How should residents of smaller economies allocate their portfolio between domestic and foreign assets?
why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency.   If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing.  But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally.  So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local.   You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true.  But then you have two risks.  One risk you'll have anywhere:  your investments may go down.  The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency.  If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you.  That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes.   Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments.  As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally.  That looks to be about 20% for Australia.  So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash.  That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency.   It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical.  But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability. We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.
"From Wikipedia A frontier market is a type of developing country which is more developed than the least developing countries, but too small to be generally considered an emerging market. The term is an economic term which was coined by International Finance Corporation’s Farida Khambata in 1992. The term is commonly used to describe the equity markets of the smaller and less accessible, but still ""investable"", countries of the developing world. The frontier, or pre-emerging equity markets are typically pursued by investors seeking high, long-run return potential as well as low correlations with other markets. Some frontier market countries were emerging markets in the past, but have regressed to frontier status. Investopedia has a good comparison on Emerging Vs Frontier While frontier market investments certainly come with some substantial risks, they also may post the kind of returns that emerging markets did during the 1990s and early 2000s. The frontier market contains anywhere from one-fifth to one-third of the world’s population and includes several exponentially growing economies. The other Question    and are they a good option as well? This depends on risk appetite and your current investment profile. If you have already invested in domestic markets with a well diversified portfolio and have also invested in emerging markets, you can then think of expanding your portfolio into these." "JoeTaxpayer's advice is solid - reallocating to your target asset allocation is the right move.  You should have an Investor Policy Statement (IPS) that maps out your financial objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity constraints, etc.  From the IPS, you can determine your target asset allocation and rebalance accordingly.  A few more comments: It sounds like 100% of your 401k is in US stocks.  You might have other accounts that make your overall portfolio globally diversified, but if not, you want to make sure to set a target asset allocation for a global portfolio.   Your statement ""If this were in my brokerage account I'd probably cash out some of the profits and hold onto it and buy more shares as the market eventually comes back down. But this being a 401k which has semi-monthly deposits from my paycheck, do I just leave it?"" is a bit counterintuitive.  If you are going to try to time the market (a very hard task), it is better to use a retirement account, so you don't have to realize capital gains.  Timing the market is probably a bad idea, but if you engage in market timing, it is probably better to use a retirement account than a brokerage account. If you would like to tilt your asset allocation based on the market valuation, I recommend researching Shiller's Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings ratio." "**David F. Swensen**  David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985.  Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the ""Endowment Model."" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the ""Swensen Approach"" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24" The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument. "@farnsy has provided a good answer. I'm only addressing my comment about the data quality. The portfolio optimization technique you employed is very sensitive to the inputs. In particular, it relies entirely on the mean and (co)variance assumptions (i.e. the first two moments) and the results could change drastically with very small amount of change in the inputs. To see that, you can make up some inputs for the solver you have, and try adjusting the inputs a little bit and see the results. Therefore if you decide to take this approach, data quality is very crucial. EDIT: What I meant by ""data quality"" I have no experience with this website but this should be easy to spot check. The answer is usually ""yes"" for liquid assets. Illiquid assets can often be priced at a level with no volume, and the bid-ask spread could be huge.  Should I close my eyes on the fact that these cryptocurencies aren't perfectly priced in my currency and use another one (such as the dollar) You seem to have concern about data quality in at least the price quoted in your currency and are thinking about using data quoted in USD, but would it be any better? The law of one price tells us that there shouldn't be any discrepancy between prices in different currencies (otherwise there would be arbitrage). In addition, (when compared to traditional assets) cryptocurrency price data has a shorter data history, and with lower liquidity in the market. The short history means you have less data to infer the characteristics of the price behavior. Low liquidity means the volatility may well be underestimated. So we have an input-sensitive technique combined with not-so-perfect data. I wouldn't allocate my money solely based on the result of this exercise. EDIT: I have quite some reservation about doing portfolio optimization for cryptocurrency. Personally I'm not a fan of the technique as is. The optimization has an underlying assumption that returns follow a certain distribution, and correlation is fixed. I don't know if you can make such assumption for cryptocurrencies. From what I read about BTC for example, it seems to have a high risk exposure concerning Chinese monetary policy. For that kind of assets perhaps a fundamental analysis approach is a better one.  Also if you would like to learn more about portfolio optimization, try quant.SE" If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account.  It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible.   If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds.  These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts.   You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries.  Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred.  There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys.  For most people, this is too much work.  For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases.  You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper.   If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them.  For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing.  But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price.  The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after.   Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals.  That way you can share some of the research duties.  Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys.   Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors.  Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it.  There's considerable work involved.  And don't forget diversification.  You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does.  Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices.  You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move.   There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions.  If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure.  Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others.  Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be.  Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions.  I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa. There are short-term and long term aspects. In the long term, if you live and work in Australia and plan to continue doing both indefinitely, you might as well move all your cash investments there.  There would be no point bearing the exchange rate risks.  It may be worth keeping the account open with just enough credit to stop it being shut down.  There is no point needing to (think about) filing foreign tax returns just because you have an account earning a small amount of interest. In the short term, I think the more important question is practicality rather than exchange rate risk.  You want to have enough cash in both countries that if you suddenly have to pay say an apartment deposit or a bill, you won't be caught short.  So I would leave at least a few thousands dollars in a US bank account until at least a couple of months after the move, when I was sure everything was settled. Good luck. Personally, I do asset allocation separately for personal investing and for retirement investing, as I the two have vastly different purposes and I have vastly different goals for each. YMMV depending on how you view your non-retirement investments, and how close you are to retirement.