Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Charles Schwab Identifies 2 Crypto Allocation Approaches Driving Bitcoin Weights as High as 22.4% – Markets and Prices Bitcoin News
Key Takeaways:
Crypto Allocation Models Shift With Return Assumptions
Cryptocurrency allocations are increasingly being formalized within portfolio construction as investors move from curiosity to structured exposure. Charles Schwab, a major financial services firm, examined this shift in a report released April 6. The analysis outlines two primary approaches for incorporating bitcoin and ethereum, while highlighting how allocations change under different assumptions.
The first approach is a traditional allocation model based on expected return, volatility, and correlation assumptions. This framework produces highly variable outcomes depending on investor conviction. The report states:
As illustrated in the chart below, allocation outcomes vary significantly based on return assumptions. At a 10% expected return, bitcoin allocations remain minimal, at 0% for conservative portfolios, 1.5% for moderate portfolios, and 1.9% for aggressive portfolios. When expected returns increase to 15%, allocations rise to 1.0% (conservative), 6.6% (moderate), and 8.8% (aggressive). Under a more bullish 25% return scenario, allocations expand sharply to 3.1%, 16.9%, and 22.4% across conservative, moderate, and aggressive portfolios, respectively.
Schwab added: “A moderate investor’s exposure with a 25% expected return from bitcoin implies a 16.9% allocation, versus only 1.5% if the investor expects a 10% return.”
The same pattern applies to ethereum, though at smaller weights due to its higher volatility. At a 15% expected return, ethereum allocations reach 0.1% (conservative), 2.0% (moderate), and 2.5% (aggressive). In a 25% scenario, those figures increase to 1.4%, 8.2%, and 10.7% respectively. Notably, at 5% or lower expected returns, both bitcoin and ethereum receive 0% allocations across all portfolio types. This reinforces a key threshold in the framework.
The report states: “Our analysis suggests that neither bitcoin nor ether offers a large enough risk-adjusted return to justify any allocation if return expectations are less than 10%, even for an aggressive investor.”
The analysis is based on Schwab Asset Management capital market expectations as of Oct. 31, 2025, using bitcoin data from Jan. 1, 2015, to Oct. 31, 2025, and ethereum data from Feb. 8, 2018, to Oct. 31, 2025. The chart reflects three investor profiles: conservative (8% equity/92% fixed income), moderate (64% equity/36% fixed income), and aggressive (96% equity/4% fixed income), where crypto allocations replace a portion of equities.
Risk-Based Framework Reveals Outsized Crypto Influence
The second approach is a risk-budgeting framework that allocates crypto based on its contribution to total portfolio risk rather than expected returns. Rather than relying on return assumptions, this approach focuses on how much volatility an investor is willing to allocate to crypto. This method highlights how little capital is required for meaningful exposure.
Schwab further noted: “It takes only a 1.2% allocation to bitcoin and a 0.9% allocation to ether to reach the 10% risk level.” Across both approaches, the conclusion remains consistent. The report states: “There is no ‘correct’ allocation to cryptocurrencies, and we believe the decision is largely a personal one.” The analysis also emphasizes impact, noting: