Valuing Human Capital and Integrating It into Portfolio Optimization

What is human capital and why does it matter?

In personal finance, human capital is the present value of all future labour income that an individual will earn over a working lifetime [1]. For a young investor, human capital is often the most valuable asset—much larger than accumulated financial wealth—and it is an intangible yet crucial component of a person’s total wealth [2]. According to ISTAT, the average human-capital value of an Italian citizen has been estimated at about €342,000 [3], highlighting its material weight. Ignoring human capital in financial planning means overlooking a substantial part of one’s wealth and overall risk profile.

From a financial point of view, we can treat human capital as an additional asset within an individual’s total portfolio [4]. Although it is non-tradable (you cannot sell or directly diversify it), it does have a risk/return profile that should be accounted for. Age, job stability and the industry in which one works affect both the value and the risk of human capital. Early in one’s career many years of income lie ahead (high human capital) but savings are limited; as retirement approaches, human capital shrinks while financial wealth grows thanks to years of saving and investing [2]. This implies that younger investors can take more financial risk because they are supported by ample, “insurable” human capital over time, whereas older investors should be more conservative since the labour-dependent share of total wealth is small. As shown by Bodie, Merton and Samuelson (1992), flexibility in work (e.g., the ability to extend a career or do overtime) offers a kind of insurance against financial risk, encouraging younger workers to invest a larger share of their financial wealth in equities than older investors [5].

Figure 1: Simplified trajectory of human and financial capital over the life cycle. In youth, human capital (yellow line) dominates total wealth, while accumulated financial wealth (orange line) is initially small and grows over time with saving. The red dashed line indicates total wealth (human + financial) in this hypothetical example.

As Figure 1 suggests, for a young individual most wealth consists of human capital, which is gradually converted into financial wealth as one saves and invests over a working life. Total wealth tends to rise over time if part of labour income is saved (in our example we assume an increase that keeps the sum H + W roughly constant). In general, the ratio between human and financial capital (H/W) varies along the life cycle: it is very high at the start (new workers with little savings) and approaches zero near retirement [6]. It follows that a young investor with high “wealth in human capital” and little financial wealth should invest relatively more in risky instruments (equities) than a mature investor close to retirement with little remaining human capital [6]. This is the principle behind classic life-cycle funds and age-based advice (high equity weights when young, progressively more bonds with age).

Another reason human capital matters: it acts as a risk absorber. If labour income is stable, an investor can take more investment risk, knowing that a reliable cash flow is available to cover expenses (and perhaps to buy additional financial assets at discounted prices in market downturns). Conversely, if labour income is volatile or uncertain, the capacity to withstand financial losses declines. In essence, the risk profile of human capital should guide the composition of the investor’s financial portfolio [7]. Elements such as job security, income volatility and industry cyclicality should be considered carefully within the overall asset allocation [7]. As a general rule, human capital should be “hedged” or compensated by financial capital: if one’s job is risky, the financial portfolio should be more conservative; if human capital is very safe, the financial portfolio can be more aggressive [8][9].

How to value human capital

Valuing human capital means calculating the present value of an individual’s expected future earnings. Practically speaking, it is a discounting exercise analogous to valuing a bond or an annuity. Formally:

$$ H = \sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{E(\text{Income}_t)}{(1 + r_d)^t}, $$

where $T$ is the number of remaining working years and $r_d$ is an appropriate discount rate. The choice of $r_d$ is critical: for very safe earnings (e.g., a tenured public employee) one can use a rate close to government bond yields or the risk-free rate. For more uncertain earnings, add a risk premium, as with the cost of equity for a company. For example, a young employee with a stable salary of €30,000 per year and 27 years to retirement could have human capital around €810,000 simply by multiplying annual income by remaining years [10] (ignoring growth and discounting for simplicity). More rigorously, with the same €30,000 income and a 2% real discount rate, the present value of the next 27 years of salary is roughly €600,000–€700,000 depending on income-growth assumptions (here we assume no real growth, i.e., discounting only). A similar order of magnitude (several hundred thousand euros) applies to many workers, explaining why human capital is often the dominant share of total wealth in the early working years.

Note that the value of human capital declines over time: each passing year “uses up” part of one’s future earning capacity (and retirement draws nearer). Adverse events can reduce H abruptly (job loss, disability, death—risks against which insurance is advisable). Conversely, investing in education and experience can raise expected future earnings, thereby increasing human capital. Interest-rate changes also matter: a higher discount rate (e.g., higher market rates or greater perceived job risk) reduces H, whereas lower rates increase it.

