We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
% to each region of the world?? Challenge
Options

Venomspread3r
Posts: 92 Forumite

Just a hypothetical question because I'm sure I'll get the answer of "JUST USE A GLOBAL ALL WORLD CAP FUND" but if we wanted a equities global all world portfolio and there wasn't the world cap funds we have today how would you do it ?
Id be keen to see if people have a bias etc or maybe you think a region of the world gets neglected.
Also do you think this could be done cheaply?
For the sake of the experiment if we could keep it hedged to GBP.
So
US
UK/EUROPE
EMERGING MARKETS
PACIFIC
JAPAN
You personally what % would you have ?
Id be keen to see if people have a bias etc or maybe you think a region of the world gets neglected.
Also do you think this could be done cheaply?
For the sake of the experiment if we could keep it hedged to GBP.
So
US
UK/EUROPE
EMERGING MARKETS
PACIFIC
JAPAN
You personally what % would you have ?
0
Comments
-
What I actually have at this moment (within my equities) is: US 45%, EUR 16%, UK 11%, EM 13%, Pacific 6%, Japan 9%My bias is against a larger amount in US equities, though I wouldn't say this has done me much good so far. About a third of my portfolio is actively managed, so this isn't just market cap weighted.1
-
Use one of the MSCI indices as a benchmark for your portfolio allocation.2
-
Hello again @masonic
I like those weightings.
What funds are they if you don't mind me asking & I'll ask the question - why this over an all world fund ??
Also what are the total fees ?
Sorry lots of questions - I think you're the same as me, I'm currently currently attacking equities 100% for the next 10 years at least.
Cheers for the transparency regarding your investments.0 -
Hoenir said:Use one of the MSCI indices as a benchmark for your portfolio allocation.0
-
For the trackers I have gone regional, as this gives me a bit more control and allows me to accommodate my legacy actively managed holdings (these are all investment trusts). I have a bit of a mix, spread over different accounts. I use CSP1 for all of my US exposure in my ISAs, then Lyxor and iShares ETFs for Europe and EM, and the iShares Class D OEIC funds for Pacific and Japan. These were what I considered to be the best options at the time, several years ago, and I'm not one to switch funds unless there's a very good reason (marginal savings in fees are worth it after accounting for bid/offer spread or swing pricing for the single priced funds). Overall my fees are currently 0.27% including all custody charges. They are rather high due to the active funds (the trackers themselves are between 0.07-0.14%).However, I have a workplace pension that is 100% HSBC FTSE All-world Class C OEIC. It happened to be the cheapest option on my pension platform, and this is gradually moving my portfolio closer to an all-world allocation.I don't recommend this approach for anyone else, not least someone designing a new portfolio. I think there is a lot to be said for the simplicity of something like FWRG if you want 100% equities. If there is a major market crash in the next few years (there probably will be), I don't rule out switching my portfolio into a neutral all-world allocation. The aftermath of market crashes is often a good time to take stock and rebalance after things have been levelled out and valuations look more attractive.0
-
masonic said:What I actually have at this moment (within my equities) is: US 45%, EUR 16%, UK 11%, EM 13%, Pacific 6%, Japan 9%My bias is against a larger amount in US equities, though I wouldn't say this has done me much good so far. About a third of my portfolio is actively managed, so this isn't just market cap weighted.1
-
masonic said:However, I have a workplace pension that is 100% HSBC FTSE All-world Class C OEIC. It happened to be the cheapest option on my pension platform, and this is gradually moving my portfolio closer to an all-world allocation.
But I do hear you regarding an all world fund a good friend if mine swears my 2 funds an all world 90% & 10% gold0 -
Albermarle said:masonic said:What I actually have at this moment (within my equities) is: US 45%, EUR 16%, UK 11%, EM 13%, Pacific 6%, Japan 9%My bias is against a larger amount in US equities, though I wouldn't say this has done me much good so far. About a third of my portfolio is actively managed, so this isn't just market cap weighted.0
-
Venomspread3r said:Hoenir said:Use one of the MSCI indices as a benchmark for your portfolio allocation.0
-
Venomspread3r said:Just a hypothetical question because I'm sure I'll get the answer of "JUST USE A GLOBAL ALL WORLD CAP FUND" but if we wanted a equities global all world portfolio and there wasn't the world cap funds we have today how would you do it ?
Id be keen to see if people have a bias etc or maybe you think a region of the world gets neglected.
Also do you think this could be done cheaply?
For the sake of the experiment if we could keep it hedged to GBP.
So
US
UK/EUROPE
EMERGING MARKETS
PACIFIC
JAPAN
You personally what % would you have ?
US 40%
UK/EUROPE 30%
EMERGING MARKETS Define?
PACIFIC 18%
JAPAN 9%
It does not add to 100% because your regions are incomplete. eg Canada. Also it is impossible to separate EM and Pacific. Where does Emerging Europe fit? However I think the figures I have used give a reasonable picture as the %s allocated to the unclassified areas are pretty low.
The intention is to move some money from Europe to Pacific, in particular China. Note that Pacific includes India for convenience.
As to how it is done - I have separate large and small company funds for each area plus a global multifactor index fund. The regional %s are fixed and the component funds %s are adjusted as necessary.
Fund cost is not a major factor, the internal balance of size, value vs growth, and sector allocations are more important.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards