Portfolio a alokace
Q2 2028 Portfolio Review: Focus on Allocation and Rebalancing
Key takeaways
- A quarterly portfolio review eliminates allocation drift without the emotional noise of daily monitoring — Q2 is a natural window.
- Measure your actual allocation and compare it with the target — a deviation above 5 percentage points signals the need for rebalancing.
- The most efficient rebalancing uses new contributions directed toward the underweight position — no selling, no tax event.
- Review strategic questions: has your horizon, income, or proximity to the withdrawal phase changed? Not tactical ones: what performed best this year.
- Don't add new ETFs because of trends — every unnecessary addition increases complexity and tax costs.
Why quarterly reviews, not daily monitoring
An investor who watches their portfolio every day is exposed to noise. An investor who checks it once a year may overlook a systematic allocation drift. A quarterly review is the right compromise — frequent enough to prevent deviations from compounding, infrequent enough to eliminate emotional noise. The Q2 review also naturally aligns with the tax return deadline and the spring review.
Step 1: Measure your actual allocation
Start with a simple calculation. Write down the current value of each portfolio component and calculate the percentage share:
- Equity ETFs (VWRP, SWRD, thematic satellites)
- Bond ETFs or government bonds
- Gold ETCs or commodities
- Cash or a money market fund
- Any individual stocks
Compare the result with the target allocation in your investment plan. If you aim for 80/15/5 (equities/bonds/gold) and your actual allocation is 87/10/3, it's time to rebalance.
Step 2: Decide how to rebalance
Rebalancing has three paths, each with a different tax and transaction impact:
Second option: reinvest dividends or distribution cash flows into the underweight position. Third option: sell the overweight position — only necessary if the deviation exceeds your tolerance and new contributions are insufficient. Remember the holding-period test and tax implications.
Step 3: Reassess strategy, not tactics
A Q2 review is not about finding a "better" ETF or reacting to last quarter's performance. It's a look at strategy: Has your investment horizon changed? Are you closer to the withdrawal phase? Has your income or expenditure changed? These questions are relevant to allocation — not which country performed best in Q1. For more on portfolio composition, see how to build your first portfolio.
What to avoid at the Q2 review
First: don't complicate the portfolio by adding new ETFs just because you read about a new theme. Second: don't over-interpret one quarter's results — a single quarterly move predicts nothing. Third: don't abandon your core strategy because of short-term volatility. The passive ETF approach is designed for decades, not quarters.
FAQ
How large a deviation from the target allocation requires rebalancing?
The general rule is that a deviation above 5 percentage points is a signal to act. Correct smaller deviations gradually through new contributions; larger deviations may require selling part of the overweight position.
Is it right to rebalance every quarter?
It depends on portfolio size and market volatility. For small portfolios, annual rebalancing is sufficient. In periods of higher volatility or with a larger portfolio, a quarterly check may make sense, but not necessarily a quarterly trade.
What should I do if I want to drop one ETF and switch to another?
Consider the tax implications. If the three-year holding period has been met, selling is tax-efficient. If not, weigh whether the advantage of the new ETF outweighs the tax cost. Sometimes it's better to keep the old fund and direct new contributions to the new one.
Should I add bonds during the Q2 review if I haven't had them before?
It depends on your horizon and tolerance. If you have less than 10 years to the withdrawal phase, or if you felt strong stress from Q1's decline, Q2 is a good time to add bonds. Otherwise, gradually adding them through contributions is safer than a lump-sum allocation.