Human capital and asset allocation: theory and models

Incorporating human capital into asset-allocation models means viewing the investor not only in terms of financial wealth but also in terms of the “implicit position” arising from work. The academic literature on portfolio choice with background risk tackles this problem. A fundamental result (Bodie, Merton and Samuelson, 1992) is that an investor with certain labour income should tilt the financial portfolio towards risky assets more than an investor without labour income [5][11]. In other words, risk-free human capital acts like an “implicit bond” in the investor’s balance sheet. Someone with a safe, stable income (e.g., a public-sector worker with tenure) is financially similar to someone holding a large bond paying coupons (salary) independent of market performance. To balance the total portfolio, such an investor should hold a high equity share in financial wealth—at the limit, even borrowing to buy equities if the H/W ratio is very high [11]. In theory, if human capital resembles a sizable risk-free asset, the optimal allocation calls for taking more financial risk to reach the desired risk/return mix.

On the other hand, if human capital is risky and correlated with financial markets, it looks more like an “implicit equity” in the individual’s wealth. For example, an entrepreneur whose income is tied to the economic cycle, or a worker with stock options and bonuses linked to the company’s share price, has equity-like human capital. In these cases, theory suggests reducing equity exposure in the financial portfolio to avoid being exposed twice to the same risk. A well-known example is Enron employees whose salary and pension were both concentrated in Enron stock—an outcome to avoid because the company’s failure wiped out both jobs and savings. In general, applying diversification to human capital implies that the investor should reduce exposure to financial assets whose returns are positively correlated with their labour income [12][13]. This is a natural extension of Markowitz: if your salary depends strongly on a given sector or the stock market, you should invest less (or not at all) in those same risk factors. US evidence estimates that for a young self-employed worker (freelancer/entrepreneur) with a high education level, the optimal equity share is 43 percentage points lower than that of a similar employee [14], due to the higher risk and cyclicality of self-employment income, whereas employees—especially in the public sector—have earnings less sensitive to the business cycle [15][8].

Integrating human capital into traditional Markowitz mean–variance optimization can be done by extending the concept of wealth to include human alongside financial wealth. In a one-period model with a risky asset (equity) and a risk-free asset (bonds), the problem becomes maximizing expected utility of final wealth $W_{\text{final}} = W \cdot (w R_m + (1-w) r_f) + Y$, where $W$ is initial financial wealth, $w$ the share in equities, $R_m$ the equity return, $r_f$ the risk-free rate, and $Y$ stochastic labour income for the period [16][17]. The term $Y$ adds covariance with $R_m$. Solving first-order conditions shows that income modifies the optimal portfolio weights by adding a correction term linked to the income–market covariance [18]. In symbols, the approximate optimal equity weight is:

$$ w^*_{\text{equity}} \;=\; \frac{E[R_m] - r_f}{A\,\sigma_m^2}\;-\;\frac{\Cov(Y,\;R_m)}{\sigma_m^2\,W}, $$

where $A$ is the investor’s risk-aversion coefficient, $\sigma_m^2$ the equity-return variance, and $\Cov(Y,R_m)$ the covariance between labour income and the market return (this matters only if it is non-zero) [18]. In plain language:
– If $Y$ is uncorrelated with the market ($\Cov=0$), the formula reduces to the classic Markowitz result, but with $W$ being smaller than total wealth $W+H$. This is equivalent to holding more equities as a share of financial wealth alone. In this case, human capital behaves like a risk-free bond and the equity weight should rise in proportion to $H/W$ [11][19].
– If $Y$ is positively correlated with equities ($\Cov>0$), the subtractive term lowers $w^*_{\text{equity}}$. Intuitively, income adds market risk to the personal balance sheet, so the financial portfolio should take less of it [20]. In extreme cases, $w^*_{\text{equity}}$ could be negative, implying that shorting equities would be optimal to offset implicit exposure from income. In practice, retail investors typically avoid shorting and will simply hold zero (or very little) equity if their job already exposes them to equity risk.
– If $Y$ is negatively correlated with the market ($\Cov<0$), labour income serves as a hedge against financial risks. A public employee whose salary is secure even in recessions is a stylised example. Theory predicts the investor could hold more equities than normal (in extreme cases, more than 100% of financial wealth via leverage) [11]. However, significantly negative income–market correlations are rare; studies suggest that, in aggregate, the correlation between labour-income shocks and equity returns is typically low or slightly positive (around 0.0–0.1) [21].

