GWPCX
AMERICAN FUNDS GROWTH PORTFOLIO CLASS C
Mentions (24Hr)
0.00% Today
Reddit Posts
Mentions
The concept of diversification can be subjective. From a portfolio construction point of view - a 100% allocation in a fund such as GWPCX or a similar fund could be considered concentrated by some standards. If you want to be less diversified and more aggressive than that - what would you concentrate in? Tech equity? Would you use leverage (not recommended for the inexperienced)? You could certainly increase your concentration in other sectors that you believe has higher growth. The question you posed about whether it makes sense is a personal one - ultimately, you have to decide based on your own risk tolerance and personal situation. Things like having a stable job, family commitments, financial discipline etc. all are factors in that decision. And there is not necessarily going to be a right or wrong answer. Just be wary of what you read and see on social media - including my own - everyone has their biases and motivations based on their experience, knowledge, and personal financial situation.
Thank you for the insight! More aggressive meaning more opportunity for growth through less diversification and more focus. My retirement accounts are my safer plays and feel like it’s useless to be in GWPCX.
(not a financial advisor, and not your financial advisor) start reading up about expense ratios and their compounding impact over time. you could do so much better than a 1.47% expense ratio that GWPCX takes. that is costing you some serious dough. there are similar funds available with expense ratios a fraction of that. is your financial advisor a fiduciary? ask them this, in writing, and make sure they give you a straight yes or no answer. if they aren't a fiduciary, and/or if they have all your money in a 1.47% expense fund... i would seriously reconsider your decision of using that advisor.
Having an advisor at 23 where you are simply doing a DCA into a growth fund seems a bit overkill fwiw. The choice of GWPCX is fine - it's a large cap growth fund. Although it looks like the class C high-expense fund so it wll generally trail the performance of the index it tracks over time. You advisor is simply just sticking your portfolio into the expensive equivalent of the S&P 500. All that's happening is that you are fully invested in equities but you will trail because of the expenses. Just go invest into an S&P 500 low expense fund and you will accomplish the exact same thing. At 23 - assuming you want the growth risk from equities - a 100% growth portfolio is considered moderately aggressive. What do you mean by wanting to be more aggressive than that?
25 years old, I currently have a 401k, Roth, portfolio managed by advisor, and a personal portfolio I like to play around with. My portfolio with my advisor is only in one fund (GWPCX) that dca’s every week. It seems like a boring strategy that doesn’t yield much upside, but also doesn’t yield too much risk. Being 25, I believe I should incur more risk now, and play it safe as I grow all investments and get older. It feels like I should be splitting my portfolio with the advisor into more opportunities and/or more lucrative equities as I am not relying on that account for liquid cash. I’m ok with swings and the chance of losing 10% in a year if I have the chance of making 20% a year. Is my logic flawed, or does this sound appropriate? If this is appropriate, how should I split up my portfolio with the advisor among stocks, funds, cash, etc. that makes the most sense to contribute weekly?