Investments & Allocation

Was your portfolio built around goals, or around offers?

It is common for a portfolio not to have been decided: it was accumulated. A CDB (a Brazilian bank fixed-income certificate) that came up on a phone call, a fund that was running a campaign, a stock a friend mentioned. Each piece may make sense on its own; together, they don't answer the question that matters: what is this money for, and when will you need it.

01Statements from different institutions, each telling one part of the story

02Each asset with a goal and a time horizon

03You follow everything in the app, in an account in your name

When this becomes a problem

You need cash for an opportunity in your company and discover that half your portfolio is in securities with long maturities or liquidity only in the secondary market: leaving early means selling at market price, which may be below what you paid.
You hold eight products and think you are diversified, but all of them depend on the same thing: interest rates in Brazil. When the scenario turns, everything moves together. Diversification is not the number of lines, it is the number of different risks.
Nobody ever asked you about the time horizon. They asked about the amount and how much volatility you can stand. Those are different questions: retirement money and working capital cannot live in the same place, even if the risk profile is the same.
The portfolio was never revisited. An allocation that was 60/40 three years ago may be something else entirely today, simply because one asset class moved more than the other. You did not decide to take more risk. The market decided for you.

How it works in practice

Traditional bank × investment advisory: who chooses the product

At a traditional bank, the institution serving you only offers products that it issues or distributes itself: what the market calls a closed shelf. It is not illegal or a scandal. It is the model. The practical effect is that the answer to any question you have is already limited to the house catalog. In advisory with an open platform, it is the opposite: the platform distributes a variety of issuers and managers, and the conversation starts with your problem, not with inventory. I work as an advisor tied to GWM, an office accredited by BTG Pactual, and the BTG platform operates under that model. This widens the menu, but it does not eliminate conflict of interest, which is why the next item exists.

The profile questionnaire is not bureaucracy: it is the filter

Suitability is the appropriateness analysis required by the CVM: matching the product to your profile, your knowledge, and your financial situation. In practice, it is what keeps a complex product from entering a portfolio that should not hold it. The questionnaire is the legal minimum; the conversation is what does the real work. A profile is not a permanent label: it changes when the company becomes more leveraged, when a partner joins, when your child goes to study abroad. If your profile was defined once and never touched again, it is out of date.

Allocation by goal and time horizon, not by product

I don't start by asking whether you like fixed income or equities. I start by separating the money by function and by time horizon: the company's operating cash, personal reserve, medium-term capital, long-term wealth, money that will become inheritance. Each bucket has a time horizon, and the time horizon is what sets the tolerable risk, not your gut. Only after that do the instruments appear: government bonds or a CDB with liquidity for what needs to be available; private credit, funds, ETFs, stocks, and international allocation for what can sit still for years. The specific choice depends on the diagnostic. There is no such thing as a good portfolio in the abstract.

Where the money stays and how the portfolio is adjusted

A point that tends to settle doubts right away: the money does not pass through me. Your assets are held in custody at BTG Pactual, in an account under your CPF or your company's CNPJ. You see everything in the app, you sign the orders, and the account is yours: ending the relationship with me or transferring custody is entirely your decision, at any time. That is separate from the liquidity of each asset, which follows the rules of the product. I advise: I explain, I propose, and I transmit to BTG only the orders you authorize. Execution and custody belong to BTG. I do not hold a power of attorney to decide on my own, and I don't want one. Rebalancing is the upkeep of all this: revisiting at set intervals and bringing the portfolio back to the allocation you chose, selling what rose too much and buying what lagged behind. It is uncomfortable on purpose, and it is what keeps the portfolio from turning into something else without you noticing.

What I do for you

I open your current portfolio line by line and show you which risk each one responds to, what it costs, and its real liquidity, including what you already hold at other institutions.
I separate your wealth into buckets by goal and time horizon, together with you, before talking about any product.
I propose a written allocation, with the logic of each asset class explained in plain language, and the scenarios in which it will hurt.
I explain the cost structure and how I am paid, product by product, before you decide anything.
I execute only what you approve, with the assets held in custody at BTG in your name, and I maintain rebalancing through periodic reviews.
I use what I learned in more than ten years in logistics, industry, and foreign trade to understand your company's cash flow before giving an opinion on your investment.

What this does not solve

A well-built allocation does not eliminate losses. It organizes risk by time horizon and reduces the chance that you will be forced to sell at the worst moment. But a diversified portfolio still falls, and in a crisis correlations tighten and almost everything falls together for a while. Nor is there a portfolio that removes the need for your own decision: I explain and propose, you sign. And open architecture widens the options, it does not cancel conflict of interest: distribution fees exist. That is why I prefer to put the costs on the table at the start, not in the fine print. If your problem today is a tight margin, expensive debt, or short cash in the company, investing is not the right conversation: resolving the liabilities comes first.

Frequently asked questions

Does my money stay with you?

No. Your assets are held in custody at BTG Pactual, in an account opened under your CPF (individual taxpayer ID) or your company's CNPJ (company tax ID). You follow everything in the app and orders are executed with your approval. I work as an investment advisor tied to GWM, an office accredited by BTG Pactual, under CVM Resolution 178/2023 (CVM is Brazil's securities regulator). Advising means explaining and proposing; deciding is up to you.

What is the practical difference of open architecture for me?

On a closed shelf, the answer to your problem is limited from the start to what the house issues or distributes. With open architecture, the platform works with a variety of issuers and managers, so you can compare. That does not guarantee a better return; it guarantees that the comparison exists. And it does not eliminate conflict of interest: that is why I lay out the cost structure before you decide.

I don't have much time. Do I need to follow the market every day?

No, and you shouldn't. A portfolio built around goals and time horizons exists precisely so that it doesn't depend on daily monitoring. What it does need is periodic reviews: rebalancing and checking whether your goals have changed. In practice, that is one conversation per quarter or semester, plus one whenever something significant changes in your life or in your company.

Can you tell me what to invest in?

Not without a diagnostic, and be wary of anyone who says otherwise. Individualized recommendations require knowing your time horizon, your liquidity, your liabilities, your company, and your real tolerance for volatility. On this site I explain the mechanism; a specific allocation only makes sense after looking at your case. That is exactly what the first conversation is for.

Let's open your portfolio before talking about products

The first conversation is without commitment: I look at what you already have, show which risk each line responds to and what is out of line with your time horizon. If in the end the conclusion is that everything is fine as it is, that will be the answer.

Schedule a conversation Message on WhatsApp