A useful way to think about human capital is to ask: “Does my job make me more like a bond or like a stock?” [22] A school teacher, civil servant or tenured professor has stable earnings with little sensitivity to the business cycle: their human capital is bond-like. A commission-based real-estate agent or a tech-sector professional in a start-up has volatile earnings highly dependent on business conditions: their human capital is stock-like. In the first case, the financial portfolio should tilt more toward equities (since the “bond” comes from work), while in the second case it should tilt toward bonds to counterbalance the high job risk [8][9]. The worst situation is when both human and financial capital are concentrated in the same risk (high correlation): for instance, a petroleum engineer investing all savings in energy stocks puts all eggs in one basket; better to diversify into sectors less correlated with oil prices [23].

Finally, consider practical constraints. Unconstrained theory might recommend equity weights above 100% (leverage) or negative (short selling). In reality, retail investors—and even many HNWIs—rarely employ significant leverage and typically do not short risky assets for hedging. There are also regulatory and prudential limits (e.g., pension funds cannot short equities). Therefore, optimization with human capital must be interpreted within these limits: the unconstrained theoretical solution is often brought back to 0%–100% bounds on traditional asset classes. The two numerical examples below show these effects.

Practical examples: integrating human capital into asset allocation

To illustrate how to value human capital and incorporate it into portfolio decisions, consider two very different cases:

Example 1: A family with two stable incomes (one public-sector job, one permanent private-sector job), long-term horizon, low risk appetite.

Example 2: An entrepreneur with volatile income but high growth potential, whose human capital is more like a risky asset (equity-like).

For each example we compute human-capital value, the H/W ratio (Human capital / Financial wealth), optimal equity/bond weights in a simple two-asset mix, the impact of practical constraints (no shorting, no leverage) and a sensitivity analysis with respect to key parameters (correlation, discount rate, income volatility).

Example 1: Dual-income family with stable earnings, long horizon

Suppose a young couple:
– He is a public-sector employee with net salary of €30,000 per year;
– She works for a stable firm (large non-cyclical company) with net salary of €25,000 per year.

Both are about 35 and plan to work until 65 (30-year horizon). They hold €200,000 of investable financial wealth, currently 50% bonds and 50% equities (a balanced starting allocation). Risk appetite: moderate (assume a coefficient $A$ such that, absent labour income, a 50/50 mix would be considered adequate).

