What percentage of my portfolio should be in individual stocks?
If you are comfortable with the risk etc, then the main thing to worry about is diversity.  For some folks, picking stocks is beyond them, or they have no interest in it.  But if it's working for you, and you want to keep doing it, more power to you. If you are comfortable with the risk, you could just as well have ALL your equity position in individual stocks.  I would offer only two pieces of advice in that respect. 1) no more than 4% of your total in any one stock.  That's a good way to force diversity (provided the stocks are not clustered in a very few sectors like say 'financials'), and make yourself take some of the 'winnings off the table' if a stock has done well for you. 2) Pay Strong attention to Taxes! You can't predict most things, but you CAN predict what you'll have to pay in taxes, it's one of the few known quantities.  Be smart and trade so you pay as little in taxes as possible  2A)If you live someplace where taxes on Long term gains are lower than short term (like the USA) then try really really hard to hold 'winners' till they are long term.  Even if the price falls a little, you might be up in the net compared to paying out an extra 10% or more in taxes on your gains.  Obviously there's a balancing act there between when you feel something is 'done' and the time till it's long term.. but if you've held something for 11 months, or 11 months and 2 weeks, odds are you'd be better off to hold till the one year point and then sell it.   2B) Capture Losses when you have them by selling and buying a similar stock for a month or something.  (beware the wash sale rule) to use to offset gains. How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to  make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks. "I find the question interesting, but it's beyond an intelligent answer.  Say what you will about Jim Cramer, his advice to spend ""an hour per month on each stock"" you own appears good to me. But it also limits the number of stocks you can own. Given that most of us have day jobs in other fields, you need to decide how much time and education you can put in. That said, there's a certain pleasure in picking stocks, buying a company that's out of favor, but your instinct tells you otherwise. For us, individual stocks are about 10% of total portfolio. The rest is indexed. The amount that ""should be"" in individual stocks? None. One can invest in low cost funds, never own shares of individual stocks, and do quite well." I think it depends entirely on your risk tolerance. Putting money in individual stocks obviously increases your risk and potentially increases your reward. Personally (as a fairly conservative investor) I'd only invest in individual stocks if I could afford to lose the entire investment (maybe I'd end up buying Enron or Nortel). If you enjoy envesting and feel 10% is an acceptable loss I think you have your answer I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself.  I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks.  Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors.  The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up.  I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility.  Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.
"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely.  Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most ""adventurous"" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification.  If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well.  Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can ""rebalance"" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began.  You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio.  This essentially forces you to ""buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high"". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification.  Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies.  And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline.  And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline.  And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful.  Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain ""type"" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need.  No more worrying about whether you've picked the ""right"" company to represent a particular sector.  The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!" "The risk of any investment is measured by its incremental effect on the volatility of your overall personal wealth, including your other investments.  The usual example is that adding a volatile stock to your portfolio may actually reduce the risk of your portfolio if it is negatively correlated with the other stuff in your portfolio. Common measures of risk, such as beta, assume that you have whole-market diversified portfolio. In the case of an investment that may or may not be hedged against currency movements, we can't say whether the hedge adds or removes risk for you without knowing what else is in your portfolio.  If you are an EU citizen with nominally delimited savings or otherwise stand to lose buying power if the Euro depreciates relative to the dollar, than the ""hedged"" ETF is less risky than the ""unhedged"" version.  On the other hand, if your background risk is such that you benefit from that depreciation, then the reverse is true. ""Hedging"" means reducing the risk already present in your portfolio.  In this case it does not refer to reducing the individual volatility of the ETF.  It may or may not do that but individual asset volatility and risk are two very different things." At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time.  The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds.  You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds.  Why?  Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return.  Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds.   A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier.  Why?  Because sometimes bonds fall.  And when they do, stocks generally gain.  And vice versa.  Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds.   Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%?  No.  If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%.  The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well.  So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3.   If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents.  Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination.  But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety.   At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund.  This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income.  I recommend making it equal to six months of your income.  The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses.  Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two.   Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years?  At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no.  But the standard is the five year time frame.  If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no.  If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses.  Less than five years, the reverse is true.  So you should probably rent now.   You can max out your 401k and IRA now.  Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven.  And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down.  The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend.   Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house.  I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  A REIT will tend to track real estate.  Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety.  It fell in value?  Houses are probably cheap.  Houses increasing in price rapidly?  A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds.  You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty. "Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details.  Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists.  Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like ""I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500"") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too." Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal? "There are probably 3-4 questions here.  Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with ""Total market"", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain.  If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future?  The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions." At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time.  The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds.  You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds.  Why?  Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return.  Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds.   A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier.  Why?  Because sometimes bonds fall.  And when they do, stocks generally gain.  And vice versa.  Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds.   Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%?  No.  If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%.  The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well.  So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3.   If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents.  Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination.  But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety.   At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund.  This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income.  I recommend making it equal to six months of your income.  The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses.  Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two.   Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years?  At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no.  But the standard is the five year time frame.  If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no.  If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses.  Less than five years, the reverse is true.  So you should probably rent now.   You can max out your 401k and IRA now.  Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven.  And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down.  The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend.   Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house.  I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  A REIT will tend to track real estate.  Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety.  It fell in value?  Houses are probably cheap.  Houses increasing in price rapidly?  A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds.  You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty. You should sell all your stock immediately and reinvest the money in index funds. As of right now you're competing against prop trading shops, multinational banks, and the like, who probably know a teensy bit more about that particular stock than you do. I'm sorry, any other advice is missing the point that you shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place.