Should you hold more Australian shares, or more American?
It’s a question that sounds simple enough. But ask six experienced investment professionals and you’ll get six different answers—often contradicting each other directly.
One argues that up to 87% of apparent US outperformance disappears when you adjust for currency movements. Another insists the US dominates global innovation and the ASX is stuck in mature sectors. A third acknowledges we’re in a bubble but says you shouldn’t sell. A fourth questions whether AI will ever generate the profits to justify current valuations.
So who’s right?
The honest answer: we don’t know. And neither do they—which is rather the point.
What follows is a synthesis of eight recent perspectives on this question, including the psychological research that might explain why we find the “US always wins” narrative so compelling. It also looks at the practical constraints facing anyone who wants to act on these insights: approved product lists, platform limitations, tax consequences, and the documentation burden that comes with departing from the consensus.
Please remember – this is NOT a recommendation. It’s a financial planner’s invitation to think carefully about assumptions that may have become invisible through repetition.
Portfolio Perspectives
Navigating Market Concentration, Valuation Extremes, and the Case for Thoughtful Australian Allocation
Investment Research Summary · December 2025
The Question Every Investor Should Ask
Global investment portfolios have become increasingly concentrated in a handful of US technology companies, driven by exceptional recent returns. But does this concentration represent sound diversification—or an emerging risk?
This analysis synthesises perspectives from eight distinct sources to examine the Australian versus US equity debate, the structural factors driving current market dynamics, and what this means for portfolio construction.
The challenge: Thoughtful experts are arguing strongly in different directions. If they can’t agree, how is anyone—investor or adviser—supposed to decide?
What the Experts Are Saying
Challenges the “US always wins” narrative with rigorous analysis. When measured in Australian dollars, up to 87% of apparent US outperformance disappears due to AUD depreciation from US$1.49 (1974) to US$0.66 (2025).
Argues US dominates global innovation in technology, AI, pharmaceuticals, and entertainment. The ASX is concentrated in mature sectors (banks, mining) better suited for income than growth.
Explicitly identifies current conditions as a bubble: meme stocks +120%, Palantir at 100× revenue, 20% annualised returns now seen as “disappointing.” Yet recommends staying invested—bubbles run longer than prudent investors expect.
Questions the fundamental economics of AI investment: “What profit pools will AI take from?” If AI doesn’t expand the economy but merely shifts profits, current valuations assume AI companies capture value from others.
Most bearish perspective: Liberation Day meltdown was a warning signal, not a resolved crisis. Concerns include private debt “extend and pretend,” crypto interconnection with traditional finance, and LLMs being “correlation engines” not revolutionary intelligence.
On gold’s 47% rise: offers two competing explanations—BRICS de-dollarisation creating an alternative monetary system, or simply declining real interest rates across G7 economies.
Perspectives at a Glance
| Source | US Equities View | Australian View | Key Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leithner | Overvalued, returns overstated | Superior risk-adjusted returns | Currency adjustment, CAPE analysis |
| Ferrando | Structural innovation advantage | Mature, income-focused | Sector composition |
| Berg | Bubble but stay invested | Neutral | Timing risk vs opportunity cost |
| Conlon | AI economics questionable | Defensive positioning | Profit pool displacement |
| Fitzgibbon | Crisis unresolved | Minimal AI exposure benefit | Systemic leverage concerns |
| O’Neill | Uncertainty acknowledged | Neutral | De-dollarisation vs rates |
The Psychology of Market Consensus
Academic research reviewed by Rob Hamshar (from Pillai, Fazio & Effron, 2025, Psychological Science) reveals a troubling finding: repeated exposure to any statement makes it seem more true and less unethical—even when describing wrongdoing.
The mechanism? Affective desensitisation (reduced emotional response) combined with the illusory-truth effect. In their study of 607 participants, headlines seen repeatedly were rated 1.43 points less unethical than novel ones.
Investment implication: The constant repetition of “US always outperforms” may be creating false confidence while reducing concern about concentration risk. Without deliberate effort, repeated exposure erodes both truth-detection and ethical sensitivity.
