@jcmleng very interesting thanks for the disclosure....i think I'm getting a trend here lol

@Solvetheriddle here's my rough asset allocation excluding primary residence:

International equities: 50% (split fairly evenly between ETFs and funds)

Australian equities: 35% (mix of direct shares, ETFs and funds)

Gold: 5% (ETF)

Fixed interest, cash: 9%

Bitcoin: <1%

@Solvetheriddle I am wondering similar.

I have a direct investment with NASDAQ (about 25-30% of total super) and then track the MSCI international index with similar allocation. I have been considering my exposure to NASDAQ of late - done extremely well but obviously closely related to big few in the US. We all know there are some valuation questions there, but also some possible concerns with the longer term outlook and operating environment for their whole market.

Less concerned about the MSCI, but even that is 20% upwards in the same US companies! That said, I am much more comfortable with the MSCI and my guess is this will be a lifetime holding in the bottom drawer.

The NASDAQ has some question marks for the reasons above, but obviously has some advantages too. I previously had a small-ish allocation to an Asian market ETF but sold. Lots before me have been wrong re: China and I am not willing to place this bet, although you could argue there might be some (positive) changes going on there too.

@Rocket6 just to clarify so thats about 25% + 25%=50% approx

thanks

@RhinoInvestor thanks rhino so about 60% of the 55% so around 30-35% intl.

(the US options market much better than the ASX)---thats not hard

@Solvetheriddle here's my asset allocation (approx.) excluding primary residence:

International Equities 59%

International Fixed Income 20%

Australian Equities 12% (9% in active ASX fund, which is my SM focus)

Cash 4%

International Private Equity <3%

Australian Fixed Income <2%

Australian Private Equity <1%

Property <1%

Thanks Mike, I thought i was being aggressive on intl, maybe not.......

Looks like IRL I’m more of a risk taker than most. Contrary to what gender predicts. But I run three separate (totally separate) PFs, and they have very different structures.

1. PURE GROWTH FUND held by my company (so 25% tax):

International [all index ETFs plus a few based on filtered indexes and a few thematics] = 80% @ roughly 65% US, 35% other international on company basis. (I intend moving some of this over the next 12 months into Bitcoin and some private equity).

Australian growth stocks (small to large caps) = 15% with weighting roughly even across size - so larger caps larger holding

Currently very little cash, and no fixed interest.

This PF needs to do nothing but grow for years. No drawdowns, some small adds to small caps, and there’s a surprisingly decent distribution overall.

Point to note: There’s 10% emergency fund of cash sitting in high interest *away from the PF* - so I can’t see it and be tempted. I tend to think of it as “Not in the PF” so it doesn’t ever factor into my thinking.

2. SMSF in PENSION MODE (so 0% tax):

Growth = 45% (mainly index ETFs, @ roughly 65/35 US/other) - this is the growth side of this PF. Again, over the next 6 - 12 months, I aim to move some of this into a stake in GOLD ETF and Bitcoin. That may lower growth somewhat, at least in the short term, but overall, I think I’ll still manage sufficient growth to meet my target, but with added safety/different level and type of risk.

Australian Dividend payers = 45% (the expected companies, but I recently sold down the 4 major banks and moved the funds realized into 3 high Div. ETFs, all ASX-based)

Cash/Fixed Interest = 10% - roughly 5% cash, 5% FI.

I’ve structured this PF so that the dividends + distributions are more than enough to meet my annual obligatory drawdown (5% at present).

I’ve only been running this PF for about 8 months with this current structure, but it appears to be performing as required so far. Previous structure held about 50% plus of the stocks still in there but not correctly weighted to meet my goals.

3. LEGACY PF (personal, so high tax environment):

As it states from literally 30+ yrs ago and forgotten - currently 100% NAB (!). The CGT would be eye-watering if I sold, and the dividends are quite decent. As I’m forced to take tax-free money from the pension, I aim to put the excess in here, into GOLD (ETF) and also Bitcoin. Given I own the other two PFs, I figure I’m covered overall.

Thanks for asking the question @BigStrawbs70 Interested to hear what others do, especially with different PF structures for different purposes.

@Solvetheriddle correct mate, about 50% of total super invested in NASDAQ and MSCI.

