By Justin May, Portfolio Manager
In short: Yes, you should own every stock you can. Over time, the stock market is made up of many losers and very few big winners; the more stocks you hold, the greater your probability of holding those winners. If you face tax constraints, a portfolio of 150-200 stocks is sufficient to emulate market performance. This analysis looks at how many stocks to own for better long term performance.
In a recent blog post, I explored how the average stock underperforms the broad market. Performance of the overall market is driven by a few companies with spectacular returns, while most lag. So, an investor holding any one stock should strongly consider diversifying their portfolio sooner rather than later.
But how will an investor with 10 stocks perform compared to the market? How about 20 stocks, or 50, or 100? If, for example, one in every 10 stocks goes ‘to the moon', is a portfolio of 20 stocks enough to consistently track the market?
Research on the topic is surprisingly sparse, and not so interesting for clients of Old Peak. Most studies address “unsystematic” (company or industry-specific) risk; they conclude that a portfolio of 10-50 stocks has a risk profile similar to the market1. But I’ve never met an investor interested purely in volatility – a portfolio that loses money over time might have the same volatility as one that triples in value. Performance is paramount over risk for investors.
A few papers do address the performance of portfolios with varying degrees of diversification, but each uses methodologies more relevant to institutional managers than end investors. Inspired by their research2, I created my own experiment to explore the titular question. I first assembled a list of over 500 stocks with performance lasting at least 25 years; this list represents about 75% of the current S&P 500 by market cap. From that list of stocks, I created 5,000 ‘concentrated’ portfolios of 20 stocks, and 5,000 ‘diversified’ portfolios of 200 stocks. I calculated the performance of each of the ‘concentrated’ and ‘diversified’ portfolios, and I compared their return to the ‘market’ (in this case, the entire list of available stocks).
How Many Stocks to Own
The graph below summarizes the results. The horizontal x-axis represents return versus the “market”/pool of stocks, where the market’s return is 1. The vertical y-axis shows the number of portfolios out of 5,000 at each level of return.
So how many stocks should you hold for your portfolio to keep up with the market? Ideally, as many stocks as possible. In 2025, it’s simple to invest in practically every stock on earth in just one or two funds. But if you face constraints like taxes, the 200-stock example above was not chosen at random. My findings (and other more rigorous studies3) indicate that 150–200+ stocks is sufficient to mitigate most of the risk of underperformance, especially over shorter periods of time.
- See the review titled “How Many Stocks Are Sufficient for Equity Portfolio Diversification?” for a summary of methodology and findings.
- The best research on the subject I’ve found is the NVDR research paper, and much of this blog is influenced by “The 15-Stock Diversification Myth” by William Bernstein.
- See “Diversification in Portfolios of Individual Stocks: 100 Stocks Are Not Enough” and “The Diversification Puzzle.”
