Kerr Neilson, consistently one of the best Australian fund managers, provides his recipe for investment success:
Think about how the world is likely to be
It is the competitor's response that matters most
Learn to deal with media overload
Anchor decisions on fact, not momentum
Be aware of limitations of financial modelling
Great investors continually build their knowledge
The full article is here:
So where do those principals take Kerr Neilson's portfolio now? This is the current (31/7/2018) geographical asset allocation of the Platinum International Share Fund. https://www.platinum.com.au/PlatinumSite/media/Reports/pif_m_update_201807.pdf Comparison with MSCI ACWI Index (All Countries World Index) https://www.msci.com/acwi
In case it is not immediately obvious, this is a very clearly statement about the best investment opportunities and the highest risk markets, specifically:-
Platinum's broad-based international fund has only 1.5% nett exposure to US stocks compared with 54% US exposure in the MSCI ACWI Index. This reflect how expensive (not good investment) Platinum thinks US shares are on broad average.
Platinum International's exposure to Japan is 12.8% compared with 7.4% in the MSCI ACWI Index, reflecting the view that Japan is an attractive market to be invested in.
Platinum International's exposure to China is 22.2% compared with the 3.6% in the MSCI ACWI Index. This reflects:
Country weights for the MSCI ACWI index is as follows:
MSCI ACWI Index Fact Sheet.
The chart above is projected GDP sizes on a PPP basis, as per PwC Forecasts. https://www.puzzlefinancialadvice.com/largest-emergence-event
You might say, that Platinum's geographic allocation is very radical compared with the MSCI ACWI Index and therefore very radical compared with most other fund managers? Why does Platinum Asset Management have any credibility in this?