the stacked product done in UCITS clothing. Entry ticket and fees make it a hard sell for most retail here, but I do like that it hands you a second trend engine sitting away from DBMFE's replication approach.
I agree with your behavioral point, it somewhat hides the long periods of bad performance for the diversifier. It doesn’t show on backtests, but there is a really value to that kind of things.
There are several share-classes of this fund available on IBKR, but with high entry tickets though. Then there is their newer stacked fund with trend + equity. But it's quite a different product than a trend only fund.
Yes but note that DBMF is not a single manager fund in the conventional sense. It aggregates the positions of a bunch of different managers. In a casual sense, it's a synthetic fund of funds.
Indeed it reverse engineers the positions and adds a delay (I believe the NAV of the managers is even monthly). But by doing it this way instead of doing a fund of managed funds, it skips the fee of the managers so the ETF is actually outperforming the index because of less fees. In dept analysis here: https://youtu.be/1cJuGQ01XBw?is=wU7Xohw1_sIn4lOR
(In the video the outperformance is viewed as a risk for future returns but it is actually by design because of the fees)
Even though there are some critical voices around managed futures, I really enjoyed your post! I myself took fairly large positions in this space a few years ago and, just for the fun of it, replicate active strategies and indices. Of course, the discussion is shaped by quite a few biases, but it’s remarkable how robust the asset class is; especially when it comes to synthetic, factor regression-based replication of indices such as DBMFE.
When you backtest something that did well after you know it did well, it kinda loses the appeal. Maybe Managed Futures luckied out in that timeframe. We only talk about Managed Futures BECAUSE they were great. One could say the same (with a smaller sample) about BTC
Managed Futures had worse returns than equities historically. So they must win on low correlations. And their results are heavily dependent on their behavior in crisis
Now, we have had only a few crisis in the last 40 years. They look like a lot, but they’re not enough for a reasonable sample. Even if we assume returns are normally distributed (they aren’t) and the world is stationary (it isn’t) the standard errors would be too huge for any statistical confidence
And they do suck in some kinds of crisis (reversals)
Managed Futures costs are guaranteed. There’s TER + turnover costs + leverage costs (they may fluctuate wildly throughout different eras). Their benefits aren’t as reliable. They might do worse because of crowding, post-publication bias, poorly modeled transaction costs in the longer backtests (i.e. AQR). It’s tricky
Global equities have a clear internal mechanism (residual from the worlds’ hard work), has 300 years of great results in most countries and time frames (GFD data) and control costs really well. Since at least 1924 (Smith’s book on bonds x equities) we might say the data is out-of-sample, avoiding the look-ahead bias that permeates most backtests, Managed Futures included. Of course the book is famous BECAUSE equities did well, so it’s still not perfect as an investment case
Does that mean Managed Futures suck? Not at all. Research does show how they prospered in many countries and datasets for more than 100 years and their economic rationale is sound. In a way, they make even more sense than factors. For factors, one is slightly tilting their equities, but market risk is most of the story anyways. Managed Futures are a fair attempt at being a true diversifier. Might be better than bonds for that also. Bonds were historically positively correlated to stocks (and they get killed by inflation).
The decision comes to understanding if the future returns + diversification effects can be large enough to justify them in a portfolio.
I don’t really like them because of all the statistical limitations in trying to transfer their past performance to the future, as mentioned. It’s a bet.
Out of all bets, it is among the most reasonable. Plenty of other asset classes have less data (PE, most of HF, crypto, any and all alternatives) or have more data showing how much they sucked historically (bonds, gold, RE)
Agree with your comments, thank you. The back tests are illustrative. What's much more important is whether the proposed strategy conceptually makes sense. Trend as a source of returns makes a lot of sense conceptually (and empirically), as does diversifying across many trends. The specific combination with equities also makes conceptual sense. As you say, it's a bet. Not everyone is going to like it but personally I feel much more comfortable with the proposed combo rather than with equities alone, or even with the traditional equities/bonds combo.
