Beyond 60/40: Taking on advanced investment strategies as a DIY investor

Risk capacity: You lost your job, so you can't tolerate as much volatility. Your strategic mix should reflect that.

You know you should be diversified. You've heard the advice, and implemented a simple stock/bond split: 60% stocks, 40% bonds, or maybe 80/20. Perhaps you’ve put the popular three-fund portfolio (often referred to as the Boglehead portfolio) in place, with a mix of a US stock index, international stock index, and a total bond market index. These are simple and straightforward, but when you start to manage a six-to-seven-figure portfolio, these strategies may begin to feel a bit blunt.

Maybe you started reading about factor tilts. Managed futures. Catastrophe bonds. Risk parity. And you started wondering: am I leaving money on the table with a basic allocation? Or am I overcomplicating something that already works?

We think the real answer is that many people hold a basic portfolio and then they begin to tinker with it in ways that undermine their initial strategy. They add a "tilt" to value equities without committing to it. They buy managed futures and sell after a bad quarter. They rotate between factors and end up with worse returns than if they'd just picked something and left it alone.

This guide provides a framework to help investors understand and, if they deem it appropriate, implement advanced asset allocation strategies. To get there, this guide is aimed to help you determine:

1. What's my strategic baseline? The permanent allocation to stocks, bonds, and diversifiers that I'm committing to holding for years, regardless of market moves.
2. Do I want factor tilts? A small, permanent overweight to value or quality equities, small-cap, or momentum indices. These have historically had performance premiums, so investment tilts towards these equities is betting that these premiums persist, even through long underperformance periods.
3. ‍Should I try tactical positioning? Temporary, sized, time-limited bets on specific themes. (Spoiler: we believe most people shouldn't, because most people fail at it.)

‍

In our view, if you nail these questions, you'll stop performance-chasing. You'll know what you actually own. You'll rebalance with discipline, not emotion. And you'll spend your energy on the 90% that matters (asset allocation), not the 10% that doesn't (stock picking).^,

If you can't nail these questions, no tool in the world will fix what you're doing.

In this guide, we’ll share our views on:

• Why 90% of your long-term returns come from one decision, and why that means stocks vs. bonds matters infinitely more than picking the right index between VTI vs. VOO
• How factor tilts (value, quality, size, momentum) work, and why you should only use them if you're willing to hold through 5+ year droughts
• Strategic diversifiers that legitimately reduce the impact of market crashes: managed futures (trend-following), catastrophe bonds (uncorrelated to stocks and bonds), and why adding 10% of either one changes your portfolio's behavior during market drawdowns
• What tactical allocation is, why most people fail at it, and how to do it (if you feel you must try)
• How to audit your portfolio to see what you actually own (you'll probably be surprised)
• The three layers of portfolio construction and how to know which one you're operating in
• Model portfolio examples: four complete allocations with expected returns, volatility, and drawdowns, so you can see how this works in practice

‍

This guide gives you a framework on how to think about going beyond a three-fund portfolio. Enrich gives you the visibility and tools to implement and maintain an advanced portfolio with more clarity and ease. 

Disclosure: Enrich has a financial interest in promoting portfolio complexity, which may influence its recommendations (greater portfolio complexity means there would be higher engagement and more rebalancing alerts). This guide is provided is for educational purposes and does not constitute personalized investment advice. You should consult a qualified advisor regarding your personal financial situation.

‍

¹ Brinson, G. P., Hood, L. R., & Beebower, G. L. (1986). "Determinants of portfolio performance." Financial Analysts Journal. 

² Ibbotson, Xiong, Idzorek, and Chen, (2010) “The Equal Importance of Asset Allocation and Active Management” Financial Analysts Journal.

³ Brinson, G. P., Hood, L. R., & Beebower, G. L. (1986). "Determinants of portfolio performance." Financial Analysts Journal.

‍

Why strategic asset allocation matters so much

Strategic asset allocation is the bedrock of a robust investment portfolio. It represents the long-term, permanent mix of different asset classes and investment factors—such as domestic equities, international fixed income, real estate, commodities, and various risk premia—that you intend to hold. This allocation is designed to remain relatively constant for many years, through multiple market cycles and the volatility they may bring.

The core principle behind strategic asset allocation is that it determines the vast majority of a portfolio's long-term returns and risk profile. It is the result of a deliberate, disciplined process that aligns the portfolio's structure with your specific financial goals, time horizon, and personal risk tolerance. Investors should work with a qualified investment professional to determine appropriate allocations.

While it may sound boring because it involves inaction during times of short-term market noise, strategic asset allocation determines the vast majority of a portfolio's long-term returns and risk profile, as several studies have shown that this asset allocation drives ~90% of the returns a portfolio achieves. Unlike tactical shifts aimed at exploiting short-lived opportunities, strategic allocation is about establishing the fundamental, durable foundation that will carry you toward your ultimate financial objectives.

If you decide "I'm a 60% stock, 30% bond, 10% diversifier person," or "I'm a 70/30 with a small tilt to value and a 5% managed futures allocation," that's your baseline. It doesn't change because the market moved or someone on Reddit had a hot take.

If you're agonizing over whether to own VTI vs individual stocks, or whether you have home-country bias in your portfolio, you're wasting energy on the 10% that doesn't matter much. The 90% that matters is just: "How much stocks, how much bonds, how much other stuff?"

‍

What changes your strategic allocation (rarely)

We think your strategic allocation should shift only when something fundamental about you changes:

• Life stage: You went from 25 to 45. Your time horizon to retirement shortened. It's reasonable to gradually become more conservative. One strategy to handle this is to introduce a glidepath in your portfolio.‍
• Goals: You now have a kid who'll go to college in 15 years. That's a new goal with a new time horizon and a new allocation. A strategy to handle this is to create goal-focused portfolios, where each goal has its own portfolio with its own risk profile driven by the timeline of the goal.
• Risk capacity: You lost your job, so you can't tolerate as much volatility. Your strategic mix should reflect that.
• Risk tolerance: You looked at your real 2020 losses and realized "I literally can't hold this much equity." That's a signal to reset your baseline.

‍

Here are some examples of what should NOT change your strategic allocation:

• The S&P 500 hit an all-time high.
• Value underperformed growth for 5 years.
• A crypto bull market made you feel FOMO.
• Your neighbor said his tech allocation is up 30%.
• A Reddit thread convinced you small-cap is the future.

‍

⁴ Brinson, G. P., Hood, L. R., & Beebower, G. L. (1986). "Determinants of portfolio performance." Financial Analysts Journal.

⁵ Brinson, G. P., Hood, L. R., & Beebower, G. L. (1986). "Determinants of portfolio performance." Financial Analysts Journal.

When to go beyond a 3-fund portfolio

‍

## Three Fund Portfolio: When and Why to Go Beyond It

A simple three-fund portfolio—typically composed of broad U.S. equities, international equities, and bonds—provides a reasonable foundation for most investors. This approach is easy to understand, straightforward to rebalance, and requires minimal ongoing attention.

However, research has shown that for investors managing multiple financial goals across multiple accounts, the 3-fund framework has three significant  limitations, which we will dive into.

