Strategic vs tactical asset allocation: Finding the right balance
Growing your wealth by investing is all about finding the correct balance. One of the most important, and perhaps biggest decisions is how you should divide the total corpus you wish to invest into different investment types, be it debt, or equity, or other asset classes like real estate or gold.
Experts feel that investing is all about balance, and how you allocate your assets plays a huge role in your success. But, investors need to make a choice between two approaches – strategic asset allocation or tactical asset allocation, depending upon which one aligns better with your overall investment goals. The latest episode of Mint Money Shots, presented by Invesco Mutual Fund, saw Deputy Editor at Mint, Neil Borate, shed light on asset allocation and whether investors should take a strategic approach or a tactical one towards this.
Watch the full episode below,
Asset allocation is the process of strategically distributing your investment capital across various asset categories. These categories can typically include equities, fixed income, and cash or cash equivalents. Other asset classes can include real estate, commodities, and alternative investments.
The specific mix of these assets within your portfolio is not arbitrary – it must carefully be considered based on several key factors that are unique to each investor. These factors can include: Your financial goals such as retirement, down payment for a house, funding children's education funding
The time horizon you have to achieve those goals like short-term or long-term
Individual risk tolerance (conservative, moderate, aggressive)
'Simply put, asset allocation is how you divide your investments among different asset classes, like stocks, bonds and cash. The right mix depends on your financial goals, time horizon and risk tolerance,' said Borate.
'Strategic asset allocation is like setting the foundation of your financial house. It's a long-term plan where you decide on a fixed asset mix and stick to it, adjusting only when your goals or circumstances change,' Borate added.
He explained this with the help of an example. If you are a conservative investor, your strategic asset allocation could comprise of 60 per cent bonds, 30 per cent equities and 10 per cent cash. Once the asset allocation has been established, the investment portfolio needs to be rebalanced periodically to maintain this asset allocation, even if markets fluctuate. The primary goal of strategic asset allocation is to minimise risk over the long term while providing returns that are consistent with the investor's objectives. It lays the emphasis for a disciplined, buy-and-hold approach, which displays resilience through short-term market fluctuations.
'Tactical asset allocation, on the other hand, is more hands-on. It involves making short term adjustments to your portfolio based on market conditions or economic trends with the aim of taking advantage of opportunities. Imagine you notice that tech stocks are expected to perform well in the next 6-12 months, you might temporarily increase your equity allocation from 30-40 per cent to capitalise on that trend, planning to revert to your original allocation once the trend passes. It is a more active strategy, requiring research, timing and sometimes a higher risk tolerance,' Borate said.
In summary, strategic allocation is about staying steady through ups and downs, while tactical allocation is about seizing short term opportunities.
Which approach is right for you depends upon several factors such as your investing style, risk tolerance, and the time you are willing to spend managing your portfolio. Borate offered some words of advice for investors: 'If you prefer a hands-off approach, strategic allocation might be better. It is ideal for long-term investors who value stability. On the other hand, if you are comfortable taking risks and enjoy following market trends, tactical allocation can help you boost returns, but it requires more attention and effort.'
'Here's the good news. You do not have to choose just one. Many investors use a combination of both. For example, you might stick to strategic planning for 90 per cent of your portfolio and use the remaining 10 per cent to tactically explore high potential opportunities. Whether you choose strategic, tactical or a mix of both, the key is to ensure your asset allocation aligns with your financial goals and risk appetite,' he concluded. Smart investing starts with asset allocation. Wisely dividing your funds across different asset types is a primary factor in reaching your financial objectives.
Two main strategies exist. While Strategic allocation is a long-term, steady approach with periodic adjustments, tactical allocation involves actively changing your mix to chase short-term market opportunities.