📊 Economic Context: A Contrarian Turns Optimistic
Nouriel Roubini (Roubini Macro Associates)—often called “Dr Doom”—is making an unusually positive call on the US economy for 2026, with a “Goldilocks scenario” as his baseline. This is notable given his historical tendency toward bearish forecasts. However, economic forecasts and market outcomes are distinct: markets can fall on good economic news if already priced in, and rise on bad news if less severe than feared. (Paywall)
Portfolio Framework: Seven Risk Profiles
Standard risk profiles provide a framework for matching portfolio construction to investor risk tolerance. The defensive/growth split determines exposure to capital-stable versus growth-seeking assets.
Example: 50/50 Balanced Portfolio Adjustment
Based on the concerns raised in this analysis, here is how a standard balanced allocation might be adjusted to address concentration risk, currency exposure, and valuation concerns:
Standard Industry Allocation
Articles-Informed Adjustment
Rationale: Increased Australian equity allocation reflects currency-adjusted return analysis and reduced US concentration risk. Shift from unhedged to hedged international reflects AUD already at depressed levels (asymmetric risk). Gold provides crisis insurance despite elevated prices. Reduced international fixed interest and property reflects private debt concerns.
The Fundamental Choice
Most managed funds and model portfolios operate on long-term Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA)—and generally pay limited attention to current valuations. This approach has merit: it removes emotion, maintains discipline, and works well in “normal” markets.
But what if valuations do matter? What if you want more control over process and decisions?
1 Standard Approach
Accept the strategic allocation embedded in managed funds. Benefit from simplicity and consistency. Trust that over time, markets will normalise. Appropriate for many investors.
2 Valuation-Aware
Acknowledge that starting valuations affect subsequent returns. Tilt allocations based on relative value and risk assessment. Accept greater complexity for potentially better risk management.
3 Highly Personalised
Full consideration of tax position, entity structures, existing holdings, income needs, and risk tolerance. Implementation tailored to individual circumstances rather than model portfolios.
This is where advice comes in—and where Wealth & Security Planners‘ advisers can help.
Important Information & Disclaimers
General Advice Warning: This document contains general information only and has been prepared without taking into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Before acting on any information contained in this document, you should consider the appropriateness of the information having regard to your objectives, financial situation, or needs. We recommend you obtain financial, legal, and taxation advice before making any financial investment decision.
Not Personal Advice: The information provided in this infographic is not intended to be personal financial product advice and does not take into account your personal circumstances, needs, or objectives. You should consider seeking independent financial advice before making any decisions based on this information.
Past Performance: Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. The historical returns and data presented are for illustrative purposes only. Investment values can fall as well as rise, and you may not get back the amount you invested.
Valuation Metrics: CAPE ratios, Buffett Indicator, and similar valuation measures are not reliable short-term timing indicators. Markets can remain expensive or cheap for extended periods. These metrics should be one input among many in investment analysis, not the sole basis for decisions.
Currency Risk: International investments involve currency risk. Exchange rates can fluctuate significantly and may impact investment returns either positively or negatively. Currency movements are inherently unpredictable.
Third-Party Content: The views attributed to external commentators represent their opinions at the time of publication and may have changed since. Their inclusion does not constitute endorsement by WSP, and reasonable experts may disagree on these matters. Some linked articles may be behind paywalls.
Hypothetical Allocations: The portfolio allocations shown are illustrative examples only. Actual portfolios should be constructed based on individual circumstances, risk tolerance, investment timeframes, tax position, and other personal factors. The adjustments shown do not constitute recommendations.
Regulatory Information: WSP Pty Ltd (ABN 50 197 426 140) trading as Wealth & Security Planners is a Corporate Authorised Representative (Number 276624) of Australian Financial Directions Pty Ltd (ABN 14 135 004 947, AFSL 344971). Authorised Representatives: Michael O’Hara (241386), John Claessen (241385), Simon Tomkinson (241387), Kerry Franklin (241383).
Complaints: If you have a complaint about our services, please contact us in writing. If not resolved to your satisfaction, you may refer the matter to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). Website: www.afca.org.au | Phone: 1800 931 678
© 2025 WSP Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. This document is for the exclusive use of clients and prospective clients of Wealth & Security Planners. Document prepared December 2025.