‍

Concentration in a single factor exposure

The primary limitation of a standard 3-fund portfolio is that it captures market-cap-weighted exposure to each asset class, which means you're passively accepting the return premiums (or penalties) that come bundled with market pricing. A portfolio weighted by market capitalization inadvertently overweights the highest-valuation companies and underweights cheaper securities, systematically missing the documented premiums available through value, momentum, and quality factor tilts. This is not a market inefficiency but rather a deliberate choice to accept the market's valuation structure. If your time horizon exceeds ten years, the academic evidence suggests that tilting the equity portion of your portfolio toward value stocks and quality firms—while maintaining momentum sensitivity—can deliver meaningfully higher risk-adjusted returns than simply making your 3-fund portfolio more aggressive.

‍

Inadequate diversification during correlated market stress

The second limitation emerges when market correlations change. A 3-fund portfolio assumes that stocks and bonds move inversely: when equities decline sharply, bonds provide cushion. However, this relationship is fragile. During periods of rising inflation or rapid interest rate changes, both stocks and bonds decline simultaneously, eliminating the diversification benefit that motivates holding both. Investors with substantial assets across multiple accounts face this risk acutely. Managed futures and similar low-correlation strategies historically generate returns that are nearly uncorrelated with both equities and bonds, with the added advantage of performing positively during equity crises. Even a modest 10-15% allocation to such diversifiers can measurably reduce portfolio drawdowns and improve overall risk-adjusted returns without sacrificing upside participation during equity rallies.

‍

Insufficient tax-optimization opportunities

The third practical limitation involves rebalancing as your portfolio and life get more complex. A simple 3‑fund portfolio in a single account is easy to rebalance with rough rules of thumb a few times a year. But once you spread assets across multiple accounts and goals, that simplicity stops working. This is exacerbated if you are limited in what funds you can select (e.g., 401k’s, 529s). With only three broad funds, you have limited levers to systematically sell what has become expensive and buy what has become cheap. Introducing additional, well‑defined factors and sub‑asset classes gives you more granular slices that move differently over time, which in turn creates more frequent and more precise opportunities to rebalance. Instead of one blunt “stock vs. bond” trade, you can trim specific winners and add to specific laggards inside your equity sleeve, capturing more of the rebalancing alpha that comes from disciplined buy‑low/sell‑high behavior. The catch is that coordinating this across multiple accounts and factors quickly becomes too complex for a spreadsheet, even though the potential rebalancing benefit grows as the portfolio becomes more segmented.

These limitations—insufficient factor diversification, inadequate correlation diversification, and suboptimal tax positioning—are not theoretical concerns. They become increasingly relevant as your investable assets grow, your number of accounts multiplies, and your investment timeline extends. A 3-fund portfolio remains excellent for investors seeking simplicity or those with concentrated wealth in a single account.

Understanding when your portfolio outgrows this simplicity requires discipline. For the investor juggling IRAs, brokerage accounts, and 401(k) plans while managing multiple goals, the complexity of moving beyond three funds is offset by meaningful improvements in expected risk-adjusted returns and after-tax outcomes. The following sections dive into how to get more out of your portfolio by building strategies around these limitations.

‍

⁶ Estrada, J. (2020). Factor tilts and asset allocation. Journal of Investment Consulting.

⁷ Asness, C. S., Moskowitz, T. J., & Pedersen, L. H. (2013). Value and momentum everywhere. The Journal of Finance.

⁸ Arnott, R. D., Beck, S. L., Kalesnik, V., & West, J. (2016). How do you achieve your long-term returns without rebalancing? Research Affiliates Publications.

⁹ Blitz, D., Hanauer, M. X., Vidojevic, M., & Zaremba, A. (2020). Value investing on a budget. Journal of Portfolio Management.^‍‍

¹⁰ Moskowitz, T. J., Ooi, Y. H., & Pedersen, L. H. (2012). Time series momentum. Journal of Financial Economics.

¹¹ Blitz, D., Hanauer, M. X., & Vidojevic, M. (2020). The characteristics of factor investing. The Journal of Portfolio Management.

Factor Tilting: A Beginner's Guide to Factor Investing

‍

What are factors?

Factors are patterns in how different groups of stocks have performed over long periods. The research discovered that if you sort stocks by certain characteristics, some groups have historically earned higher returns than others. Those characteristics are the "factors."

The big four factors with the longest historical evidence are:

1. Value Factor
   Stock can be categorized as value stocks, growth stocks, or blend (something in between). Value stocks are considered to be cheaper stocks when compared to growth stocks, when measured by price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and/or dividend yield. Typically growth stocks have a higher revenue growth rate which leads to this higher pricing. Over long periods (1926–present), a portfolio of "cheap" stocks has historically outperformed "expensive" ones, even accounting for risk ^{12, 13}. Though, it's important to note that value stocks go through long stretches of underperformance. From 2015–2021, value looked like a sucker bet while tech/growth crushed it. Then 2022 reversed it sharply. The same can be said of the Magnificent Seven stocks.
2. Size Factor
   Stocks can also be categorized by the size of the value of the company. Smaller companies (small cap) vs large companies (large cap) and in-between (mid cap). Historically, smaller-cap stocks have earned higher average returns than mega-cap stocks over the long haul ^{14, 15}. However, also historically, small-cap is more volatile. It underperforms reliably during recession fears, market crash, and geopolitical crisis.¹⁶ During these turbulent times, investors typically sell stocks (particularly smaller cap investments) and buy bonds.¹⁷
3. Quality Factor
   Stocks are also categorized by their fundamentals (stable earnings, low debt, strong cash flow). Historically, stocks with better quality characteristics have earned higher risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe ratios) over time, even if not always higher raw returns ¹⁸. However, high quality stocks can underperform in growth-driven cycles when investors get excited about speculative, low-quality names.
4. Momentum Factor
   Stocks can also be measured by their momentum. For example, stocks that have recently gone up tend to keep going up for a while (and vice versa for losers). This pattern shows up consistently across markets and decades. A simple rule—"buy the stocks up 12 months, short the stocks down 12 months"—has earned statistically significant excess returns^19,20. Momentum crashes hard when trends reverse, though. A momentum crash (when winners suddenly tank) can be severe.

‍

Advanced factor tilts (move slowly here)

There are few other factors with decent academic evidence, but less historical data. As a result, they require more nuance when implemented.

‍

Minimum Volatility / Low Volatility Factor

Stocks with lower price swings historically tend to have better risk-adjusted returns. Some research shows low-volatility stocks outperform on a risk-adjusted basis, meaning you get similar returns with less swinging around²¹. However, this tilt can become overcrowded. If too many people pursue this, it stops working. Also, low-volatility stocks can underperform when the market is in a growth-cycle.

‍

Profitability / Quality-of-Earnings

There's academic backing that companies that earn high returns on capital (ROE, ROIC) compared to companies with low returns on capital outperform over long periods, especially when combined with value characteristics²². Note that this can overlap heavily with the "quality" factor. So investing in both the profitability factor and the quality factor can lead to double-counting in your portfolio.

‍

ESG Factor

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) is about owning companies that score well on sustainability metrics. A company with strong ESG characteristics might have low carbon emissions, good labor practices, a diverse board, transparent governance, and minimal legal problems. The opposite would be high pollution, poor labor practices, governance scandals, and regulatory conflicts.