Your preferred style, risk tolerance, and how much you want to manage your investments will determine whether a strategic, tactical, or combined approach is best for you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
HDFC Bank stock to be in focus after Mehta family's FIR against CEO over Lilavati Trust allegations
HDFC Bank shares are set to be in focus of stock market investors on Monday, 9 June 2025, after the Mehta family filed an FIR (First Information Report) against the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Sashidhar Jagdishan on Sunday. The institutional lender called the FIR action 'malicious and baseless' and said that the senior officials are currently being targeted by 'unscrupulous persons' who aim to abuse the legal process of recovering long outstanding loans from a defaulter named Splendour Gems Ltd. 'Having exhausted all legal avenues without success, these individuals have now resorted to launching personal attacks against HDFC Bank and its MD & CEO in a clear attempt to malign their reputation and intimidate HDFC Bank into halting its recovery actions,' said the bank in the official statement. This FIR comes despite the Debt Recovery Tribunal order from 2004, which granted HDFC Bank the 'recovery certificate' for the outstanding dues, which remain 'substantially unpaid' by the defaulter. The Mehta family-owned Splendour Gems defaulted on its loans in 2001. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust is also owned and controlled by the Mehta family, which was seeking the HDFC Bank CEO's suspension and legal prosecution over alleged involvement in financial fraud and fund corruption related to the trust. According to Mint's earlier report, the Lilavati Trust has also accused eight individuals, including former bank employees, of financial fraud and misappropriation of the trust's funds. The bank plans to pursue legal methods to recover public funds and will address the retaliatory actions taken by the Mehta family. HDFC Bank shares closed 1.42 per cent higher at ₹ 1,978.70 after Friday's stock market session, compared to ₹ 1,950.90 at the previous market close. The company disclosed the FIR filing on Sunday evening, 8 June 2025. The shares of the largest private bank in India have given stock market investors more than 100 per cent return on their investment in the last five years and 26.69 per cent gains in the last one-year period. On a year-to-date (YTD) basis, the shares have gained 10.95 per cent in 2025, and are trading 3.39 per cent higher in the last five trading sessions. HDFC shares hit their 52-week high levels at ₹ 1,996.30 on Friday, 6 June 2025, while the 52-week low level was at ₹ 1,546.85 on 6 June 2024, exactly one year ago. The institutional lender's market capitalisation (M-Cap) stands at over ₹ 15.15 lakh crore as of the market close on Friday, 6 June 2025. Read all stories by Anubhav Mukherjee Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, not Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Mint
8 hours ago
- Mint
Trump says Xi agreed to restart the flow of rare earth minerals. Why are rare earths important for Chinese economy?
U.S. President Donald Trump told news agencies on Friday, 6 June 2025, that China's Xi Jinping has agreed to allow the export of rare earth minerals and magnets to the United States after a new round of talks amid the ongoing trade war. 'Yes, he did,' responded President Donald Trump when a reporter onboard Air Force One asked him about Xi's agreement on the rare earth deal. Trump reassured people that the US-China talks have resulted in a 'very positive conclusion,' which aims to make rare earth minerals no longer a topic of question. 'We're very far advanced on the China deal,' said Donald Trump, cited by the news agency Reuters. The Asian nation has also granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three automakers in the United States, reported the news agency, citing people aware of the development. According to Mint's earlier report, China imposed restrictions on its global export of rare earth minerals and magnets in April 2025. Although these restrictions came forth amid the ongoing trade and tariff war between the United States and other world nations, they are not specific to the US but apply to all other nations. Foreign companies like Tesla, Lockheed Martin, etc, from the aerospace, semiconductors, electronics, consumer goods, weapons, and auto sectors are the ones who are affected by this export curb, as they heavily rely on foreign imports for their component manufacturing. Indian automakers and clean energy companies have also suffered as China dominates the market for these rare earth commodities, and export curbs jeopardise the supply chains of many firms around the world. According to the Centre for Strategic & International Studies data, China refines over 92 per cent of the world's rare earth minerals, establishing a global dominance in the sector over other nations. Rare earth materials are used to manufacture many things which people rely on on a daily basis, from smartphone components to wind turbines. According to the news agency Reuters' report, apart from the 92 per cent production, the Asian nation also contributes to nearly 60 per cent of the global rare earth mine production. Several companies around the world are dependent upon the Chinese exports of these rare earth materials for use in the production of other finished goods. These rare earth metals, such as Cerium oxide, Bastnasite, Neodymium oxide, Lanthanum carbonate, Praseodymium, Dysprosium, and Terbium, are among other metals and magnets used to make commodities such as Batteries, Aircraft components, Electric Vehicles (EVs), Solar Cells, Wind Turbines, etc. According to an agency report, the world has 17 elements, including 15 silvery-white metals. The rarity of these materials is determined by the quality of them found in the Earth's crust. As there are very few deposits spread across the world, for China, this acts as a factor to assert global dominance. Data collected from Statista shows that the annual export value of China's rare earths was around $488.8 million. This has dropped marginally over 54 per cent when compared to its 2022 levels of $1,046.8 million. According to an earlier agency report, China restricted at least 16 minerals and related products since 2023, the latest ones coming after the nation retaliated against the US over the tariff war.