I had to liquidate a big chunk of my holdings recently to purchase a new home, so my portfolio is a bit off but currently sits as follows:

• around 10% US through 2 x ETFs
• 10% through a LIC that covers US and European companies
• remainder in Australian equities with a 50/50 split between growing small caps and consistent earners in the ASX 200.

I acknowledge that I am very well underweight in the global/US space, and will be dollar cost averaging over the next 2-3 years to bring myself up to 30-35% through ETFS like IOO. Will also take a dip into the BTC via an ETF in the coming weeks as well.

I'm only about 7% International Equities, mostly in the US market, but I also have one Swedish stock and I am actively looking to expand into Canada and Japan. I have only recently started diversifying into International holdings, hence the low percentage, but so far they are outperforming from a capital growth perspective. The largest proportion of my international shares are in my SMSF.

I hold stocks directly, not through ETF's (both in Australia and Internationally). I know that ETF's are all the rage at the moment, but I see the management fees as diluting returns and ETF's can involve more frequent turnover of assets incurring additional CGT events further diluting returns and some ETF's trade at a premium to the NAV of the stocks they hold.

I've found dividend paying shares less effective in the US than Australia, not only because on average that they pay lower percentages, but also the US passive earnings tax and absence of franking credits further dilutes the returns. The falling Aussie dollar has helped offset that a little. As I said earlier though, the capital growth has outperformed my Australian portfolio and I am looking for other markets that can similarly deliver. I am confident I'll get to at least 20% and possibly as high as 30%.

Mine's low, just under 10% and all of that via shares in WAM Global (WGB), so a managed fund - a Listed Investment Company (LIC) - which also doubles as an income play, something you don't normally associate with investing outside of Australia from Australia. 10% is very low, but I have enough good ideas here in Oz that I don't feel I need to chase after overseas returns when I understand less about those companies than the ones I'm invested in here.

In the past I have been invested in various global ETFs at various times, but not currently, and apart from the "plenty of good ideas here in Oz" argument, my other concern is that US Tech, and the NASDAQ in general, looks overbought to me, and they've had such a stellar run in recent years, I do have some concerns that there might be a "correction" or some sort of crash or mini-crash, particularly with their current choice of POTUS being so predictably unpredictable.

WAM Global (WGB) are underweight big tech, other than having Google (Alphabet) as a top 10 position (3.4% of their portfolio at Dec 31st):

They do own shares in a few stock exchanges plus investment data and analytics companies, like ICE MSCI & CME (all US) which should do well and may even benefit from more volatile global markets, particularly wild swings in the US markets, if that was to occur. WGB also hold some global leaders like SAP (Germany), Visa (US) and Adobe (US) who provide mission critical software or services to the world, so there's enough to like, but they're also a bit different to an index hugging ETF. I personally prefer some active management at this point than going with a passive ETF that gives you a bit of everything.

But since I'm only around the 10% mark (global exposure, and all of that indirect) - you can probably ignore me as an outlier - it works for me, but I probably wouldn't recommend it for anyone else.

I aim to get international exposure through the vast majority of my investments, regardless of where a company or fund is domiciled. I view Australia as too small a market, and even then it is super concentrated in houses and holes. Neither miners nor banks hold any interest for me.

So for example CSL, CDA, WTC, RMD, PNV, all of which I hold in my Super, all derive more revenue from ROW than they do from Australia. The fact that they are all listed on the ASX has very little bearing on their international exposure.

Very roughly, I aim for a 50/50 split in the number of companies I invest in, between the ASX and Nasdaq This is simply because my circle of competence is in Technology ( i.e. computer hardware and software), and most of the big players are in America. I hold NVDA, GOOG, AMZN, MSFT, TTD and TEAM in the same Super portfolio. The latter is actually an Australian company, but just happens to be listed on Nasdaq - and.like all these companies has a global reach.

@lankypom - that's a very good point. When I look at my ASX holdings in my GROWTH PF, almost all have some, often large exposure to the US market. Like RMD, COH, PME, TLX, and then even companies like WTC, CAT and AIM have significant US-derived income.

The source of income is definitely a point to consider if one is weighing up risk in the current uncertain climate.

Hmm. Just realized my own business's income, while generated solely in Australia, is roughly 95% US-sourced. Eek! Just call me very very heavily US-dependent.

I couldn't break out the US exposure very easily, but it is by far the largest in my International Equity component. The above chart is one reason why I think its a good call.