The question is: does owning good ESG companies make you more money? The academic evidence is mixed at best. A comprehensive meta-analysis that examined over 2,000 empirical studies found that 58% showed a positive correlation between ESG scores and returns, 36% showed no correlation, and 6% showed negative correlation²³. That's not a strong signal. It essentially means ESG returns are indistinguishable from random, depending on which study you look at.​

There's a deeper problem: ESG scoring itself is subjective and inconsistent. Different ESG data providers—Sustainalytics, MSCI, Bloomberg, Refinitiv—rank the same companies differently²⁴. They disagree on which companies are "good" ESG and which are "bad." This inconsistency is itself predictive of nothing. You can't build a robust factor on a foundation that doesn't agree with itself.

The practical issue is that even if ESG works as a return factor (which the evidence doesn't strongly support), by the time you notice it's working, the price is already bid up. Companies with great ESG scores have already gotten expensive relative to their fundamentals. You'd be buying high, which defeats the purpose.

Practically, given the mixed reception, if you care about ESG for personal values reasons—you don't want to own fossil fuel companies or weapons manufacturers or predatory lenders—that's legitimate. But the research doesn’t clearly show that you could get better returns from it. You're probably paying a value premium (less diversification, higher valuations in "good" ESG names), not earning one²⁵. It might be more practical to own a broad market fund (which will include Practically, given the mixed reception, if you care about ESG for personal values reasons—you don't want to own fossil fuel companies or weapons manufacturers or predatory lenders—that's legitimate. But the research doesn’t clearly show that you could get better returns from it. You're probably paying a value premium (less diversification, higher valuations in "good" ESG names), not earning one. It might be more practical to own a broad market fund (which will include some ESG companies), and if you want to exclude certain sectors for personal values reasons, you can do that. If you do decide to have an ESG index at the core of your portfolio, just own the consequences of reduced diversification and acknowledge you're doing it for values, not for returns.

‍

Fixed income factor tilts

‍

Duration factor

Duration measures how sensitive a bond's price is to changes in interest rates. A bond with 10-year duration will lose about 10% of its value if interest rates rise by 1%. Longer-duration bonds (more sensitive to rate changes) vs shorter-duration bonds is the core of this factor.

​Historically, the term premium—the added return for holding longer-maturity bonds—has been positive (since 1926)²⁶. This means investors have typically been compensated for the higher interest rate risk of longer bonds with greater yields. While this premium is consistently present, it fluctuates predictably with economic cycles: it rises (yields fall) during economic weakness and shrinks when the economy is strong.

The catch is that duration timing is nearly impossible to do well. You'd need to predict interest rate movements correctly before they happen, and then adjust your portfolio. Many institutional investors have tried. Many have failed²⁷. If you own bonds as part of your strategic allocation, the simplest approach is to match your bond duration to your actual time horizon and stop thinking about it. If you'll need the money in 10 years, own 10-year bonds. Don't try to rotate in and out based on your interest rate predictions.

‍

Credit quality / credit spread factor

In the bond world, credit quality works like value in stocks. Companies with lower credit ratings issue bonds with higher yields (they have to pay extra to attract buyers). Over long periods, these lower-rated corporate bonds have returned more than higher-rated bonds, even accounting for defaults.​

This is because the market is paying you for credit risk. A junk bond yielding 8% while a AAA bond yields 3% is essentially a value bet: you're betting that the 5% extra yield (the credit spread) is enough to compensate you for the actual default risk you're taking. Historical data suggests it does—on average, over long periods, investors in lower-rated bonds have earned excess returns that compensate for the real losses that come from occasional defaults^{28, 29}.

The caveat is the same as with value stocks: this works great—until it doesn't. During recessions, when defaults spike, lower-rated bonds get crushed. In 2008, junk bonds lost about 25% of their value. In March 2020 (COVID), they lost 15%. If you tilt your bond allocation toward credit, you're betting on economic stability. This works most of the time, but that "most of the time" hides some really bad periods. If you can’t sleep at night knowing you're holding bonds that can get hit hard, don't do this tilt.

‍

Momentum in bonds

This is the least researched and least recommended of the bond factors. The basic idea is that bond prices that have recently moved in one direction tend to keep moving—similar to equity momentum. The academic evidence exists but is thinner than for equity momentum³⁰.​

In practice, momentum in bonds tends to work during trending markets (when the Fed is clearly raising or clearly cutting rates) but breaks down fast when trends reverse. Because bonds don't have the same large retail investor base that drives some equity momentum, the effect is smaller and harder to exploit. For individual investors in DIY portfolios, we don’t think this factor is worth pursuing. It's more of an institutional trading strategy that requires sophisticated execution.

‍

How to use factor tilts

Strategic factor tilts, such as leaning toward value, quality, size, or momentum, should be approached as a permanent, long-term allocation, typically a 5–10% overweight, rather than a short-term gamble. This long-term commitment requires accepting that there will be extended periods, potentially five or more years, where the chosen factor underperforms the market.

The key to successful strategic tilting is to systematically rebalance by buying more of the factor when it is relatively cheap. Before making a commitment, you can use tools like Enrich to fully analyze the tilt's actual impact on your portfolio's risk contribution, its correlation with other holdings (including identifying overlaps), and the historical Sharpe ratio and drawdowns. Once implemented, Enrich can help you maintain and monitor your factors so you can rebalance with ease, especially when indexes for each of these factor tilts are changing their underlying holdings and thus weights towards other factors.

Ultimately, while strategic factor tilts are supported by decades of evidence and sensible logic, tactical factor timing is generally ineffective and best avoided. By keeping the tilt small (5–10%), you increase the likelihood of holding through adverse periods.

‍

¹² Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). "The cross-section of expected stock returns." Journal of Finance

¹³ Asness, C. S., Moskowitz, T. J., & Pedersen, L. H. (2013). "Value and momentum everywhere." Journal of Finance

¹⁴  Banz, R. W. (1981). "The relationship between return and market value of common stocks." Journal of Financial Economics.

¹⁵ Asness, C. S., Frazzini, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2018). "Size matters, if you control your junk." Journal of Financial Economics.

¹⁶ Harvey, Campbell R., Yan Liu, and Heqing Zhu (2016) – “...and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns.

¹⁷ Bierman (2023) “Do small caps or large caps perform better in recessions?” Schroders Global Wave.

¹⁸ Novy-Marx, R., & Velikov, M. (2016). "A taxonomy of anomalies and their trading costs." Review of Financial Studies. Blitz, D., Hanauer, M. X., Vidojevic, M., & Vlietstra, M. (2020). "Factors for the long term." Journal of Portfolio Management.

¹⁹ Carhart, M. M. (1997). "On persistence in mutual fund performance." Journal of Finance.

²⁰ Asness, C. S., Moskowitz, T. J., & Pedersen, L. H. (2013). "Value and momentum everywhere." Journal of Finance.

²¹ Blitz, D., Hanauer, M. X., Vidojevic, M., & Vlietstra, M. (2020). "Low volatility investing – Characteristics and portfolio construction." SSRN Electronic Journal.

