Reflect your aims and objectives in your strategy

"My aim is to provide in retirement for me and my wife, covering costs such as long-term care," says Thomas. "We also want to try to reduce the amount of inheritance tax (IHT) our heirs will have to pay.

"We have personal pensions totalling £43,000 a year, which after tax cover our general outgoings and things such as travel.

"We hold our investment portfolio in individual savings accounts (Isas) and my wife's self-invested personal pension (Sipp), and have a few funds outside these wrappers too.

"On a scale out of 10, I would put my attitude to risk at seven.

"When investing I take a global view, rather than a UK-centric one. I intentionally avoid the US, except where I may have exposure via broad collective funds, or specialist funds focused on areas such as healthcare, technology or global income.

"I maintain confidence in emerging markets, although not Latin America, China or Russia, and only have small exposures to these via some of my preferred broader funds. I am willing to outride any downturn.

"I am also holding on to Japan for the time being.

"Recent trades include selling all but one of my European holdings after sterling's fall at good profits, and most of my Asian growth funds. I instead bought global income funds, and ones exposed to defensive areas such as infrastructure.

"I am considering topping up RIT Capital Partners (RCP) and Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust (SMT), and investing in Newton Real Return (GB00BSPPWT88), Standard Life Global Absolute Return Strategies (GB00B7K3T226), Personal Assets Trust (PNL) and an Octopus Aim Inheritance Tax Isa.

Thomas' portfolio

THE BIG PICTURE

Chris Dillow, Investors Chronicle's economist, says:

Your preference for emerging markets over US stocks is reasonable. Emerging markets are cheap relative to the US and the MSCI Emerging Markets index has recently risen above its 10-month average, which has in the past been a buy signal.

It's also reasonable to regard Aim shares as only minor experiments. History warns us that these usually do badly, perhaps because investors tend on average to pay too much for long-odds bets.

However, you cannot avoid US shares unless you avoid shares altogether. If the US market falls it will almost certainly drag down other markets, and possibly emerging markets in particular.

Emerging markets are to a large extent a bet upon global investors' appetite for risk increasing. Were this appetite to fall for any reason, they would suffer more than most. In this context, you seem underweight safer assets - things that might cushion your portfolio if shares fall.

In a central case scenario, such a position is justifiable: it's more likely than not that emerging markets will do okay. But we shouldn't invest only according to most-likely scenarios. We should consider the whole probability distribution. And this includes a good chance of a loss.

Consider what would happen if this portfolio lost 20 per cent. Would you have to cut your spending? Would your ability to pay for long-term care be jeopardised? If the answer's no, then your high exposure to risk is perhaps justifiable. Otherwise, consider shifting into more cash or bonds as insurance against a low-probability but high-cost event.

Rob Burgeman, investment manager, Brewin Dolphin, says:

Any investment strategy involves a degree of risk and, once retired, your ability to rebuild capital is negligible. So, your capacity for loss is lower, and this should be reflected in your investment strategy. This should be balanced against the two investment properties - meaning the portfolio represents about 50 per cent of your investable assets - and personal pensions that already provide sufficient income to cover your outgoings.

The cash levels shown do not seem disproportionate, it is always important to have some money for emergencies or unexpected events. The Aim stocks, too, while undoubtedly adding a degree of risk to the portfolio, are not likely to cause a major loss overall, as they only account for 2 per cent.

It looks like IHT could be the biggest potential problem and this needs to be looked at by a qualified financial adviser. Although you don't give details of the value of your main residence, there is likely to be a large liability. Any investment returns would need to be considered in the light of a 40 per cent IHT charge.

Also, your aim of potentially funding long-term care reduces the investment time horizon of the portfolio.

Dennis Hall, chief executive officer of Yellowtail Financial Planning, says:

When seeing a portfolio for the first time I look for dominant themes: things that might help me understand the personality of the investor. Looking at this portfolio I'm intrigued by what's been excluded, for example, your unexplained aversion to US markets.