Mint
13 hours ago
- Mint
Mint Explainer: Will Karnataka's new ‘welfare' mandate mess up the gig economy?
The Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Ordinance, 2025, which Governor Thawarchand Gehlot approved on 27 May, marks a major regulatory shift. It mandates that digital platforms—from food-delivery apps to ride-hailing platforms—contribute between 1% and 5% of each transaction to a state-run welfare fund. This is aimed at improving protections for gig workers across the board. But what will this additional cost mean for platforms, gig workers, and consumers, and will it hamper the state's gig economy? Mint explains. Will platforms pass on the cost to consumers? Legal and policy experts said the cost was likely to be passed on to consumers. Platforms already charge users various fees over and above the cost of the service, including service fees, platform fees and delivery charges. This welfare fee could be included as a separate line item or as a general price hike, depending on what's more palatable to customers. 'In India, the burden of regulatory costs is almost always passed on to consumers, even when the intended impact is minimal. Unfortunately, the state has not taken any responsibility on its own shoulders, unlike the EU," said Ajai Garg, head of digital tech & law, Anand & Anand, and senior advisor at Koan Advisory. Also read: Indian gig workers who offer mobility services deserve GST relief However, platforms also need to remain competitive. Significant price hikes may provoke a consumer backlash, especially given the myriad fees already layered in to the final price. 'If the entire welfare cost is passed on to the end consumer through significant price hikes, it could trigger adverse reactions. Ultimately, consumers will likely feel the pinch immediately, which may impact their willingness to continue using the service, resulting in disruptions to the overall customer base and market sentiment," said Anshul Prakash, partner, Khaitan and Co. None of the major gig platforms—Uber, Ola, Rapido, Swiggy, Zomato and Zepto—responded to Mint's queries. What happens to platforms that use a software-as-a-service (SaaS) or zero-commission model? Not all platforms have the same revenue structure. Those that don't charge commissions, and instead use SaaS models in which gig workers pay a subscription fee, may look to raise those fees instead. Platforms that do collect commissions on every transaction could increase those slightly. 'Platforms will likely adjust their commission or subscription models, depending on their operating structure," said Garg. Could platforms absorb the cost themselves? In theory, platforms could absorb the additional cost, but experts said that was unlikely. 'Aggregator platforms need to focus on margin retention. That means any cost tied to each transaction is likely to be passed on through small price increases," Prakash said. This puts platforms in a tough spot. Many have already seen growth slowing in mature sectors such as food delivery, and now rely on high-growth verticals such as quick commerce to offset losses. Any dip in margins may affect their long-term viability. Also read: Is quick commerce eating into the food delivery market? 'This is going to be a tough balancing act, especially given that most of the growth in recent times has been limited to one or two kinds of platform work (quick commerce, for instance), while the older ones (such as food delivery) have not seen exponential growth," said Sowmya Kumar, partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. What about worker contributions and compliance? The ordinance says gig workers must also contribute to the welfare fund, but offers no clarity on how or how much. This ambiguity makes implementation harder and opens the door to disputes. 'The ordinance specifies a 1-5% of welfare fee but doesn't explain how the actual percentage of contribution by aggregators will be determined. The structure of worker contributions remains unclear," said Prakash Gupta, lead, Centre for Inclusive Mobility at OMI Foundation, a policy research think tank in Delhi. Also read | Tip us first: Why new Uber push faces government ire Platforms will also have to invest in registration systems, fee payment tracking, and potentially algorithmic transparency mechanisms, especially if the rules mandate disclosure of how gig workers are assigned jobs or rated. With draft rules expected in the next two weeks, Karnataka, which has more than 800,000 gig workers, could soon set a precedent for other Indian states, provided it doesn't disrupt its own gig economy in the process.