²² Novy-Marx, R. (2013). "The other side of value: The gross profitability premium." Journal of Financial Economics.

²³ Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). "ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies." Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 

²⁴ Pedersen, L. H., Fitzgibbons, S., & Pomorski, L. (2021). "Responsible investing: the ESG-efficient frontier." Journal of Financial Economics

²⁵ Cao, Titman, Zhan, and Zhang (2023) “ESG Preference, Institutional Trading, and Stock Return Patterns.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

²⁶ Ilmanen, A. (2011). Expected Returns: An Investor's Guide to Harvesting Market Rewards. Wiley & Sons. Bliss, R. R., & Panigirtzoglou, N. (2004). "Option-implied risk aversions and economic fundamentals." Journal of Finance.

²⁷ Chen, Fersen, Peters (2008) “Measuring the Timing Ability of Fixed Income Mutual Funds”

²⁸ Nozari, A., & Schweizer, D. (2018). "Exploring systematic credit risk." Journal of Fixed Income.

²⁹ Raol, Pope (2018) "Why Should Investors Consider Credit Factors in Fixed Income?" CAIA.

³⁰ Mclean, R. D., Pontiff, J., & Watanabe, A. (2009). "Share issuance and cross-sectional returns: International evidence." Journal of Financial Economics, 94(1), 1-17. Limited but growing evidence that bond momentum exists (similar to equity momentum). Less studied than equity momentum but shows statistical significance.

‍

Strategic diversifier allocations (risk parity, CTAs, cat bonds)

‍

### Portfolio Concentration Risk: The Hidden Killer

‍

Why "diversifiers" are strategic, not tactical

Once you've selected your core strategic asset allocation (stocks, bonds, factor tilts), you might ask:

"Is there anything else that doesn't move with stocks and bonds, and could reduce my drawdowns?"

The answer is yes. But we think these things—risk parity, managed futures, insurance-linked securities—are best treated as permanent strategic allocations, not as "I'll hop in when valuations look right."

‍

Risk parity

A traditional 60/40 portfolio allocates 60% of your dollars to stocks and 40% to bonds. But here's the problem: stocks are roughly three times more volatile than bonds. When stocks bounce around with 15% annual volatility and bonds stay steady at 5%, the portfolio's risk doesn't come from where your capital is—it comes from where the volatility is³¹. The math works out so that even though you've put 60% of your capital in stocks, roughly 90% of your portfolio's actual risk (volatility) comes from those stocks. Bonds, despite representing 40% of your dollars, only contribute about 10% of the risk.​

This mismatch bothers some investors. They say: "If 90% of my risk is coming from stocks, why not just admit I'm a 90/10 investor instead of pretending I'm 60/40? And if I'm taking on all that stock risk, why do I have so much dead-weight bond capital earning low returns?"

Risk parity is the answer to that question. Instead of allocating by dollars, you allocate by risk. You'd ask: "What if I put enough capital in each asset class so they each contributed roughly the same amount to my portfolio's total risk?" To make that work, you'd put less capital into volatile stocks—maybe 20–30% of your portfolio—and much more into stable bonds, perhaps 40–50%. But bonds won't generate enough return on their own, so risk parity strategies use leverage (they borrow money) to scale the whole portfolio up so your expected returns stay competitive with traditional allocations.

As a result of this approach, volatility becomes lower and smoother. Your portfolio swings around less. Second, you're betting heavily that stocks and bonds move in opposite directions (negative correlation) or at least don't move together (low correlation). That's been true historically—when stocks crash, people buy bonds—but there are periods when this breaks down³². And third, you're taking on borrowing risk. If you're leveraged and markets move fast, lenders can force you to sell at the worst times.

Risk parity worked beautifully for years. Then came COVID in March 2020 and rising interest rates in 2022. In both periods, stocks and bonds sold off together—the core assumption that they move differently collapsed. Risk parity funds that used leverage got hit particularly hard because they had to deleverage (sell) into the downturn. If you don't use leverage and just reweight your portfolio, you're okay. But most institutional risk parity funds do use leverage, so they take concentrated losses during rare periods when correlations break.

If you like the idea of a smoother ride through market cycles and you're okay with slightly different long-term return expectations, risk parity is worth exploring. You could use it as your entire strategic core (maybe 30–50% of your portfolio is risk parity, rest is other stuff), or as a 10–15% strategic “bucket” alongside a traditional 60/40 core (so 10% risk parity, 54% equity, 36% bonds). But understand what you're getting into: lower volatility in normal times, but concentration risk if correlations move. Plus there is the borrowing risk.

‍

Managed Futures / CTA Funds

Managed futures are systematic investment strategies that trade futures contracts (on stocks, bonds, commodities, and currencies) using trend-following rules. Often these are marketed as “CTA Funds,” which are an investment fund run by a Commodity Trading Advisor that primarily trades futures and other derivatives (often across commodities, equity indexes, interest rates, and currencies) using systematic or discretionary trading strategies. They buy assets going up and sell assets going down. Unlike stock investors who can only go long, futures traders can go both long and short across many markets simultaneously. This allows them to profit from sharp, sustained trends, particularly during market crises³³. For example, a strategy selling short into a crash might gain 5-10% while the S&P 500 drops 30%, simply by mechanically following the established trend. Because they trade many markets and can profit in rising or falling price environments, CTA funds are typically used as an uncorrelated or diversifying sleeve alongside traditional stocks and bonds, especially for downside or crisis protection.

What makes managed futures interesting to investors is their unusual behavior during crises. Research on managed futures performance in major market crashes (2000-02, 2008, COVID 2020) consistently shows one of two things: either they make money while stocks are crashing, or they lose far less than stocks do³⁴. This pattern is called "crisis alpha," which can provide extra returns in the periods when you need them most, when the rest of your portfolio is experiencing a market crash..​

Moskowitz, Ooi, and Pedersen's foundational work on time-series momentum (the academic term for trend following) documented statistically significant returns to a simple rule: buy assets with positive 12-month returns, sell assets with negative 12-month returns. Applied across 58 different futures contracts over 25+ years, this strategy consistently outperformed, and crucially, its best returns came during market crashes and periods of high volatility³⁵. Separate research examined crisis periods systematically and found that CTAs generate crisis alpha through two mechanisms: first, they're diversified across multiple futures markets (so while equities crash, they're making money in other markets), and second, they rapidly reduce exposure to crashing markets within 15 days, cutting their losses fast³⁶.​

But there are real catches. In calm bull markets,like the one we had from 2009 to 2021, managed futures underperform. Their returns can be lumpy and unpredictable in non-crisis periods. Also, fees are historically higher than simple index funds (often 1-2% annually vs 0.03% for an index). And their correlation structure can shift unpredictably. Past crisis alpha does not guarantee future results. Trend-following performance depends on whether future market movements resemble historical patterns.

Similar to risk parity, if this is an approach you want to take, it could be prudent to allocate 5–15% of your portfolio towards managed futures. Small enough that you're not hurt badly during the flat/down years when managed futures lag. Large enough that, if their trend-following performance does align with a market crash, their returns may reduce drawdowns. If you add a managed futures ETF to your portfolio in Enrich, you can test what it does to your maximum drawdown, your overall volatility, and your Sharpe ratio³⁷. You may want to consider adding this to your portfolio if the improvements are meaningful enough to justify the fees and the lumpy returns, and you can genuinely live with those trade-offs.

