Why own International at all?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
Topic Author
BreakfastTaco
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

Why own International at all?

Post by BreakfastTaco »

In the era of globalization why own greater than a smudgeon of international?

The long-term performance of the total international index is much lower than the total stock market index. Seems like all the risks without the returns.

Thanks
John3754
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by John3754 »

Diversification.
User avatar
arthurdawg
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:47 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by arthurdawg »

Well... the long term may include international stocks returning at a greater clip than US stocks.

You certainly don't have to have international stocks. However, they have grown in value to make up close to 50% of the world market. And who knows what the future holds.


Diversify! 20% International is a reasonable allocation according to many.
Indexed Fully!
xenial
Posts: 2876
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:36 am
Location: USA

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by xenial »

You're suffering from recency bias --- taking the last few years results and projecting them into the future. You might want to take a look at the Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns.
kenner
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by kenner »

BreakfastTaco wrote:In the era of globalization why own greater than a smudgeon of international?

The long-term performance of the total international index is much lower than the total stock market index. Seems like all the risks without the returns.

Thanks
If you believe that the US total stock market will always outperform international stocks, then limit your equity exposure to one single country - the US.

On the other hand, you might want to consider that international stocks more than doubled the total return of US stocks a decade ago.
Twins Fan
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by Twins Fan »

I don't hold any. But, there aren't many like me around here. :D

Along with the listed reasons ( although I think total stock and total international are close to even since the 70's or so), I'm also small time, as in small $$ and all tax advantaged accounts. So, I don't really see 20-30% international doing much good or bad for me. I haven't been convinced it's needed, so I pass on it.
User avatar
C319
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:38 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by C319 »

I keep the equity portion of my investment portfolio to 50% international because I figure:
a)It approximates the ratio of the global markets vice a home-country approach.
b)I can't predict the future so I hedge my bets.
User avatar
SimpleGift
Posts: 4477
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:45 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by SimpleGift »

bpp
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Japan

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by bpp »

Because Japan:
Image
Buddtholomew
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:29 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by Buddtholomew »

Why hold bonds?
Why hold international?
Why hold precious metals or mining?

The answer is diversification and the benefits outweigh chasing asset classes that have risen in recent past. Also, under-performance is a reason to include international in your portfolio if you believe in reversion to the mean.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool" --Feynman.
User avatar
whaleknives
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by whaleknives »

Ken Schwartz wrote:You're suffering from recency bias --- taking the last few years results and projecting them into the future. You might want to take a look at the Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns.
This link seems to be working better right now, with higher resolution here.
"I'm an indexer. I own the market. And I'm happy." (John Bogle, "BusinessWeek", 8/17/07) ☕ Maritime signal flag W - Whiskey: "I require medical assistance."
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 16260
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by JoMoney »

I'm not sure what the future returns of International vs. U.S. will look like. They have certainly traded back and forth over time, a lot of that difference has been the effect of relative currency exchange rates. It does appear that the markets expectations for growth in the U.S. are much higher going forward from here. Lots of people are quick to point out how International looks a lot more "value"-y at current price/x multiples (without consideration of expected growth).
Whether or not you can out-guess the markets valuation, or expected growth (or lack of growth) comes to fruition is always up for debate. The future is always unclear.
I'm inclined to Mr.Bogle's unpopular belief that U.S. investors can do well without international investments.
IMO, the decision should probably be based on your beliefs about the risk. Many people believe the increased diversification reduces their risk, I'm of the opinion that the unique risks associated with international aren't adding additional diversification it's just increasing risks you wouldn't otherwise be exposed to (not to mention an extra pinch of expenses and complexity to a portfolio).
If it's something you're undecided about and might regret later on, maybe the moderate approach is best. If one camp is saying to invest globally at full market weights, but you give credence to the idea that maybe there are additional risks you don't want that much exposure to, split the difference: Instead of a 50% US/ 50% Intl. global portfolio, maybe split the International allocation in half for a 75% US / 25% Intl.
Vanguard seems to advocate for a 30% International, Mr. Bogle has said for those who think they need it 20% should be the max... 25% seems to be right in the middle there too...
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
User avatar
Steelersfan
Posts: 4129
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by Steelersfan »

I'm at 20%, low by many bogleheads' standards.

I think international exposure is important for the reasons stated above, but U.S. multi-nationals rely so much on international business, and have investments in so many countries, I keep it at the low end.
john94549
Posts: 4638
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by john94549 »

15 - 20% here. Unashamedly admit to home country bias. My wife has about the same in her rollover IRA, but zero international in her 401K (poor options with high ERs).
Last edited by john94549 on Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ruralavalon
Posts: 26351
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by ruralavalon »

BreakfastTaco wrote:In the era of globalization why own greater than a smudgeon of international?

The long-term performance of the total international index is much lower than the total stock market index. Seems like all the risks without the returns.

Thanks
"Smudgeon"?

Why own anything that's currently not doing well? Because it might do well in the future, aka "revert to mean". Because of an historical diversification benefit of 65 basis points. Because you might want to not be underweight global automotive, auto parts, consumer electronics, or mining.

We are about 25% of stocks in international stocks. That Vanguard paper, p. 6, says that almost all of the historical diversification benefit is at the low end of their 20 - 40% range.
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link: Bogleheads® investment philosophy
john94549
Posts: 4638
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by john94549 »

ruralavalon wrote: "Smudgeon"?
Merely a neologism, accurately reflecting the smudge made this year by VTIAX on our portfolios.
User avatar
joe8d
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Buffalo,NY

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by joe8d »

I'm at the low end ( 15-20%).The outsized gains of international in the past were due primarily to the devaluing dollar.That situation appears to have reversed.
All the Best, | Joe
kenner
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by kenner »

joe8d wrote:I'm at the low end ( 15-20%).The outsized gains of international in the past were due primarily to the devalued dollar.That situation appears to have reversed.
.
That reversal may or may not be permanent. Place your bets.
Last edited by kenner on Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JMDV
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by JMDV »

if you believe in globalization, you believe in Indexing....hence you should own a piece of International in your portfolio...the amount can vary ( or be subject to 20,000 opinions on this board)..Cheers
..
User avatar
ruralavalon
Posts: 26351
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by ruralavalon »

john94549 wrote:
ruralavalon wrote: "Smudgeon"?
Merely a neologism, accurately reflecting the smudge made this year by VTIAX on our portfolios.
If we're are just look for recent winners, how about Vanguard REIT Index Fund, up 24.49% YTD, and definitely not a smudge on our portfolio :D .
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link: Bogleheads® investment philosophy
cudaman
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by cudaman »

BreakfastTaco wrote:
The long-term performance of the total international index is much lower than the total stock market index. Seems like all the risks without the returns.

Thanks
Buy international equity while it suffers. The AA strategy is on exhibit, even at US market highs. Currency risk helps present that opportunity. Take advantage IMO.

Jerry
User avatar
Ged
Posts: 3945
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 1:48 pm
Location: Roke

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by Ged »

Steelersfan wrote:I'm at 20%, low by many bogleheads' standards.

I think international exposure is important for the reasons stated above, but U.S. multi-nationals rely so much on international business, and have investments in so many countries, I keep it at the low end.
The converse is true too, which would suggest increasing your international exposure.
vencat
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by vencat »

Smudgeon or smidgen...who cares!
YellowJoe
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:50 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by YellowJoe »

Jack Bogle himself says "stay away from Emerging Markets". The risks are NOT WORTH IT.

So as far as 'international' goes, I would do international DEVELOPED nations such as:

Developed Europe (mostly western Europe)
HK
Singapore
NZ
Australia
Canada

Africa, South America, Easter Europe, Middle East, Russia/Ukraine are all areas that to me are just not worth the risks involved....
anil686
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by anil686 »

YellowJoe wrote:Jack Bogle himself says "stay away from Emerging Markets". The risks are NOT WORTH IT.