1. Present value of human capital (H): Treat both incomes as fairly safe—the public job is virtually guaranteed (no employer default risk), the private job is stable with low layoff probability. Use a 2% real discount rate. Current combined income is €55,000 per year. For simplicity assume that, net of inflation, it stays constant (nominal raises ≈ inflation). The PV of 30 years of €55k discounted at 2% is the annuity formula:
   $$ H \approx 55{,}000 \times \frac{1 - (1+0.02)^{-30}}{0.02} \;\approx\; 55{,}000 \times 22.396 \;\approx\; 1{,}231{,}800\ \text{€}. $$
   So H ≈ €1.23 million for the household. (If we assumed more risk or a higher rate, H would be slightly lower; with 2% and safe income this is reasonable. Most of H stems from the very safe public-sector income.)
2. H/W ratio: H ≈ €1,230k, W = €200k, hence H/W ≈ 6.15. Human capital is over six times financial wealth—most of total wealth (~86%) lies in future earnings. This is typical for young families: the “balance sheet” is dominated by the PV of future salaries.
3. Optimal equity/bond weights: Since human capital here is bond-like (especially his public-sector component, almost risk-free and uncorrelated with markets), the family effectively already owns a huge “implicit bond” worth ~€1.23m. To maintain a balanced risk/return profile, the financial portfolio should be far more equity-oriented than a naive questionnaire based only on W = €200k would suggest. Quantitatively, if without considering income the family would choose 50% equities (€100k) and 50% bonds (€100k) on W = €200k, including human capital changes the optimum dramatically. Ideally, they might target 50% “equity-like” and 50% “bond-like” exposure on total wealth. But since H is entirely bond-like (~86% of total), their actual equity exposure is only ~14% (100k equities over ~€1.43m total). To reach 50/50 on total wealth they would need to raise equity exposure massively—in theory to well over 100% of W (i.e., leverage). The arithmetic: target equities ≈ 50% of €1.43m ≈ €715k; they currently have €100k; they would need ~€615k more in equities financed by borrowing, i.e., $w^* \approx 357\%$ of financial wealth—clearly impractical for typical households.
4. Without leverage, the most they can do is invest 100% of W in equities, i.e., €200k in equities. That would bring total equity exposure to ~€200k out of €1.43m ≈ 14% (still low in absolute terms). Thus the constrained optimum (no shorting, no leverage) for this family is to invest the entire financial portfolio in equities—or at least a very high share (well above the traditional 50%) [11][24]. It may look aggressive, but their overall risk remains moderate: the bulk of their wealth (especially the public salary) is safe. One might even consider modest leverage (e.g., a purpose-backed loan) to increase total equity exposure if consistent with their goals and risk tolerance. Here we remain conservative and avoid leverage, simply rebalancing toward more equities.
5. In summary, the constrained allocation for Example 1 is: 100% equities, 0% bonds in the €200k financial portfolio. Human capital itself is equivalent to ~€1.23m in bonds, so the combined “economic” exposure (if we could sum H and W) is roughly 86% bonds / 14% equities. Note how traditional advice for a moderate 35-year-old couple (e.g., 60/40) is overturned here: thanks to safe incomes, they can (indeed should) hold a far higher equity share to maximise efficiency. This does not mean taking more risk than desired, but it does mean that an overly conservative financial portfolio (e.g., 50/50) would leave their total risk too low relative to capacity and sacrifice long-term return potential.
6. Effect of constraints: As discussed, the unconstrained optimum would even exceed 100% equities. With a no-leverage constraint, we are capped at 100% equities on W. Assume also a no-short constraint on bonds—we cannot borrow against future income. Practically, the family cannot “monetise” their huge H except through mortgages or personal loans (which must be repaid from future income). Thus the key constraint is the inability to fully exploit H to invest more. The result is a theoretically sub-optimal portfolio (only ~14% total equity exposure instead of the 50% target). This gap can narrow over time: as they save and W grows relative to H (H/W declines), investing 100% of W in equities naturally raises their total equity share. Moreover, as years pass, H declines (fewer salary years remain), reducing the need for extreme aggressiveness. Around age 50 they may naturally reach a better balance (higher W, lower H), so 100% equities on W might equate to 30–40% of total wealth. In practice they are following an aggressive early-life strategy that will be automatically tempered by the run-off of human capital—consistent with life-cycle logic.
7. Sensitivity analysis: How do conclusions change with key parameters?
   – Income–market correlation: We assumed safe or uncorrelated incomes. If, hypothetically, the private-sector job had mild positive correlation with the cycle, overall human capital would be a bit riskier. The covariance $\Cov(Y,R_m)$ would be > 0, slightly reducing the optimal equity share. Instead of 100% equities, the family might hold some bonds (e.g., 80/20) to hedge cyclic income. However, given the very large H relative to W, even with moderate correlations the guidance remains: strongly overweight equities versus an investor with no labour income. Only with very high correlations (unlikely for these jobs) would one recommend a large equity reduction.
   – Discount rate: If, instead of 2%, we used a higher rate to value H (to reflect career risk, contractual uncertainty, etc.), H would fall. With $r_d = 4\%$, H drops from €1.23m to roughly €1.0m. H/W falls to ~5, making the equity tilt slightly less extreme (perhaps ~80%–100% equities rather than >100% in the unconstrained ideal). In practice, greater job uncertainty makes human capital less bond-like, so one should not push equity to the maximum. If one earner faced material layoff risk, it would be prudent to add more bonds and cash as a buffer.
   – Income volatility: In pure mean–variance, the variance of $Y$ alone does not affect weights (only the covariance matters) [25]. In reality, however, very volatile income complicates planning and may raise effective risk aversion (background-risk effect under CRRA utility). If this family’s salaries fluctuated unpredictably by ±20% per year—even if uncorrelated with markets—practical advice would be slightly more cautious (maintain a larger cash cushion and some extra bonds), because volatile earnings make it harder to offset financial losses in a given year. In our example, incomes are stable, so this effect is muted.

Example 2: Entrepreneur with volatile income and high potential

Consider the opposite case: a 40-year-old tech entrepreneur. Annual income is highly variable: on average ~€80,000, but with high uncertainty (some years could be 0, others €200k+). Because tech/start-ups are tightly linked to the business cycle and financial markets (funding, valuations, corporate spending), there is a high positive correlation between income and equity markets (say $\rho \approx 0.6\text{–}0.8$). The entrepreneur has €300,000 in liquid financial wealth, currently 70% in global equities and 30% in bonds (an aggressive portfolio, mirroring entrepreneurial risk appetite). There are no other stable income sources; the business itself absorbs most human capital and could be sold in the future (realising financial wealth, albeit uncertain).