‍

Insurance-linked securities / catastrophe bonds (ILS / Cat bonds)

Insurance-linked securities (ILS), primarily catastrophe (cat) bonds, are structured to transfer specific natural disaster risks from insurers to capital market investors. Cat bonds are valuable for portfolio diversification because their returns are driven by the insurance risk premium and the frequency/severity of natural disasters, factors structurally independent of economic cycles, Fed policy, or geopolitical events³⁸. Historically, they show low correlation (below 0.25 with equities, near-zero with traditional bonds)³⁹. This lack of correlation means market crashes—like the 2008 financial crisis, the 2020 COVID panic, or the 2022 geopolitical crisis—do not automatically affect cat bond values⁴⁰. For example, in February 2022, ILS funds delivered modest positive returns (0.1-0.4%) while equity markets were down double digits, simply because natural disasters were uncorrelated to the Ukraine invasion.

To apply this strategy, you buy the bond, receiving an attractive quarterly coupon (typically 3-6%) from both the collateral's interest (held in a Treasury money market or safe government securities) and an insurance risk premium. The key risk is a trigger: a predefined catastrophe (e.g., a Florida hurricane over $500M in insured losses, or a major California earthquake) causes you to lose some or all principal. You are essentially paid a premium to assume a specific, transferable disaster risk for the insurance industry.

Adding a 10% allocation to cat bonds (rebalanced annually) to a 90% S&P 500 portfolio significantly improves the Sharpe ratio, despite a slightly lower absolute return⁴¹. This is due to cat bonds' low volatility (less than one-third of equities) and independence from stock market movement. Studies confirm this diversification benefit persists even during extreme market stress⁴².

But there are real catches. Particularly principal loss during major catastrophes. The 2017 hurricane season (Irma, Harvey, Maria) triggered 19 separate cat bond tranches, and the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires caused multiple payouts. If you own a cat bond with wildfire or earthquake exposure and a major event occurs in an area with dense insured property values, real principal loss is possible. Additionally, they are less liquid than other bonds, and finding a buyer during financial stress can be difficult. Estimating catastrophe risk is also challenging, as models have historically underestimated frequency and severity, and climate change is shifting historical patterns.

As with the other diversifiers, you can use cat bonds as a 5-10% strategic allocation within your portfolio's "diversifier" bucket, alongside managed futures or other uncorrelated strategies. Think of it as permanent portfolio infrastructure, not a tactical trade. Not as a replacement for bonds—you still want your 30-40% fixed income in traditional bonds—but as an addition that reduces overall portfolio correlation and improves risk-adjusted returns during crisis periods. In Enrich, you can test what a small cat bond allocation does to your correlation matrix, maximum drawdown, and portfolio volatility. You may want to consider adding this to your strategy if believe the improvements are meaningful enough to justify the fees (typically 1-2% annually for cat bond ETFs), and you can live with the liquidity constraints and tail risk.

‍

³¹ Qian, E. (2011). "Risk Parity and Diversification." The Journal of Investing,.

³² Campbell, Sunderam, Viceira (2017) “Inflation Bets or Deflation Hedges? The Changing Risks of Nominal Bonds.” Critical Finance Review.

³³ Becker, C., & Risi, D. (2022). “The crisis alpha of managed futures: Myth or reality?” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money

^{34, 35} Moskowitz, Ooi & Pedersen (2012) “Time Series Momentum.” Journal of Financial Economics.

³⁶ Asif, R., Frömmel, M., & Mende, A. (2022). "The crisis alpha of managed futures: Myth or reality?" Journal of Financial Analysis.

³⁷ Enrich maintains a reasonable basis for its analyses and adheres to compliance standards. Users should independently verify recommendations and consult a qualified advisor.

³⁸ Sage Advisory Services. (2026). "The Case for Cat Bonds & ILS: Elevating Diversification and Returns in 2026."

³⁹ Man Group. (2024). "Catastrophe Bonds: Diversification, Performance and Impact."

⁴⁰ Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. (2018). "Catastrophe Bonds: A Primer and Retrospective." Chicago Fed Letter, No. 405. 

⁴¹ Schroders. (2022). "Diversification, (Un)correlation and Long-Term Returns: The Case for Insurance-Linked Securities."

⁴² Mensi et al. (2022). "Dependence Structure of CAT Bonds and Portfolio Risk-Return Profile."

‍

Tactical allocation: the gap between intent and reality

Most people say they're "long-term investors." Then they sell something because it did badly last year, buy something because it did well, add a "small tilt" to value or small-cap, experiment with managed futures, or watch cat bonds after reading a Reddit thread. They're not lying.  

Before adding factor tilts or diversifiers to your allocation strategy, you need to be clear about what you're actually doing. Are these permanent changes to your long-term strategy? A temporary tactical bet? Or are you just experimenting? The distinction matters enormously. Most investors are dishonest with themselves or confused about which one they're doing.

They're confusing strategic allocation (your real long-term mix) with tactical allocation (explicit short-term bets). And that confusion is costing them returns.

‍

Strategic factor tilts

Strategic factor tilting is intended to be long-term across expansion and recessions in the economy. You decide: "I believe in the long-term value premium, so I'm going to own 10% more value exposure than a cap-weighted portfolio, and I'm willing to hold this through 10-year underperformance stretches." You're committing to accept periods where the factor underperforms badly—and crucially, you're rebalancing into the factor when it's cheap (high valuation spreads) and out when it's expensive. You express this through funds like VTV (Vanguard Value), QUAL (iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor), or VB (Vanguard Small-Cap). This is a permanent portfolio structure, like owning bonds.

Why? You're tempted to rotate after the factor has already run up (buying high). The most successful timing signal in academic research—time-series momentum with a 12-month lookback period—still produces inconsistent results out-of-sample, with particular weakness during regime changes.

The one exception: very simple, rules-based momentum signals applied to factors (not trying to predict economic regimes, but just measuring recent 12-month factor returns) have shown statistical significance in academic backtests⁴³. But even those are fragile and generate significant trading costs. For most investors, the friction of constant factor rotation wipes out any edge.

‍

Tactical factor tilts

Tactical allocation is a temporary, sized, time-limited bet against your strategic baseline. The key word is explicit. A real tactical bet has three components: first, a defined size (like "I'm overweighting value by 5% for the next year," not "I'm adding some value exposure"). Second, a defined time horizon—not "until I feel like stopping" but "until January 2027" or "for exactly 12 months." Third, a defined kill switch (like "if value underperforms growth by more than 10% in six months, I abandon this and revert to my strategic allocation").

Without those three things, you don't have a tactical bet. You have a gut feeling dressed up as strategy.

• Example of tactical allocation: "My strategic allocation is 60% stocks, 40% bonds. I think US equities are expensive and international equities cheap, so I'm temporarily underweighting my US equity exposure by 10 percentage points and overweighting international by 10 percentage points for the next 18 months. I'll review and reset in July 2027."
• Not a tactical example: "I think the US is expensive so I'm buying more international." (No defined size, no timeline, no kill switch—this is just performance chasing.)
• Example of tactical allocation: "My strategic baseline is broad-market US equities. I'm tactically adding 5% to value as a short-term bet that it's due for a rebound. If relative valuation spreads between value and growth don't narrow meaningfully within 12 months, I'm reverting to my strategic allocation."
• Not a tactical example: "Value stocks looked cheap so I added some." (No defined bet size, no timeline, no quantified success metric—this is just reacting to headlines.)