So as far as 'international' goes, I would do international DEVELOPED nations such as:

Developed Europe (mostly western Europe)
HK
Singapore
NZ
Australia
Canada

Africa, South America, Easter Europe, Middle East, Russia/Ukraine are all areas that to me are just not worth the risks involved....
I don't recall this quote from Mr. Bogle. In Common Sense on Mutual Funds, he states you do not need to own International due to currency risk and gives a nice explanation (probably the most clear I have heard) as to what currency risk really is. However, in his portfolio recommendations at the end of chapter 5 (or maybe 6 - I can't remember off the top of my head) - he recommends keeping international to no more than 20% of your total equity holdings and recommended at least 50% of that in EM. In fact, (I forget the exact line and do not have the book handy right now) he makes it sound that if you were going to do international - he would recommend EM since the developed markets are developed. I may be misinterpreting what he wrote and please correct me if I am - I would like to understand that better - thanks in advance...
User avatar
obgyn65
Posts: 770
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:11 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by obgyn65 »

Diversification. I believe the US dollar will crash in my lifetime. This is why I keep a lot of assets in Europe, where I was born. Home country bias counts also I guess.
"The two most important days in someone's life are the day that they are born and the day they discover why." -John Maxwell
staythecourse
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:40 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by staythecourse »

Questions like this scream recency bias.

Easiest way to find out if one is being influenced by recent events is ask if you would be asking the same question if international equities were are up 20%+ for the last several years. My guess is no.

Funny how very few want to add MORE to asset when it is out of favor.

I don't remember anyone in the early 80's wanting to eliminate Japan equities.

Good luck.

p.s. This is the reason I split equities 50/50 between U.S. and Ex U.S. as it insures I don't fall for behavioral issues.
"The stock market [fluctuation], therefore, is noise. A giant distraction from the business of investing.” | -Jack Bogle
ArthurO
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by ArthurO »

Ged wrote:
Steelersfan wrote:I'm at 20%, low by many bogleheads' standards.

I think international exposure is important for the reasons stated above, but U.S. multi-nationals rely so much on international business, and have investments in so many countries, I keep it at the low end.
The converse is true too, which would suggest increasing your international exposure.
I was 20% international when I built my retirement portfolio, but due to criticism from few bogleheads i increased my total international by 5% and added emerging markets 5% for total international/domestic equity split of 33.33/66/67. So far, looks like it was a mistake since international is lagging US big time, since I made the move anyway.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by dbr »

ArthurO wrote:
Ged wrote:
Steelersfan wrote:I'm at 20%, low by many bogleheads' standards.

I think international exposure is important for the reasons stated above, but U.S. multi-nationals rely so much on international business, and have investments in so many countries, I keep it at the low end.
The converse is true too, which would suggest increasing your international exposure.
I was 20% international when I built my retirement portfolio, but due to criticism from few bogleheads i increased my total international by 5% and added emerging markets 5% for total international/domestic equity split of 33.33/66/67. So far, looks like it was a mistake since international is lagging US big time, since I made the move anyway.
I think some comments are needed on this.

Not recalling the thread, I would hope that something like 20 vs 25+5 would not be a decision that would be based on "criticism." Inevitably when people ask questions about what is advised there will be many comments. Some comments will be general in nature and often suggest the choice is not very important. Other posters will suggest specific ideas that may or may not be based on some analysis. In any case for someone to take an actually negative view of 20% and suggest that 25% would "fix" the problem would be out of line for sure, even more so for the idea of adding emerging markets. But I doubt that is what anyone really intended. I do agree some threads can end up sounding like a person is stupid for not accepting some view or another, but we should try to avoid that (awarding mea culpas to myself when needed).