1. Present value of human capital (H): Estimating H is harder due to high uncertainty. Take a prudent approach: expected income €80,000 per year, but use a high discount rate to reflect risk (akin to an equity cost of capital). Suppose $r_d=8\%$ real. Working horizon may be longer than 65, but tech is competitive and can “age out” early—assume 20 more intensive years. At 8% for 20 years, the annuity factor ≈ 9.8. Hence $H \approx 80{,}000 \times 9.8 \approx 784{,}000\ \text{€}$. Round to ~€800,000. Despite higher expected income than in Example 1, H is lower due to risk and the higher discount rate (which compresses PV). In other words, this human capital “is worth” less because it is less certain. (If the business were successful and stable, we could use a lower rate or include a terminal sale of the company, lifting H; we remain cautious.)
2. H/W ratio: H ≈ €800k, W = €300k, so H/W ≈ 2.67. Human capital is ~72% of total wealth (€800k out of €1.1m). While still dominant, that share is lower than in Example 1, indicating that this person has already converted some human capital into financial wealth (W = €300k) and H is “hair-cut” by high discounting.
3. Optimal equity/bond weights: Here human capital is strongly equity-like. Conceptually, the entrepreneur already holds the equivalent of a sizable equity position through labour income. A rough intuition: if income–market correlation is ~0.7 and relative income volatility is ~50% per year, the “beta” of income to the market could be material. One might say that out of €800k of human capital, perhaps €400k–€500k behaves like an equity index (the rest is idiosyncratic). Adding the current financial portfolio (equities €210k out of €300k) brings total equity-like exposure to ~€710k out of €1.1m, i.e., ~65% of total wealth in market-correlated risk. If the overall risk profile were moderate, this is too high. Even for an aggressive profile, the fact that one’s career is itself risky argues for caution.
4. Mean–variance with positive covariance implies a lower optimal $w^*_{\text{equity}}$ than in the no-income case. Without income and with moderate $A$, the entrepreneur might choose ~70% equities (as currently). But the correction term $\frac{\Cov(Y,R_m)}{\sigma_m^2 W}$ can be large enough to drive $w^*_{\text{equity}}$ to zero or negative. Intuitively, the theoretical optimum could require shorting equities to offset job risk [20]. In practice, this means simply cutting the financial-portfolio equity share drastically.
5. Therefore the guidance is to invert today’s mix and move to a much more conservative stance, e.g., 0% equities and 100% bonds (or, in any case, an equity weight far below the current 70%, likely under 20%). As a first approximation, investing the entire financial portfolio in high-quality, liquid bonds helps keep the overall risk balanced: the investor still bears substantial implicit equity exposure via the business, but the savings are protected. This is consistent with the hedging principle: the portfolio should compensate for human-capital risks [23]. By analogy, the entrepreneur is “long” an undiversified tech sector via work, so personal investments should avoid being long tech/market risk; instead choose decorrelated assets (government bonds, cash, perhaps real estate or some gold).
6. Effect of constraints: Unconstrained, the optimum might be to short equities (e.g., short index futures) to hedge job risk. A sophisticated investor could indeed do so—say shorting NASDAQ futures for €200k notional so that market declines (when the business likely suffers) deliver gains on the hedge. Most individuals, however, do not hedge labour income with derivatives. With a no-short constraint, the most defensive feasible allocation is 0% equities. The remaining equity exposure is implicit in H (hard to quantify precisely, but think several hundred thousand euros of market beta). Since this cannot be fully neutralized, the only approach is to accept it and mitigate via ample liquidity and prudent spending (e.g., a large emergency fund for lean years).
7. Sensitivity analysis:
   – Income–market correlation: The key driver. If correlation were lower (e.g., the business cycle in the entrepreneur’s niche was less tied to broad equities), the urgency to de-risk would be smaller. With $\rho = 0.3$ instead of 0.7, income risk would be more idiosyncratic; a non-zero equity share in financial wealth could be acceptable—perhaps not 70%, but maybe 30–40%. Conversely, if correlation were 1 (extreme: income behaves like an index), then avoid equities altogether and hold only bonds. In general, the higher the correlation, the more defensive the portfolio should be [26].
   – Discount rate / intrinsic risk: If the business matures and becomes more stable (lower risk, lower discount rate), H would rise. Paradoxically, a higher H here can mean even more implicit equity exposure, so the financial portfolio would still stay conservative. However, greater stability may also come with lower correlation (more diversified revenue sources), which would push in the opposite direction. Simplifying: if the business becomes safer and less cyclical, the entrepreneur could gradually raise equity in investments as human capital shifts from equity-like toward bond-like.
   – Income volatility: Suppose €80k fluctuates widely (high idiosyncratic volatility) while correlation remains moderate. Even then, high uncertainty in personal cash flows argues for more liquidity and safe assets, regardless of correlation. High volatility also reduces the certainty-equivalent value of income (effectively raising $r_d$ under expected-utility), which lowers H/W. A lower H/W reduces the impact on portfolio choice. In the extreme, if the business is so risky that H is small, there is not much implicit wealth to hedge. In our example, H is still meaningful, so prudence in financial investments remains warranted.

