Even the most avid of modern-day snooker fans might not be familiar with Pierre ‘Perrie' Mans. As a South African, I'm honour-bound to recognise him as the finest player my country has ever produced.

His most successful years came during the late 1970s, when the game was on the cusp of what many still consider its golden age. He reached the World Championship final in 1978, eventually losing to Ray Reardon, and won the Benson & Hedges Masters in 1979.

If you're wondering why his list of headline-grabbing accomplishments isn't lengthier, it may be worth noting that his high break in the course of that Masters-winning campaign was 48. Lest you suspect a misprint, let me reiterate: he won the tournament despite failing to notch up even a single half-century.

This seems laughable – if not incredible – by today's standards. The problem, you see, was that his positional play was famously terrible. In the parlance of the billiards sub-culture, he was almost always out of shape – much like me.

Largely as a consequence of this remarkable lack of cueball control, he was a truly sensational potter. He repeatedly extricated himself from tough spots by pulling off spectacular shots of which few of his peers were capable.

But in the end, with one or two memorable exceptions, he was found out. Ultimately, his exceptional skill in one department couldn't compensate for his inadequacies in others.

By this stage, as ever, you may be asking what any of this has to do with investing. I mention it because I thought of Perrie's exploits following recent discussions about multi-asset solutions.

All-rounder attractiveness

In investing, as in snooker, a key question is whether it's better to excel at one thing or be good at several. The growing appetite for multi-asset funds underlines the attractions of being an all-rounder.

Perhaps the simplest investment parallel with Perrie's super-focused skillset would be a portfolio comprised of only one asset class or one theme. Worse still – and heaven forbid – it might consist of only one stock.

It's conceivable that such an approach could prosper, at least for a while. After all, we've just lived through a period in which it was routinely claimed market participation might reasonably involve investing solely in US tech titans or the artificial intelligence boom – or even just Nvidia.  

Yet a wealth of historical evidence strongly suggests such blinkered thinking seldom proves prudent over time. Relatedly, everything we know about diversification tells us there's likely to be merit in casting the net more widely.

With this noble objective in mind, model portfolio service (MPS) portfolios remain a popular choice – and justifiably so. The very best can offer a wide variety of investments, along with expert management and reasonable costs. Our own MPS solutions are currently gaining more attention than ever.

It has been well documented of late, though, that MPS structures can present challenges in some instances. In essence, these are matters of flexibility and efficiency.

The most significant potential constraints are arguably limited exposure to particular funds or asset classes and difficulties in tailoring portfolios to individual clients' capital gains tax (CGT) positions. Multi-asset funds can help address these and other issues.

First, multi-asset funds can boast an even greater array of options for underlying investments. These might include exchange-traded funds, investment trusts and derivatives, which typically aren't available in an MPS. Needless to say, this is good news from the all-important diversification perspective.

Second, multi-asset funds are by their very nature tax-efficient. Since various assets are effectively contained within a single fund rather than spread across numerous investment vehicles, there's no CGT liability when the underlying funds are sold.

In addition, there are often economies of scale at play. These can result in both lower management fees and reduced ongoing charges.

Many multi-asset funds are also managed by sizeable teams with extensive market knowledge. At Marlborough, for example, our multi-asset specialists – who oversee both our multi-asset funds and our MPS portfolios – bring together more than 200 years of investment experience.

Ideally, this depth of expertise should translate into informed decisions regarding asset allocation. In turn, these should lead to superior outcomes for investors – as should an increasing shift towards a broader and more sophisticated range of risk profiles.

In snooker terms, depending on your preferred era, all the above can result in a solution more in the mould of Judd Trump, Stephen Hendry or even the great Steve ‘Interesting' Davis. (We'll exclude Ronnie O'Sullivan from the list, as his supreme talents are offset by a self-confessed penchant for going off the rails – not an especially appealing attribute as far as investment is concerned.)

I ought to close by stressing that none of this is intended to diminish the feats of my distinguished countryman. Perrie Mans secured the South African Professional Championship title 20 times, and that's not to be sneezed at.

But on the green baize, as in the wonderful world of investing, the biggest winners are likely to be those with the most weapons in their arsenals. Looking ahead, expertly managed and competitively priced multi-asset funds could fit this bill for more and more advisers and their clients.

‍

Find out more about our multi-asset solution

‍

‍

For professional clients only. The value of equities (shares in companies) may fall as well as rise. As a result, investors can lose some or all of their investment. Investment in smaller companies can involve greater risk than is generally associated with investment in larger, more established companies.

This article is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice to invest in any fund or product. These are the investment manager’s views at the time of writing and should not be construed as investment advice. The opinions expressed are correct at time of writing and may be subject to change. Capital is at risk. The value and income from investments can go down as well as up and are not guaranteed. An investor may get back significantly less than they invest. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of current or future performance and should not be the sole factor considered when selecting funds.

‍

‍