‍

Why tactical allocation fails

Research on actual tactical allocation performance paints a brutal picture. Studies by Morningstar comparing tactical allocation mutual funds (which charge an average 1.4-1.55% annually) to simple static allocation strategies show consistent underperformance⁴⁴. Over the past five years, average tactical-allocation funds lagged moderate-allocation funds by more than 2 percentage points per year, and lagged a simple 60/40 stock/bond portfolio rebalanced annually by roughly twice that—about 4 percentage points per year. Over the trailing 20-year period, tactical-allocation funds generated annualized returns of 5.0% per year versus 6.4% for average moderate-allocation funds and 7.8% for the basic 60/40 portfolio. One study took tactical funds' 2015 holdings, created a completely static "do-nothing" index portfolio from those same holdings, and left it untouched for 10 years⁴⁵. The do-nothing strategy would have earned investors nearly double the returns the tactical funds actually achieved.

This is primarily due to to several factors⁴⁶:

• Recency bias. You notice a factor or asset class is cheap after it has already run up (already expensive). You add to value after value has already outperformed for two years, right before it underperforms again for three years. By the time you notice a factor is cheap, institutional (Wall Street) money usually already knows it. You quit the position exactly when you should hold it (during relative underperformance). And worse, the timing signal that works best on historical data tends to work worst going forward—a phenomenon called "backtest overfitting." 
• Confirmation bias. You hold the tactical bet way longer than intended because you're reading articles and research that confirm your thesis. You ignore the articles that contradict it. Your one-year tactical bet becomes a three-year mistake.
• Failure to quantify. You can't articulate whether the bet actually worked or not, so you never learn from it. "Value looks cheap" is not quantifiable. "Value's price-to-book ratio was 1.2 standard deviations below its 20-year mean" is quantifiable.
• Mixing tactical with strategic. You're so unclear on your strategic baseline that you don't even know what "tactical" means relative to it. Is a 5% value overweight tactical or strategic? Depends on whether your strategic allocation already includes a value tilt. If you don't know your baseline, you can't measure the deviation.‍
• Market-timing failure. The fundamental problem is that tactical allocation is a form of market timing, and market timing doesn't work reliably. Research on market-timing skill shows that 76% of professional tactical allocation managers have generated negative alpha (underperformance) through their market timing decisions⁴⁷. Further, there's a direct correlation: the more often a manager engages in market timing, the worse their results. Managers engaging in frequent tactical rebalancing underperformed those who adjusted less often⁴⁸.

‍

Research shows that factor timing produces lower Sharpe ratios and higher turnover costs than simply maintaining steady factor exposure and rebalancing⁴⁹. The most successful timing signal in academic research is time-series momentum with a 12-month lookback period. Its out-of-sample results are inconsistent, especially during regime changes. Simple, rules-based momentum signals applied to factors show statistical significance in academic backtests but are fragile and incur high trading costs. For most investors, the friction of constant factor rotation eliminates any potential edge.⁵⁰

In our opinion, because managing personal emotions and behaviors are difficult, most people should not do tactical allocation. We believe, tactical allocation is only worth pursuing if you possess three critical elements: a strong conviction in a specific view that's more than a mere hunch, the discipline to adhere to a predetermined timeline even when wrong, and the humility to acknowledge failure and pivot when the data tells you to. Research indicates you need all three - not one of these three⁵¹. We think implementing a tactical strategy algorithmically can address these three crieteria.

Instead of pursuing tactical allocation strategies,  research suggests that strategic asset allocations alone—with annual rebalancing—are plenty⁵². If you do want to tilt your portfolio, keep your factor tilts strategic (permanent, with rebalancing). Avoid tactical factor rotation. The costs are high, the success rate is low, and the temptation to time it incorrectly is almost irresistible.

‍

⁴³ Baltussen, van Bekkum, Van der Grient (2023) “Factor Momentum.” Review of Financial Studies.

⁴⁴ Ptak, J. (2025). "Why Tactical-Allocation Funds Failed—Again." Morningstar.

⁴⁵ Powell, R. (2025). "These Fund Managers Could've Gone Fishin' (and Earned Double Their Returns)." Morningstar

⁴⁶ DeLorme, L. F. (2016). "Dumb Alpha: Tactical Errors." CFA Institute Enterprising Investor. 

⁴⁷ Kwait (2019), “Tactical Allocation: Winning Strategy or a Fool’s Game?”Commonfund.

⁴⁸ Swinkels & van der Sluis (2021), “Is Tactical Allocation a Winning Strategy?” Journal of Index Investing.

⁴⁹ Northern Trust. (2024). "Dynamic Factor Timing."

⁵⁰ Research Affiliates. (2025). "Factor Timing: Keep It Simple."

⁵¹ Arnott, R. D., Beck, S. L., Kalesnik, V., & West, J. (2016). "How Can 'Smart Beta' Go Horribly Wrong?" Research Affiliates.

⁵² Brinson, G. P., Hood, L. R., & Beebower, G. L. (1986). "Determinants of portfolio performance." Financial Analysts Journal, 42(4), 39-44. 

How to measure your portfolio’s performance

When you own a portfolio with different assets or factors, they move at different rates. Stocks bounce around. Bonds are steadier. If your strategy closely mimics the market (R² of ≥.6) then alpha is a is good measurement how an investment strategy is outperforming (or not) the market. If your strategy isn’t following the market (R² of ≤.6) then Sharpe ratio (how much return are you gaining for the amount of risk you’re taking on) is an effective measure.

You can use Enrich’s free portfolio analysis tool to help determine your portfolio’s R², Alpha and Sharpe ratio.

Gaining alpha through rebalancing

‍

### Rebalancing Frequency: Calendar vs. Band-Based vs. Opportunistic

‍

When introducing factor based investing you will also see your allocation fluctuate more. In a typical 3 fund (US equity, International equity, bond) these funds don’t fluctuate as much. But with factor or diversifier allocations not only will you have more allocation rules defined, but each will fluctuate more respective to one another, because each allocation moves at different rates. For example, Value can spike some years and crater others. Momentum may crash while quality holds up. Managed futures provide their own return pattern. As a result, to maintain these allocations, rebalancing these allocations to bring them back to your target allocation needs should be considered when implementing a more advanced strategy.

Rebalancing alpha is the measurable return benefit you get from periodically selling the winners and buying the losers—forcing yourself to "sell high, buy low." Research shows this generates real excess return, usually 0.1–0.3% per year, with larger benefits in volatile environments⁵³. This is primarily driven by 2 effects. The volatility effect, when assets bounce around, you're constantly trimming what's gone up and adding to what's gone down. And the mean reversion effect, where assets tend to revert toward long-term return expectations over time⁵⁴.

To effectively put in place rebalancing, there are 3 primary methods of rebalancing.