Summary for Example 2: This investor’s total risk comes primarily from work. A sensible portfolio strategy is to invest the €300k mainly in low-risk assets (government bonds, investment-grade credit, perhaps some gold or real estate for diversification), while keeping ample liquidity for opportunities or emergencies. Thus, during market crises, income losses are at least partially offset by the resilience of the bond portfolio. Conversely, if markets do well and the business thrives (high earnings), the conservative portfolio will earn less, but the investor still benefits via higher income. Human and financial capital thus compensate each other: one prospers when the other is defensive, and vice versa. Ultimately, for an entrepreneur with risky human capital, it is crucial not to take excessive risk with savings as well, or total risk becomes so concentrated that it may endanger family wealth in adverse events [8].

Conclusions

Human capital is often overlooked yet fundamental when building optimal portfolios for private investors. It is the present value of future earnings and can be viewed as a large non-tradable position that shapes overall risk. Integrating human capital into asset allocation means adapting the financial portfolio to the nature of this implicit wealth: if work provides safe, stable income (a “human bond”), the investment portfolio can (and should) lean more toward equities; if work income is uncertain and volatile (a “human stock”), prudence suggests counterbalancing with more bonds and safe assets. This integration personalises the portfolio to the investor’s situation and improves total diversification. The numerical cases also show the importance of rebalancing as conditions change: as human capital is consumed or its risk changes, asset allocation should be revisited to remain efficient. In short, incorporating human capital into financial planning leads to more informed, optimal choices, avoiding over-exposure to the same risks across work and investments and maximising expected return for a given level of total risk [26]. It is a holistic approach that good advisers should adopt especially for clients in their working years, balancing all components of their wealth in an integrated way.

References

Bodie, Z., Merton, R.C., Samuelson, W.F. (1992); Campbell, J.Y., Viceira, L.M. (2002); OECD (2012) Measuring Sustainable Development; CONSOB (2004) Portfolio choices in pension saving; Biagio Del Prete (2022), Divide the portfolio into three, without forgetting human capital; Investopedia (2022), Human Capital’s Impact on Investors.

[1] [2] [4] [7] [9] [23] [26] Human Capital's Impact on Investors
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/younginvestors/09/human-capital.asp

[3] [10] Human capital: what it is, how to calculate it and how to protect it (IT)
https://www.lucalecchini.com/blog/capitale-umano-definizione/

[5] ecb.europa.eu
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/events/pdf/conferences/131017/papers/Session_3_Fagereng.pdf?01933346814bac7658a7aab2d76a4c31

[6] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [24] [25] Lec_4_Human_Capital_Background_Risks_and_Optimal_Portfolio_Decisions20190918104650 (1).pdf
file://file-R5jmXxCgu7FBv3QdjKTVtU

[8] Divide the portfolio into three, without forgetting human capital • Biagio Del Prete (IT)
https://www.biagiodelprete.it/dividere-il-portafoglio-in-tre-non-dimenticando-il-capitale-umano/

[11] Lec_4_Human_Capital_Background_Risks_and_Optimal_Portfolio_Decisions20190918104650.pdf
file://file-39aiidxoHeZVaqFk52tWD1

[12] [13] [14] [15] Microsoft Word - inarcassa_oct2003.doc (IT)
https://www.cerp.carloalberto.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/le_scelte_di_portafoglio.pdf

[22] Tim Isbell online - Human vs Financial Capital
https://www.isbellonline.org/personal-finance/investments/asset-allocation-basics/human-v-financial-capital