Investment archetypes
Every client is different. Not just in how much risk they want to take, but in how they respond to loss, how they think about the future, and what keeping them invested actually requires. Our seven archetypes translate that into a precise scoring framework for fund selection.
The seven archetypes
Each archetype represents a documented behavioural profile, grounded in academic research. The archetype determines exactly how each fund in your portfolio is scored: what matters most, and by how much.
The Preserver
Oxford Risk Level 1: Very Low Risk Tolerance
This client's priority is protecting what they have. A loss of ten percent registers as a deeply negative event, emotionally far more significant than a gain of the same size would be positive. Keeping this client invested through a difficult period requires funds that fall less and recover faster than their peers. Return matters, but it is secondary to the experience of the journey.
How funds are scored for this archetype
Behavioural anchor
Kahneman and Tversky (1979)
Losses are experienced at approximately 2.5 times the psychological intensity of equivalent gains. At λ = 3.00, this client sits at the upper end of the documented population range.
The Steadfast
Oxford Risk Level 2: Low Risk Tolerance
Cautious but invested. This client accepts that some volatility is the price of long-term growth but is sensitive to sharp drawdowns and responds badly to sustained periods of negative performance. Protection still dominates the scoring, but return delivery begins to earn genuine weight. A fund that consistently trails its peers while offering good protection is not well-serving this client over a long horizon.
How funds are scored for this archetype
Behavioural anchor
Benartzi and Thaler (1995)
Myopic loss aversion: investors who review their portfolio regularly experience each negative outcome at full loss-aversion intensity, making the smoothness of the return journey particularly important.
The Cautious Grower
Oxford Risk Level 3: Medium-Low Risk Tolerance
The most frequently encountered profile in a typical advisory practice. Loss aversion remains significant but composure is improving. This client has a genuine long-term growth objective that must be met. The framework shifts meaningfully toward balance at this point. The tension between protection and growth is at its most complex here, and the adviser overlay is most important.
How funds are scored for this archetype
Behavioural anchor
Kahneman and Tversky (1979)
λ = 2.25 is precisely the empirical median loss aversion coefficient. This archetype represents the population average, the point at which the protection/return tension is most evenly contested.
The Balanced Investor
Oxford Risk Level 4: Medium Risk Tolerance
Growth and protection carry roughly equal weight in this client's psychology. They understand that markets fall and accept that this is part of investing. What they require is confidence that their portfolio is well-constructed and that any difficult period is being actively managed. Return delivery is now as important as downside management in the scoring.
How funds are scored for this archetype
Behavioural anchor
Ang, Chen and Xing (2006)
Drawdown remains more important than variance as a risk predictor at moderate tolerance levels. A fund that falls sharply and recovers slowly does more damage than one with equivalent statistical volatility spread more evenly.
The Growth Seeker
Oxford Risk Level 5: Medium-High Risk Tolerance
Return-oriented with reasonable composure under pressure. This client accepts drawdown as a feature of the investment landscape rather than a failure of the portfolio. Peer-relative return delivery is now the dominant scoring dimension. Protection still earns meaningful weight. A fund that chases return through excessive concentration or leverage is not meeting this mandate.
How funds are scored for this archetype
Behavioural anchor
Odean (1998) and Shefrin and Statman (1985)
The disposition effect of holding losing positions too long while selling winners too early reinforces the importance of selecting funds with genuine process quality rather than strong recent performance.
The Conviction Builder
Oxford Risk Level 6: High Risk Tolerance
Accepts significant drawdown in pursuit of long-run return. This client has high composure, a long time horizon, and a clear understanding that short-term losses are the price of long-term compounding. Archetype 6 cannot be assigned on the basis of a client saying they are comfortable with risk. Psychometric evidence and investment history must support the placement.
How funds are scored for this archetype
Behavioural anchor
Barber and Odean (2001)
Overconfidence: investors systematically overestimate their own risk tolerance. Archetype 6 placement requires psychometric evidence, not self-assessment. A client who describes themselves as high-risk in conversation is not automatically placed here.
The Long-Run Compounder
Oxford Risk Level 7: Very High Risk Tolerance
The long-horizon investor for whom variance of annualised returns approaches zero over the investment lifetime. At this archetype, peer-relative return delivery is the dominant consideration. The academic basis is Samuelson (1963): over sufficiently long horizons, loss aversion becomes theoretically irrelevant because the law of large numbers eliminates the risk of permanent underperformance relative to peers.
How funds are scored for this archetype
Behavioural anchor
Samuelson (1963)
Over sufficiently long horizons the law of large numbers means variance of annualised returns approaches zero. Loss aversion becomes theoretically irrelevant. Return dominates the scoring accordingly.
What this means in practice
Because each archetype has its own weight configuration, a fund that ranks highly for a Preserver may rank much lower for a Compounder. The scoring reflects what each client actually needs, not a generic view of fund quality.
Grounded in psychometric evidence
Archetype placement is determined by the Oxford Risk psychometric output, not by how a client describes themselves. Clients systematically overestimate their own risk tolerance. The framework corrects for this. corrects for this.
Weights derived from academic research
Every weight in every archetype traces to published academic literature. Kahneman and Tversky on loss aversion. Samuelson on long-horizon investing. Sharpe on cost drag. The numbers are not opinion.
Reviewed every quarter
Your archetype is applied every time your portfolio is reviewed. If your circumstances change and a different archetype is more appropriate, that decision is documented and the scoring is updated.
Archetype placement is not about labelling a client. It is about ensuring that the scoring framework reflects what they actually need from their portfolio. Not what they say they want. What the evidence says they need.
See how we manage