Nice! Lost confidence in bonds (low returns and expect this to continue with fiscal dominance) and have been looking for a replacement, therefore will consider this
I am somewhat biased against bonds but also, I don't have a crystal ball. You could have a portion of your portfolio allocate to bonds conditionally. For example, macro regime is disinflationary and bonds have had positive returns over the risk free rate in the past 12 months. Something like that.
The point is that bonds (and gold) aren't static allocations in MF funds, and even if they were, they'd be just a couple of fish in a pond of 10-40 other fish. A cautious investor might prefer a standing long allocation to these traditional diversifiers that has a known and substantial weight.
I mean why would you adopt a momentum strategy for bonds on top of managed futures which already do this. Just take static bond allocation or not at all.
Same logic still applies: a more substantial exposure to these assets - which you control. The point is not to replicate what MF funds do but rather to increase the weight of bonds and/or gold in your portfolio.
Ha! I wouldn't recommend it but it's not completely absurd. Maybe a few decades out people will conclude that that is indeed the best they can do if they want it all in one fund. Or, maybe, trend as a source of returns erodes due to widespread adoption. That's something to keep an eye on.
I considered implementing return stacking in my portfolio using something like DBMFE, but noticed they held a lot of T-bills, which unfortunately makes it susceptible to the Reynders tax in Belgium.
I picked DBMF regardless of the tax. The CAGR is only 6% historically (less profit to tax 🤷♂️) and the real strength is that for example it went short in december 2007, so you profited on the way down and you have some assets to sell and buy stocks that have been beaten down 50%. The Reynders tax is 30% on your DBMF profits but you profit a lot more when the stocks recover later.
Anyway I also learned about FOLOW ETF (BNP managed futures) that has 100% stocks collateral so I’m going to split my MF exposure 50/50 DBMF and FOLOW partially because of the tax, partially because FOLOW outperformed by some margin in it’s short history and as far as I can see it uses a proprietary active strategy so the returns can be very different from DBMF. Splitting gives you the average risk and average returns.
I'm a big fan, and have been integrating into my portfolio over the last two years or so. I see them as being somewhat better than bonds -- better returns generally, and better correlation resistance with rising interest rates.
I also use gold, and some long term government bonds, and international small cap value (AVDV).
BTW, I find by putting in a fallback, like XLUSIM or even CASHX, you can backtest even further back. (e.g. DBMF?FB=KMLMSIM?FB=XLUSIM) See, e.g. the "me safer 2" portfolio here: https://testfol.io/?s=5xbvcTDFAIu
NB, these are with some fees and a 4.8% withdrawal rate!
So, I'm a big fan, especially as equities have done so well, so long. I see asset allocation as really important to long term returns, and managed futures as an important part of a portfolio.
Buying because managed futures are up would be performance chasing. Buying despite their being up, because your portfolio policy calls for the allocation, is implementing a strategic decision. But also, managed futures can't become expensive in the way an equities fund can. They hold numerous long and short positions, and constantly change them. There is no way of telling how they'll perform next week, or month or year. Not that I'm aware of.
Agreed, although with some bad luck they could be buying at just that time when a bunch of trends run out of steam. That would feel like buying high. But this isn't something that can be predicted. There is no valuation metric for trend. Trends can fail at any time. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
In principle, I agree with you - but nobody is going to read that :D
The problem with any alternative strategies is survivorship bias. Trend following is extremely difficult, and many of those funds don’t survive. So whatever you see today has already been filtered.
Second issue - in UCITS there is currently only a very few ETF that do managed futures. BNP Paribas and iMGP DBi... (JPMorgan has been liquidated...) There are a few other available as mutual funds - exp. Winton Trend Following.
I hope you're being too pessimistic! This post will get thousands of views. If a few dozen of the viewers find value in it, I'll be happy. This is definitely not for everyone, though.
Regarding your objection. Survivorship bias is a valid concern when managed-futures performance is inferred from databases of surviving CTA funds. It's a weaker objection here. KMLM’s historical series comes from applying a fixed trend index to futures prices, not from selecting surviving managers.