So now the other comment actually is kind of a "don't be stupid" comment, and that comment is that lots of investment decisions look like they should be called mistakes in hindsight, but that is not how investing works. Investment strategy is based on average expectation understanding that one should not expect to get what is expected. That is a kind of "clever" way to point out that investment results are variable and that one needs to take into account both the expected average and the uncertainty that one will not get the expected average in any particular period of time. It is still intelligent to make ex ante decisions based on expectations considering also uncertainty. It is not possible to invest any other way. Not getting what is expected doesn't have the nature of being a mistake. The statement is often made that one should not confuse outcome with strategy, meaning that what actually happens in the short run does not establish that a strategy was/is good or bad.
User avatar
backpacker
Posts: 1620
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:17 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by backpacker »

BreakfastTaco wrote: The long-term performance of the total international index is much lower than the total stock market index.
Eh? Developed international stocks have beat US stocks since 1972. A 50/50 split between domestic and international did better yet. The full results are here.
User avatar
iceport
Posts: 6054
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:29 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by iceport »

^^ Great comments, as usual, dbr.
dbr wrote:The statement is often made that one should not confuse outcome with strategy, meaning that what actually happens in the short run does not establish that a strategy was/is good or bad.
My only comment is to reinforce the last point. Unless the AA shift was intended as some sort of market timing move, short term consequences are meaningless -- or should be. Actually, non-correlation is typically a desired part of the strategy, and any effects of unlucky timing should be overcome in the long term.

Also, I would say it's wrong to confuse strategy with either short term or long term outcome. No one knows the optimum AA before hand.

--Peter
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” |—| "In finance, if you’re certain of anything, you’re out of your mind." ─William Bernstein
YellowJoe
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:50 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by YellowJoe »

hello.

Jack Bogle didnt mention this in his book. He mentioned this in one of his latest interviews with Morningstar.com. Check it out on the morningstar.com site, it'll be worth your while.

He goes on to mention, that he wouldnt put more than 10% into emerging markets if you really really felt the need to diversity into EM. He says all the experts say EM is worthwhile and they should be far smarter than he is, however bogle is steadfast saying "the risks just aren't worth it" over at least a 10 yr outlook....

My take...diversify globally outside of USA, no more 50% of your equity position; and I would only diversity into developed nations for a long term hold. much lower risk and should be able to at least be on-target with Bogle's stance of 7% annualized growth in the foreseeable future. And yes, Bogle in his recent interviews is saying 7% annualized is a safe conservative return moving forward.....
anil686 wrote:
YellowJoe wrote:Jack Bogle himself says "stay away from Emerging Markets". The risks are NOT WORTH IT.

So as far as 'international' goes, I would do international DEVELOPED nations such as:

Developed Europe (mostly western Europe)
HK
Singapore
NZ
Australia
Canada

Africa, South America, Easter Europe, Middle East, Russia/Ukraine are all areas that to me are just not worth the risks involved....
I don't recall this quote from Mr. Bogle. In Common Sense on Mutual Funds, he states you do not need to own International due to currency risk and gives a nice explanation (probably the most clear I have heard) as to what currency risk really is. However, in his portfolio recommendations at the end of chapter 5 (or maybe 6 - I can't remember off the top of my head) - he recommends keeping international to no more than 20% of your total equity holdings and recommended at least 50% of that in EM. In fact, (I forget the exact line and do not have the book handy right now) he makes it sound that if you were going to do international - he would recommend EM since the developed markets are developed. I may be misinterpreting what he wrote and please correct me if I am - I would like to understand that better - thanks in advance...
nwffdiver
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:26 pm
Location: End of the Oregon trail

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by nwffdiver »

This post made me stop and look at where my portfolio is today. INT is currently 27% ...my IPS says 30. I realize INT is down a bit for the year. So I will rebalance in January. I believe in a World Market. But we are all individuals, if you believe in your IPS you will Stay the Course! :greedy
anil686
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by anil686 »

YellowJoe wrote:hello.

Jack Bogle didnt mention this in his book. He mentioned this in one of his latest interviews with Morningstar.com. Check it out on the morningstar.com site, it'll be worth your while.

He goes on to mention, that he wouldnt put more than 10% into emerging markets if you really really felt the need to diversity into EM. He says all the experts say EM is worthwhile and they should be far smarter than he is, however bogle is steadfast saying "the risks just aren't worth it" over at least a 10 yr outlook....