• Mandatory scheduled rebalancing - no matter the situation, you rebalance on a fixed schedule (e.g., every year or every quarter). This approach is simple, mechanical, no thinking required. It is comparatively easy, generates rebalancing alpha, and removes emotion. However, this mandatory approach might might cause you to rebalance when nothing has drifted much (wasting transaction costs), or miss opportunities if thresholds are breached mid-schedule.
• Band-based scheduled rebalancing - You set tolerance bands around your target allocations. You monitor frequently but only trade when bands are breached. Because this requires computing, you check if you are outside of the tolerance bands every quarter or every month. This can easily be done with a spreadsheet, but gets more complicated if you have many holdings, or many goal-based portfolios.‍
• Band-based opportunistic rebalancing - this is the same as band-based scheduled rebalancing, but instead you use software (like Enrich) to constantly monitor (daily, weekly, inter-day) to see if rebalancing opportunities arise. Once this band is exceeded you execute the trade. Research shows opportunistic band-based rebalancing can capture more rebalancing alpha than scheduled rebalancing⁵⁵.

‍

Another rebalance tweak you may want to make, is to not sell any holdings. To perform the rebalance you would need to make contributions into your account and only purchase holdings that are underperforming. This is called a contribution-only rebalance, and makes sense to perform primarily in taxable accounts (to avoid selling investments that would cause capital gains).

‍

⁵³ Marquette Associates. 2018. Rebalancing Position Paper. Chicago, IL: Marquette Associates, Inc., December 2018.

⁵⁴ Spierdijk, Laura, Jacob A. Bikker, and Pieter van den Hoek. 2012. “Mean Reversion in International Stock Markets: An Empirical Analysis of the 20th Century.” Journal of International Money and Finance.

⁵⁵ Gobind Daryanani, “Opportunistic Rebalancing: A New Paradigm for Wealth Managers,” Journal of Financial Planning, 2008.

Putting it together

‍

The three layers of portfolio construction

Your portfolio has three distinct layers, each serving a different purpose. Understanding the difference between them is crucial—and knowing which layer you're operating in protects you from costly mistakes.

‍

Layer 1: Strategic Base (Core allocation)

The strategic base is your long-term mix of stocks, bonds, and diversifiers. It's the foundation of everything else. This layer accounts for 90% or more of your portfolio's long-term risk and return, meaning the decision between 60/40 and 70/30 matters vastly more than any tactical tweaking you might do. Your strategic base changes only when your fundamental life situation changes—a job loss, inheritance, retirement, or major shift in your time horizon or risk tolerance.

The strategic base should reflect your circumstances, time horizon, and genuine risk tolerance. Within this base, you're deciding on three core buckets:

• Equities (typically 50-70% of your total portfolio): your diversified global stock allocation, providing long-term growth.
• Fixed income (typically 20-35%): bonds and bond-like securities, providing stability and income during stock downturns.
• Diversifier allocation (typically 5-15%): alternative investments like managed futures and catastrophe bonds that have low to near-zero correlation with stocks and bonds. These aren't meant to be your primary return driver—they're there to reduce your portfolio's maximum drawdown and smooth your ride during crises. Catastrophe bonds, for instance, generate returns independent of economic cycles (they care about hurricane frequency, not Fed policy), while managed futures trend-following strategies often generate crisis alpha, making money when stocks crash.

‍

An example might be: "60% diversified global equities, 30% bonds, and 10% diversifiers (5% managed futures, 5% catastrophe bonds)." The point isn't the specific numbers—it's that you've thought through why those allocations make sense for your life, and you're committing to hold them through thick and thin.

‍

Layer 2: Strategic Factor Tilts (Your Permanent Bias)

Strategic factor tilts are small, permanent tilts toward factors or sub-asset classes you believe will outperform long-term. These are sized modestly (typically 5-10% overweight, not more), and you're making a genuine commitment to hold them through periods of meaningful underperformance.

The academic case for strategic factor tilts is strong. Research documents that certain factors—value, quality, profitability, small-cap, momentum—have generated persistent excess returns over periods of 40+ years⁵⁶. Invesco's comprehensive analysis found that factor persistence isn't a recent phenomenon or a quirk of the data; it's a robust feature of markets that has survived decades of publication and increasing competitive focus⁵⁷. Importantly, these factors do underperform for extended periods—value underperformed for an entire decade (2010-2020)⁵⁸, and many investors capitulated and sold at the wrong time. But for investors who remained committed through those periods and rebalanced systematically, the long-term returns have been consistent, but individual results vary based on actual rebalancing discipline and entry/exit timing⁵⁹.

Within your 60% stock allocation, you might tilt 5% toward value and 5% toward quality funds. You hold these tilts regardless of whether they're outperforming or underperforming right now. Examples: VTV (Vanguard Value ETF), QUAL (iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF), VB (Vanguard Small-Cap ETF). These become permanent parts of your portfolio structure, like bonds.

‍

Layer 3: Tactical Bets (Optional and Risky)

Tactical bets are temporary, sized, and time-limited deviations from your strategic baseline. If you're going to do tactical allocation at all, it needs three components: a defined size ("I'm overweighting US by 5%, not 20%"), a defined time horizon ("for exactly 12 months," not "until I feel confident"), and a defined kill switch ("if I'm wrong by 10%, I revert to strategy").

The research on tactical allocation is sobering. Morningstar's analysis found that 76% of managers who engage in market timing underperform strategically allocated peers. Tactical allocation funds have lagged static 60/40 portfolios by 4 percentage points annually over the past five years and by 2 percentage points over 20 years. The problem is predictable: by the time you notice something is cheap, institutional investors usually already know it. For example, when investors expected US-enforced tariffs in 2025, institutional investors had factored that into the equity prices⁶⁰. You rotate into a factor exactly when it's about to underperform. You stick with your tactical bet through the good years, then capitulate and go back to strategy right when the factor is ready to rebound.

The reason the strategic base dominates outcomes is mathematical. Research by Vanguard shows that over multiyear periods, your strategic asset allocation explains the vast majority of return variation⁶¹, while tactical decisions and market timing contribute almost nothing to long-term results⁶². A study comparing perfectly-timed tactical decisions (correct 100% of the time) to a static 60/40 allocation found that even perfect timing would add only 0.2 percentage points to annualized returns—less than $300 on a $1 million portfolio after 26 years⁶³. In reality, most tactical managers don't achieve perfect timing; they're right maybe 45-55% of the time, which means tactical allocation often subtracts value.

If you decide to do tactical allocation, you need conviction, discipline, and humility. Most investors have none of these three things consistently, so most investors should skip this layer entirely. And that's a perfectly rational decision. Strategic asset allocation with annual rebalancing is plenty.

An example of a real tactical bet: "My strategic baseline is 60% US stocks, 40% international. I believe US valuations are now attractive relative to international—P/E ratios are 15% below their 10-year average while international is 15% above (i.e. I’m looking at the fundamentals on the price of equities). I'm tactically underweighting international by 5% and overweighting US by 5% for the next 18 months, until July 2027. If my relative valuation spread narrows significantly (US outperforms international by more than 10% in six months), I'll reconsider the bet and possibly revert early. If we hit July 2027 and the bet hasn't worked, I'll reset to my strategic allocation regardless."