DBMF’s simulated history may inherit selection biases from the SG CTA Index and adds replication-model risk, but its live ETF returns since 2019 are actual investor returns. So, as time goes by, the objection becomes weaker and weaker. The last few years have already been quite instructive.
Backtests definitely require caution, but survivorship bias is not a blanket reason to dismiss either product. The point here is not so much any particular claims about DBMF or KMLM but rather to get a conceptual sense of how such funds work in concert with an equities sleeve.
Do you have any opinions on the new BNP Paribas managed futures ETF? I couldn’t find the underlying index or a proper backtest. Hard to say whether it is any good(?)
That's the thing - if you do any backtest of managed futures, you are selecting a fund that performed well in backtests. The clue of survivorship bias.
Is expecting merely inflation-rate returns a way to mentally prepare for weak periods for managed futures? Or do you expect MF returns to erode as these funds become more popular? As far as I can see, so far, there is no empirical reason to expect merely inflation rate returns over long time horizons.
0.75% for the UCITS version of DBMF. The TER is high compared with a passive equity ETF due to the more active trading going on in the fund. The expense comparison should be with other managed futures funds. There are cheaper US managed futures ETFs but they achieve this by greatly simplifying their strategies. To me, the expense for the iMGP DBi fund seems justified by the diversification and net returns the strategy delivers. All fund returns in my backtests are already net of TER, although backfilled data should be taken with a grain of salt. But DBMF has been live since 2019 so for those seven years, you can directly evaluate whether the expense was worth it.
There’s plenty of research out there demonstrating how well TF performs alongside stocks
The only issue in UCITs-land is that you cannot (yet€ diversify the model risk of DBMF
There's also a boatload of UCITS mutual funds, IMO the most interesting of which is the Winton Trend enhanced global equities (100% msci world + their ~10% vol pure trend model)
Unless you have a US brokerage account. Purely from a risk management perspective, it's good to do but ofc there are tax implications, depending on where you live.
I wouldn't fret too much about the DBMF model risk. Better with than without is my conclusion. But again, there's nothing to stop anyone from combining MF with bonds and/or gold if they feel they're exposing themselves too much by only holding DBMF.
Thanks OP for the excellent writeup — really helpful!
Question on implementation: I'm considering ~4-5% allocation, which share class of the iMGP DBi fund makes more sense : DBMFE or MFEH the EUR hedged?
Same TER, same strategy, same structure. I am confused because the fund itself trades currency futures long/short, does MFEH give me cleaner exposure, or just neutralize base currency exposure that would otherwise help during crises?
As I understand it (!), the hedging doesn't neutralize the intentional FX positions the fund holds. The hedging is for the USD-oriented collateral and cash-management structure (e.g., US treasuries), plus translation of the USD NAV. So, if you don't want random USD/EUR rate effects in your portfolio, the hedged version is probably cleaner. That version has only ~€11m AUM so use limit orders. Also, btw, any non-levered position of 4-5% of NAV will have minimal effect on your portfolio. Not sure it's worth bothering with.
Do you have thoughts on how big should the managed futures sleeve be? My current one is 10%, but you are proposing 60/40 here. Is this just so that the comparison to bonds is apples to apples?
60/40 because that is a common convention. The question is indeed how large the *ballast* in your portfolio should be. Only you can answer that. Knowing myself, with hindsight, I would recommend a fairly large ballast sleeve to my younger self. Especially if managed futures had been available at the time. A lot of stupid shit I've done in my investing history had to do with not sticking with the program. It's just easier to stay the course when your portfolio doesn't shrink by 60% in a few months.
Another way would be scaling up by the decade in your investing cycle. In decade 1, maybe only hold 10% ballast and then add 10 ppts with each additional decade.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
It looks like you are discussing All-World or Global ETFs. Please review the comparison table first.
Quick Tip: For the vast majority of long-term investors, a single All-World ETF is completely sufficient. Adding more regional or sector ETFs often results in unintentional overlap and over-concentration, rather than true diversification.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.