US-listed companies account for over half the world equity market capitalisation, and it doesn't make sense to me to deliberately ignore this large and liquid market. There's no discernible pattern to the best-performing stock market each year, and although the US provided the best annual returns among developed markets in sterling terms in 2013 and 2014, it could easily happen again.

The risks of emerging markets are liquidity, and susceptibility to significant falls in times of global economic trouble. Their attraction is the potential for sizeable returns, but it comes with significant volatility. Picking the right horse to back is arguably harder than with developed markets. The India story has been popular for several years, but Egypt has been doing better since it topped the performance table in sterling terms in 2005.

HOW TO IMPROVE THE PORTFOLIO

Chris Dillow says:

You hold lots of active funds. In a portfolio as well diversified as yours, you are diluting away any outperformance a particular fund manager might deliver, although the odds of him doing so are probably less than 50:50. But you are not diluting away their fees.

Holding lots of actively managed funds means that you have something like a tracker fund, but without a tracker fund's lower charges.

The solution to this is to ask of each fund: what is this giving me that I couldn't get from a cheaper fund? Or do I really need active emerging market funds when I can get exposure to such markets via cheaper tracker funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs)?

If you want exposure to a particular fund manager, as some investors might in the case of a star such as Neil Woodford, then you will incur higher fees than on a tracker fund or ETF. If you only want exposure to a particular asset class, then you can and should minimise the charges.

A percentage point doesn't sound like much. But it is in a world of low returns: think of it as one-fifth of likely average annual equity returns. And it compounds horribly over time. Investors cannot avoid occasional losses. But we can avoid foreseeable and unnecessary charges.

Rob Burgeman says:

A desire to have a global outlook - an investment thesis I totally understand - accompanied by a wish to have no exposure to the US, little exposure to Europe and, if possible, to avoid China, Russia and Latin America, does not leave a phenomenally large investment universe.

As a result, the portfolio has an exposure of around 24 per cent to Asia Pacific and 13 per cent to emerging markets, which is pushing risk and volatility appropriate to your risk appetite, given your longer-term aims and objectives. Typically, as you get older, the need for excess return diminishes and this should be reflected in your investment strategy.

We also need to be aware of false diversification, whereby two funds with similar objectives can often have so many holdings in common that owning both doesn't actually reduce the risk much. For example, three of the top five holdings of Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity (GB0033227561) and Fidelity Emerging Markets (GB00BLRZQC88) are the same.

You have some exposure to big international investment trusts such as Foreign & Colonial (FRCL) and Scottish Mortgage, but I would not preclude some more direct investment in the US and Europe.

Overall, however, I think you have a good list of investments that reflect your own opinions.

Your diversification into infrastructure of just under 10 per cent of the portfolio, absolute return via RIT Capital Partners and property, should reduce some of the risk and volatility of the portfolio as a whole.

Dennis Hall says:

I don't have the same faith in emerging markets or Asia Pacific that you do, and prefer taking on risk by investing in smaller and 'value' companies within developed markets. I hold Standard Life UK Smaller Companies Trust (SLS) managed by Harry Nimmo and Marlborough Special Situations Fund (GB00B907GH23) managed by Giles Hargreave.

In preference to Woodford Patient Capital Trust (WPCT), which I have deliberately avoided - it was over-hyped and over-bought - I have been overweight in private equity investment trusts. I also invest in generalist Enterprise Investment Schemes (EIS) to give me the potential returns Woodford Patient Capital Trust is aiming for.

I purchased RIT Capital Partners several years ago, the same time as when I bought Electra Private Equity (ELTA), which is now managed by Epiris and HgCapital Trust (HGT). Both have outperformed RIT Capital since then - Electra by quite some margin. I continue to believe in private equity and think it's under-represented in this portfolio.

I like that you hold Polar Capital Technology Trust (PCT), but would have been more bullish with the allocation, probably at the expense of the Aim shares. There is a lot of money chasing just a few decent Aim stocks through various IHT portfolios, and there's an argument that their share prices are supported by supply and demand rather than fundamental business metrics. If the government decided to pull the plug on Aim shares as an IHT shelter, the bottom could quickly fall out of this market.