투자할 때 집중투자 vs 분산투자, 어느 쪽이 더 나을까? 🤔

Concentration is better if you are actually good - you can consistently achieve alpha while managing risk, and your emotions. Diversification is better if you are average or worse than average at picking stocks, managing risks and your emotions.

I spent a lot of hours each week researching, managing my investments, picking stocks, rebalancing my portfolio to manage risks etc. I run a concentrated personal portfolio. For my parents and grandma who have zero interest in stocks and investments and want to set and forget - diversification is 1000% the better choice. Pretty sure if my dad picked all the ‘right stocks’ in a concentrated portfolio, the nifty fifty or top tech stocks many decades ago as a set and forget strategy, he’d have destroyed his investments holding yahoo, intel, blackberry, sears or whatever was big back then. Buffet himself says ETFs is the way to go for most people for a reason.

Concentration, at least for me. I find it much easier to really get into the patterns and keep up with the news when it's narrowed down to a couple specific tickers.

To be honest I never understand the whole ‘just index and chill’ advice given to every situation. For a poor or working class person investing in high conviction stocks is the only route to wealth and millions have changed their life by taking some risks. Yes index is fine if you wanna do wage labor your whole life.

Both are fundamental, like inductive and deductive thinking. These two are the fundamental principles: inductive thinking allows you to generalize, thus broadening the scope of your thinking and generating diversification. Deduction, on the other hand, focuses on the details, thus placing a lens that focuses on a specific point.
In life, you need both!

It's not an all or nothing option. I think the best mix is 75% index funds and 25% individual stocks you believe in.

I'd definitely be more diversified if I could find other kinds of attractive valuations.

After all, losing 50% of your portfolio value means you need 100% gain to get back. So diversified definitely is superior in the long run imo, provided you can find enough attractive stocks/sectors.

So there's this theory that there are only 2 ways to invest. Been listening to Howard marks recently where he explained this.

You're after winners or avoiding losers.

If you're after winners you'll buy losers too. But if you're good you'll win more than lose. If you're after avoiding losers you need low growth defensive stocks.

And I think if you understand this you can think of your own goals better and adjust your strategy accordingly. If you're avoiding losers, concentration won't be a great idea. If you seek winners and you have high conviction, maybe concentrating your portfolio around fewer tickers is great. Not every strategy is for everyone.

Myself I'm highly concentrated on ai and polish company CD projekt who own Witcher and Cyberpunk IP.

I think of my positions like GOOG, asml, MSFT, CDR like I'm the owner of those companies. I don't hold tickers, not price. I'm just partial owner and those are my companies which I selected to own and be with them for good and for the bad. Concentration is risky but I have high conviction of their success. There's no gain without risk.

Statistically spoken diversification, but if you know what your doing concentrate

Stop trying to look for individual needles and buy the haystack. Most stocks underperform the index. You need to own the big winners like Apple and NVDA for extended periods of time in order to have returns that resemble the headline numbers. If you want to retire, you have to amass wealth. You can’t afford to be wrong. Best to just buy the index knowing your returns are above the median stock return.

That being said, there’s nothing wrong with buying a few high conviction stocks on the side. Some refer to it as index plus a few.

I also have a credit risk portfolio on the side looking to earn 8% with minimal volatility.

Every portfolio should be diversified. Any single stock can collapse.

Having said that, a concentrated, well-thought out position can make sense - just not more than 5-10% of the portfolio.

I have a very high concentrated portfolio with only 4-6 stocks, and they have been doing great. These are the stocks that I have faith in and can hold through the bear market. The problem with diversification is that it is very difficult to hold stocks that you don't have high conviction during down turns.

It depends on. The bucket 

401k diversified & conservative 

My taxable brokerage mostly concentrated, 6 tickers

My roth, very concentrated 3 tickers and one useless etf.

Depends a bit on how much you have invested. My portfolio is quite small still (about 4000 dollars), and it will never grow at the pace I want, if i stay diversified and take small risks. I started out with "playing money" and have had over 350 % growth with my portfolio in 2025.

I put my "big money" in global index funds, and for stocks I want to increase my risk (and reward). I amplify my risk with loans, to increase my exposure. So for stocks I usually go for just one, maybe 2-3 in some cases. When my portfolio is larger, maybe I\`ll think a bit different, or just put it all in global funds.

Interesting question I’ve been grappling with myself too! I used to believe in this diversification rule that value investors tout, but what I’ve come to learn is I have very strong technical knowledge in a few key areas so I no longer diversify for the sake of diversifying.

I leverage my strengths and hold 4-6 extremely high conviction stocks that I research myself. All of them could fit under “tech” and “energy” but there are many subsectors within those sectors to amply diversify. I don’t own any two companies who compete in the same space. IMO, we have access to so much good information today that diversifying across sectors is only useful if you don’t possess deep knowledge on companies.

This also speaks to the topic of investing patterns - I looked at my historical investing results and I do best in the areas I know well.

What level of diversification? An etf? That level of diversification dilutes your returns and you are paid with market returns. This is because you do no work and take minimal risk. For people who want a passive return and have no time or knowledge, this is the best route to not lose money. Etfs are for protecting wealth and not creating it. Wealth is through concentration only. Conentration doesn't mean 4-5 tech stocks, it usually means 12 or 13 stocks with different risk profiles and bigger positon sizes.

For me concentration. Has worked so far. If you need diversification might as well go etf.

Honestly it really depends.

I have lucked out on holding ALL long term as it has actually outperformed the S&P 500 for most of the time I have held it.

That isn’t true of every stock though.

Most have peaks and valleys, and a lot don’t outperform inflation.

Depends on how much time you need to stay informed of industry, financials, regulation for your picks. 15 to 20 is well diversified and allows for good research in my opinion.

Play to win, not to not lose .
Concentrated