Skip to main content

The ideal portfolio should hold all the world’s available investments in proportion to the degree they’re actually owned by real investors. It should be much like an index fund that tracks a single market, but much broader.

Getty Images

Let's talk about how to build the perfect portfolio – which, no offence intended, probably looks nothing at all like the one you currently hold.

Most of us lavish a disproportionate amount of our money on Canadian securities. We largely ignore international markets, especially global bonds.

But this is not what financial theory would suggest is optimal.

Story continues below advertisement

Theory, as well as history, says that markets are reasonably efficient; in other words, they tend to put relatively accurate prices on things, at least based upon the information available right now. Any individual buyer or seller may be unreasonably generous or stingy, but in bulk those irrational decisions even out, leaving behind a decent estimate of an asset's value.

As a result, most students of finance learn that the smart thing to do is to track the market rather than trying to outguess it. Cheap index funds, which passively shadow various benchmarks, like the S&P 500 or the S&P/TSX composite, typically produce better results than their expensive, actively managed counterparts because they take advantage of this ability of markets to efficiently price stocks and bonds.

But if you accept the notion that markets are efficient, then the best portfolio is the one that most accurately reflects the current state of the entire marketplace – not just in Canada, but around the world.

This ideal portfolio should hold all the world's available investments in proportion to the degree they're actually owned by real investors. It should be much like an index fund that tracks a single market, but it should be much broader. In a perfect world, it would be a faithful, low-cost tracker of the entire universe of investable assets.

That sounds like an impossibly tall order, but I'm indebted to Adam Butler, a senior vice-president and portfolio manager at Dundee Goodman Private Wealth in Toronto, for demonstrating that, in fact, it's relatively simple. Mr. Butler, who blogs at gestaltu.com, figures that seven exchange-traded funds (ETFs) can do a good job of replicating the span of the world's major investments.

He lists seven broad classes of assets – global equities, global REITs, U.S. bonds, international bonds, high-yield bonds, emerging market bonds and Treasury inflation-protected securities, or TIPS. For each asset, it shows the ticker symbol for an ETF that tracks that type of investment.

If you wanted to build what Mr. Butler calls the investable global market portfolio, you would, for instance, put 38 per cent of your money into the Vanguard Total World Stock ETF (NYSE: VT); you would place 24.6 per cent of your money into the SPDR Barclays International Treasury Bond ETF (NYSE: BWX).

Story continues below advertisement

These numbers aren't black magic. They're based upon a fascinating paper by Ronald Doeswijk of Robeco, Trevin Lam of Rabobank and Laurens Swinkels of the Erasmus School of Economics. Their work, published in 2014, calculated the actual market value of the world's various asset classes. Mr. Butler's investable version attempts to replicate the relative weights of various types of investments in line with what the researchers uncovered.

The portfolio has a far higher weighting of bonds than most personal portfolios. It also has the vast bulk of its assets outside Canada.

According to financial theory, this should be darn close to the perfect portfolio. But does it actually make sense as a real-life investing strategy?

That depends upon the investor, Mr. Butler says. He likes to ask people a list of five questions to determine whether they have unusual preferences or backgrounds that might make the portfolio a bad fit for them. Some people, for instance, might possess specialized knowledge that would give them an investing edge.

In most cases, though, investors have no compelling reason to strike out on their own. "If you feel your preferences are roughly aligned with those of the average investor, you really should aggressively question why you would want to deviate from the global market portfolio," he says.

At the very least, he says, the global market portfolio makes an excellent benchmark for active investors who want to track how well they're doing. It also serves as a reminder that investors should think carefully before they decide to part company with the market consensus.

Story continues below advertisement

"Any deviation represents an active bet," Mr. Butler says. "There can be excellent reasons for making those bets, but you should be aware you're making them and understand why you're making them."

Why deviate from a global market portfolio?

Adam Butler of Dundee Goodman Private Wealth in Toronto likes to ask clients five questions to assess whether they have good reasons for deviating from a global market portfolio.

1. What extra insight or intelligence do you possess that the person who will be selling the asset to you does not possess?

2. Alternatively, what non-diversifiable risk are you willing to endure from owning the asset, which other investors are not prepared to endure and from which you expect to derive excess return?

3. What structural barrier is preventing other investors from pricing the asset appropriately?

Story continues below advertisement

4. How might your preferences as an investor cause you to derive greater utility from the asset than others might?

5. Once you own the asset, what is your target return for bearing the risk, and what would cause you to sell it?

Bottom line: If you don't have a fairly specific answer to one or all of these questions, why should you think you will be successful in earning returns in excess of a diversified portfolio?

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies