Everyone on this subreddit acts like any more than a 10 stocks in a portfolio is too diversified, or not worth it when picking stocks
I get it that it’s easier to outperform the market with a more concentrated portfolio. But it just feels like with only 10 stocks that there is no margin for error. You can only be wrong about one, maybe two of your stocks to really underperform unless some of your other stocks truly are multibaggers
But I do understand that the other extreme is also true, where a portfolio with 100 or more stocks each with 1% allocation or less is also hard to outperform the market. Like I can imagine that even if one of your stocks goes 10x in this scenario then it won’t make much of a difference in your net worth or account balance.
So wouldn’t we all agree that the optimal portfolio size is 25-30 stocks? With 25-30 stocks there is plenty of margin for error but any multibaggers could still really make a difference?
I mean, am I wrong to think that no stock should be more than 7% of my portfolio?
Thanks, just looking for other opinions
Leave a Reply