How I invest my own money

I've invested my own money since 2019, through the 2020 crash and the 2022 bear market. People usually ask me how after a video about a bubble or a fraud, so here is the full allocation, without amounts or names, and the reasoning behind each part.

Part	Instruments	Share
Global core	Three index ETFs: developed markets, developed small caps, emerging markets	48%
Factor tilts	Two factor ETFs: value and momentum	19%
US technology index	One index ETF of large US technology companies	15%
Single stocks	Three large US technology and semiconductor companies	18%
Options and cash	Defined-risk options, uninvested cash	<1%

Read it as two halves. The first half is the market, held as cheaply and broadly as I can. The second half is where I make choices, and every choice has to justify itself against the first half.

The global core: 48%

The core holds the world's stock market through three index ETFs: developed-market large and mid caps (about 62% of the core), developed-market small caps (20%) and emerging markets (18%). Together they cover thousands of companies in dozens of countries.

Three pieces of evidence put this at the centre.

Beating the market is hard, even for professionals. S&P's SPIVA scorecards show, year after year, that most actively managed equity funds trail their benchmark, and the share grows the longer you measure. In 2025, 82% of pan-European equity funds sold in euros underperformed the S&P Europe 350. A portfolio that simply owns the market starts ahead of most of them.

No single country is safe. Japan's stock market needed 34 years to get back above its 1989 peak. The Athens Stock Exchange still trades at around a third of its 1999 high. Long-run data from Dimson, Marsh and Staunton show equities rewarding patient investors across many countries, but nobody knows in advance which country leads the next decade.

Costs compound as reliably as returns. Broad index ETFs cost a fraction of a typical active fund, and every euro I don't pay in fees stays invested.

I build the core from three funds instead of one because it lets me set the weights myself. Small caps and emerging markets carry more weight in my core than in the global index. Both have offered higher expected returns over long periods in exchange for more volatility, and emerging markets add exposure to economies that move differently from the US.

Factor tilts: 19%

Two ETFs tilt the portfolio towards the value and momentum factors. Value means companies priced cheaply relative to their fundamentals. Momentum means companies whose shares have recently outperformed.

Both premiums are among the best documented in finance, from Fama and French's work on value to Jegadeesh and Titman's on momentum. The reason I hold them together: they tend to work at different times. Asness, Moskowitz and Pedersen found value and momentum negatively correlated across markets and asset classes, so the combination has historically been steadier than either alone.

Factors can underperform for years. Value lagged growth for most of the 2010s. I hold them as long-term positions and expect stretches when they look like mistakes.

The concentrated bet: US technology, 33%

A third of the portfolio sits in US technology: 15% in an index ETF of the largest US technology companies and 18% in three individual stocks, large technology and semiconductor companies I hold as swing positions for months or years.

This is the least diversified part of the portfolio and the least supported by evidence, and I hold it knowingly. My view is that the companies building the infrastructure for AI, from cloud computing to chips, will grow earnings faster than the market for years. I could be wrong, and a third of the portfolio in one sector of one country is a real concentration risk on top of the large US weight already inside the core.

That is why this part lives under a rule.

The rule: active choices have to beat the core

Every active decision, from the technology bet to each single stock, is measured against what the same money would have done in the global core. There is no fixed cap on how large the active side can grow. It earns its size: while it beats the core, it keeps its room, and when it falls behind, the money moves back to the core.

That one comparison removes most of the self-deception active investing invites. A stock that rose 20% looks like a win until you notice the core rose 25% over the same months.

Options and cash: under 1%

I trade options with defined risk only: long calls and puts, LEAPS for longer-term views, and spreads such as verticals, calendars, iron condors and butterflies. In every case I know my maximum loss before I enter. I also run short-dated trades, a few days to expiry, found through systematic scans. They are the most active part of the portfolio and the smallest by value.

Cash in the portfolio is close to zero, and there are no bonds. With a long horizon, I accept the volatility that comes with being fully invested in equities.

What this means for you

Probably less than you'd think. The evidence behind the core is general. The rest is personal: it reflects my horizon, my views on technology, my time and my willingness to be wrong in public. The right allocation for you depends on your goals, your horizon and how large a fall you can live with.

If you take one thing from this post, take the rule. Whatever you do actively, measure it against the simple alternative, honestly and in euros.