The Paradox of Choice and Asset Allocation – Does Too Much Freedom Hurt Performance?

Modern investors are blessed with options.

From domestic equities and international bonds to REITs, gold, factor funds, crypto, thematic ETFs, private equity, hedge funds, and more; the financial buffet is endless. But is that abundance a gift… or a trap?

Welcome to the Paradox of Choice, a concept from psychologist Barry Schwartz, which suggests that too many choices can lead not to freedom, but to anxiety, paralysis, and regret.

In investing, it may be quietly sabotaging your portfolio. Let’s explore how.

What Is the Paradox of Choice?

Barry Schwartz’s central idea is simple:

While some choice is good, too much choice can overwhelm us.

In his research, he found that people offered 6 types of jam bought more than people offered 24 types. More choices felt better, but led to worse outcomes. Too many options make us:

Hesitate: Which is best?
Doubt: Did I choose the right one?
Regret: What if the one I didn’t pick does better?
Avoid: Sometimes we make no choice at all.

Now think about the modern investor.

Asset Allocation in the Age of Endless Options

Once upon a time, your choices were simple: stocks, bonds, cash. Today?

Domestic large-cap growth
International small-cap value
TIPS
Commodities
Cryptocurrencies
ESG-screened smart-beta funds
Leveraged thematic ETFs
Private credit
Real estate tokenization

It’s no longer:

How should I split between stocks and bonds?

It’s:

Which of the 93 ETFs in this asset class should I use, in what ratio, using what weighting methodology, and rebalanced how often?

The result? You second-guess your plan. You tinker constantly. You chase recent winners. You avoid decisions because they feel “too permanent.” And in doing so, your returns suffer; not because the markets are broken, but because your mind is overwhelmed.

Too Many Assets, Too Little Clarity

When investors overload their portfolios with too many funds or asset classes, a few things happen:

Diluted Exposure
You might hold so many slices of the pie that you lose track of the pie’s flavor altogether. A portfolio with 27 funds can perform no better than one with 5; just with more complexity.
Increased Noise
More moving parts means more reasons to act. Some fund is always underperforming. Some asset is always “on sale.” Your conviction weakens with every market move.
Higher Fees
More complexity often invites more advisory layers, more product fees, more transaction costs; without necessarily adding return.
Emotional Fatigue
Portfolio decisions become less about sound strategy and more about battling regret, perfectionism, and “what if” scenarios.

When Choice Paralyzes the Planner

In behavioral finance, this is known as analysis paralysis; too much choice leads to inaction. Investors may delay decisions on:

Rebalancing
Contributing new capital
Exiting a losing position
Sticking with a plan

Why? Because with so many options, you fear making the wrong one. Ironically, the desire to make the best decision can cause you to make none at all, or worse, jump from one idea to another without long-term discipline.

So What Can You Do?

Here are 5 ways to avoid the Paradox of Choice in portfolio construction:

Simplify Your Asset Menu
Stick to a handful of well-diversified exposures that reflect your risk tolerance, goals, and time horizon. More funds ≠ more diversification.
Use a Model Portfolio or IPS
Write down your asset allocation and decision rules in advance. This acts as a constraint against over-choice.
Focus on the “Why”
Before adding anything new, ask: “What does this add to my portfolio that I don’t already have?” If you can’t answer clearly, it doesn’t belong.
Accept Good Enough
Perfection is the enemy of progress. You’ll never choose the “best” fund or timing. Aim for sufficiently robust, not optimal.
Automate Where Possible
Use automation to reduce the number of decisions. Dollar-cost averaging, automatic rebalancing, and pre-set contributions limit choice overload.

Final Reflection: Freedom Through Constraint

Barry Schwartz’s paradox doesn’t suggest that choice is bad; just that unbounded choice often leads to confusion, not clarity.

In investing, constraint is not a weakness. It’s a strength. The best portfolios aren’t built from unlimited options. They’re built from thoughtful limitation. So next time you're tempted to add another satellite fund, sector bet, or exotic asset class, pause and ask:

Am I making a strategic improvement… or just reacting to the discomfort of too many choices?

Because in a world of endless possibilities, the edge might belong to those who choose less, and do it with more purpose.

Ever built a portfolio with too many moving parts? Share your paradox of choice moment in the comments.

Stay up to date by subscribing to my Newsletter.