everyone understands the importance of "balanced asset allocation"? This may be part of the reason, but more importantly, multi-income products combine all "favorable" targets - stocks, bonds , real estate, convertible bonds, etc., are all placed in their own baskets, because the source of income comes from a stable, diverse and rich global source, and the total return is valued, reducing the risk of "distributing dividends to one's own old principal". This point It's really charming.
In addition, the volatility of multiple income products is also low, because the investment target is at least a thousand grades, which can effectively avoid the risks caused by the fluctuation of a single asset. Moreover, because multiple income sms services products can cover too many targets, the fund manager team can play the allocation game more flexibly. In addition to being able to "passive mine avoidance", they can also "actively grab income". How flexible can mine avoidance and profit grabbing be? The following picture can clearly illustrate it.
This is the asset allocation of the JPMorgan Multiple Income Fund (a substantial portion of the fund is invested in non-investment grade high-risk bonds and the source of dividends may be principal) since its inception in 2008. Taking this fund as an example, there are as many as 11 types of assets it mainly allocates. In 2008, its high-yield debt ratio could be reduced from 45% to 25.7%; in 2009, it became an overweight REITs to actively participate in real estate market opportunities; In 2013, after the European debt crisis eased, they waited for an opportunity to increase their holdings of