An example of not a real tactical bet: "I think US stocks are expensive so I'm buying more international." (No defined size, no timeline, not based on actual equity values, no kill switch—this is just reacting to headlines and performance.)

‍

How to audit your current portfolio

Most investors are overconfident about what they actually own. Research shows that when investors can access portfolio holdings data, they often discover holdings and exposures they weren't aware of—and they're surprised by what the correlation matrix actually shows⁶⁴. 

This is a fixable problem, but it requires honest assessment. A portfolio audit is straightforward: you need to understand what you actually have, not what you think you have. The Enrich app or similar tools are designed to help you run this audit systematically.

‍

Step 1: List every holding and categorize it

Start by listing every investment you own within a portfolio. Then categorize each holding into one of four buckets (the layers of your portfolio):

• Strategic core: Your core stocks, bonds, and diversifier allocation. These are permanent positions that you're committing to hold.
• Strategic factor tilt: Permanent overweights to specific factors (value, quality, small-cap, momentum). These are tilts you believe in long-term and will rebalance into during down periods.
• Strategic diversifier allocation: Your managed futures, catastrophe bonds, or other uncorrelated diversifiers. These belong to your core allocation and provide crisis protection.‍
• Tactical bet: Any temporary, sized position with a defined timeline. Examples: a temporary overweight to international equities, a six-month bet on a sector rotation, or a time-limited pivot toward value.

‍

If you can't categorize your holdings clearly, you don't know what you're doing. That's not a judgment—it's diagnostic. Clarity is the first step toward discipline.

‍

Step 2: Document tactical bets formally

For any holdings you've tagged as tactical bets, write down three things:

• Size: How much are you overweighting or underweighting relative to your strategic allocation? "I'm overweighting tech by 3%" is clear. "I added some tech stocks because they look cheap" is not.
• Timeline: When do you reassess this bet? July 2027? Six months from today? If you can't name a specific date, it's not a tactical bet—it's a gut feeling.‍
• Kill switch: What specific condition will make you give up on this bet and revert to your strategic allocation? "If tech underperforms the S&P 500 by 10% in six months" is a real kill switch. "If my conviction wavers" is not.

‍

Step 3: Run the analysis

Once you've categorized everything, Enrich helps you analyze:

• Factor exposure: What's your actual tilt? You might think you're balanced, but if you've owned mega-cap growth stocks for eight years (because they were winning), you're accidentally tilted growth. Regression analysis can measure your actual exposure to value, growth, momentum, and quality factors—whether you intended it or not.⁶⁵ You can see these tilts/exposures in the Enrich App. This matters because unintentional tilts are bets you're not committing to, which means you'll likely abandon them at the wrong time.
• Risk contribution: Is one asset class or holding dominating your portfolio's risk? If 50% of your portfolio's volatility comes from 5% of your holdings, you have a concentration problem. Research shows that most investors don't understand what percentage of their portfolio risk is contributed by each position⁶⁶. You might think you're diversified when you're actually riding on a few big bets.
• Correlation matrix: Are your "diversifiers" actually uncorrelated? This is where the rubber meets the road. If you own "diversifiers" that have 0.7 correlation to equities, they're not diversifying anything—they're just other stock-like bets⁶⁷. Catastrophe bonds should have near-zero correlation to equities; managed futures should have low correlation and positive crisis alpha. If they don't, they're not earning their place in your portfolio.
• Sharpe ratio and maximum drawdown: How much risk are you taking per unit of return? Your Sharpe ratio tells you the efficiency of your portfolio. Your maximum drawdown tells you the worst month or quarter you experienced. Reflect on what percentage decline in your portfolio you able to emotionally tolerate to determine what your maximum drawdown should be. Research on portfolio commitment shows that most investors underestimate the drawdowns they can actually stomach⁶⁸. If your historical max drawdown is -25% but you think you can only handle -15%, you'll panic sell at the worst time.

‍

The Real Diagnosis

If you can't tag your holdings clearly, the problem isn't complexity—it's clarity. You're operating without a baseline. You can't tell what's strategic and what's tactical, which means you can't judge whether each position is working. In our view, this leads to the worst investor behavior: holding onto winners far too long (because they're "working"), abandoning losers far too early (because they "aren't working"), and never learning whether your actual bets have any merit.The solution is simple. Take on a strategy that you understand. If it has complexities, like factor tilts, diversifiers or tactical allocations, ensure that you audit, categorize, document, and then run the analysis. Only then can you know whether your portfolio is actually aligned with your long-term plan—or whether you've drifted into something unintended.

‍

⁵⁶ MSCI. (2024). "Factor Indexes in Perspective Part I: The Study."

⁵⁷ Invesco. (2020). "Persistence in Factor Investing: Evidence from Academic Research to Practical Implementation."

⁵⁸ Vanguard. (2024). "Value Tilts and Long-Term Commitment." 

⁵⁹ AQR Capital Management. (2023). "Broad Strategic Asset Allocation."

⁶⁰ Obermeyer Wealth. (2025). "Tariffs and Volatility: A Focus on Behavioral Finance."

⁶¹ Vanguard. (2024). "Adding Value Through a Strategic Approach." 

⁶² Northern Trust. (2025). "Strategic Asset Allocation Process." 

⁶³ Vanguard. (2024). "Strategic vs. Tactical Asset Allocation." 

⁶⁴ Liu, J. (2023). "The Information in Portfolio Holdings and Investors' Capital Allocations." Journal of Finance.

⁶⁵ AQR Capital Management. (2017). "Measuring Factor Exposures: Uses and Abuses." Journal of Alternative Investments.

⁶⁶ MSCI. (2019). "Measuring Factor Exposures." MSCI Research Insight.

⁶⁷ Meketa Investment Group. (2020). "Factor Exposure Analysis."

⁶⁸ Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk." Econometrica.

How Enrich helps you construct and maintain your portfolio

Instead of guessing or building spreadsheets, you can use Enrich to help you:

1. Connect your accounts - See your actual allocation across 401(k), IRA, taxable, HSA, and any other account you connect.
2. Create custom allocations - Define a simple boglehead core strategy, or include factor tilts and other diversifiers. The asset allocation rules are highly flexible for you to set your own strategy
3. See your exposures:
   
   • Factor breakdown (value, size, quality, momentum exposure)
   • Risk contribution (which holdings actually drive your volatility?)
   • Correlation matrix (do your "diversifiers" actually diversify?)
   • Sharpe ratio and historical max drawdown
4. Test changes: Add a hypothetical allocation of managed futures or cat bonds. And use Enrich’s portfolio analysis tool to see how it changes:
   • Return
   • Total volatility
   • Max drawdown
   • Sharpe ratio
   • Correlation matrix
5. Set rebalancing rules: Calendar, band-based, or contribution-based. Enrich monitors and alerts you when thresholds are breached.‍
6. Avoid wash sales: When you rebalance or tax loss harvest, Enrich flags similar holdings to help you harvest losses without triggering wash sales.

‍

Disclaimer: These estimates are based on general market data. This is not a guarantee of the maximum loss that an individual investor might experience. Investment carries with it the risk of loss of principal. Recommendations here are general recommendations and may not be suitable for all investors.