Portfolio allocation theories have been studied and used ever since the mid 20th century. Nevertheless, many investors still rely on personal expertise and information gathered from the market when building their investment portfolios. The purpose of this master’s thesis is to examine how personal preferences and expertise perform compared to mathematical portfolio alloca- tion theories and how the risk between these di↵erent strategies di↵er. Using two portfolio allocation theories, the Black-Litterman model and mod- ern portfolio theory (Markowitz), a portfolio managed by the investment firm Placerum Kapitalf ̈orvaltning in Ume ̊a will be compared and challenged to investigate which strategy gives the best risk adjusted return. Using scenario modelling, the portfolios can be compared using both historical data and future forecasted scenarios to analyze the past, present and future of the allocation theories and Placerum’s investment strategy. The first allocation theory, the Black-Litterman model, combines historical information from the market with views and preferences of the investor to select the optimal allocations derived from return and volatility. The second allocation theory, the modern portfolio theory (Markowitz), only uses histori- cal data to derive correlations and returns which are then used to select the optimal allocations. By analysing several risk measures applied on the portfolios historical and forecasted data as well as comparing the performance of the portfolios, it is shown that the investment strategy used at Placerum succeeds with its intentions to achieve relatively high return while reducing the risk. However, the portfolios given using the two allocation theories results in higher potential returns but at the cost of taking on a higher risk. Comparing the two studied allocation theories, it is shown that when using the Black-Litterman model with the assumptions and views defined in this project, modern allocation theory actually beats it in terms of potential return as well as in terms of risk adjusted return, even though its underlying theory is much simpler.