My take...diversify globally outside of USA, no more 50% of your equity position; and I would only diversity into developed nations for a long term hold. much lower risk and should be able to at least be on-target with Bogle's stance of 7% annualized growth in the foreseeable future. And yes, Bogle in his recent interviews is saying 7% annualized is a safe conservative return moving forward.....
anil686 wrote:
YellowJoe wrote:Jack Bogle himself says "stay away from Emerging Markets". The risks are NOT WORTH IT.

So as far as 'international' goes, I would do international DEVELOPED nations such as:

Developed Europe (mostly western Europe)
HK
Singapore
NZ
Australia
Canada

Africa, South America, Easter Europe, Middle East, Russia/Ukraine are all areas that to me are just not worth the risks involved....
I don't recall this quote from Mr. Bogle. In Common Sense on Mutual Funds, he states you do not need to own International due to currency risk and gives a nice explanation (probably the most clear I have heard) as to what currency risk really is. However, in his portfolio recommendations at the end of chapter 5 (or maybe 6 - I can't remember off the top of my head) - he recommends keeping international to no more than 20% of your total equity holdings and recommended at least 50% of that in EM. In fact, (I forget the exact line and do not have the book handy right now) he makes it sound that if you were going to do international - he would recommend EM since the developed markets are developed. I may be misinterpreting what he wrote and please correct me if I am - I would like to understand that better - thanks in advance...
thanks!!!
User avatar
backpacker
Posts: 1620
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:17 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by backpacker »

YellowJoe wrote:[Jack Bogle] goes on to mention, that he wouldn't put more than 10% into emerging markets if you really really felt the need to diversity into EM. He says all the experts say EM is worthwhile and they should be far smarter than he is, however bogle is steadfast saying "the risks just aren't worth it" over at least a 10 yr outlook...
Adding 20% emerging markets has (over the last thirty-odd years for which I PV has reliable data) improved the risk/return (i.e. the sharp ratio) of a portfolio more than adding 20% developed markets. I'm not sure, then, why someone would think that the risk of EM "isn't worth it".
selftalk
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:08 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by selftalk »

The funny thing is that it all works out judging solely from the past. But we don`t know the future. It seems to me that a lot of responses to this site are widely diversified all over the world. Just because a country`s economy is doing poorly does not mean it cannot be the best stock performer and the reverse is true also. The magic best formula is never known till afterwards. So juggle your allocations to your hearts content but remember to stay true to your plan and give it plenty of time as it rains and is sunny.
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 16260
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by JoMoney »

Couple of comments,
backpacker wrote:
BreakfastTaco wrote: The long-term performance of the total international index is much lower than the total stock market index.
Eh? Developed international stocks have beat US stocks since 1972. A 50/50 split between domestic and international did better yet. The full results are here.
The problem is this a period dependent event. If you move the dates around just a little bit you can get a completely different outcome. Even longer periods show the U.S. outperforming a global portfolio... but those longer periods also include entire countries being devastated by war or communist take overs. Some might say that's a reason to diversify because "it can happen here", others might not be so certain that if such events were to unfold that your brokerage accounts holdings would be protected.
backpacker wrote:...Adding 20% emerging markets has (over the last thirty-odd years for which I PV has reliable data) improved the risk/return (i.e. the sharp ratio) of a portfolio more than adding 20% developed markets. I'm not sure, then, why someone would think that the risk of EM "isn't worth it".
Again, it's period dependent. Some people believe markets work, there's a tendency for the market to "arbitrage away" excess returns. Some assets seem to violently swing from highs to lows and frequently "return to the mean". Obviously that presents an opportunity for someone that believes they have some understanding of when it's priced "high" or "low", but if you're not in the camp that believes they have that ability (it's harder than it looks), and you've seen how persistently the market tends to "return to the mean" ( i.e. the excess returns are not persistent), then the more dramatic ups and downs don't really offer you anything unless your premise is based on some sort of diversification benefit.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
KSActuary
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:53 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by KSActuary »

Buy International you cannot predict which geographic region of the equity market will outperform over any period of time. Diversification/volatility reduction is not a reason to invest in International.
User avatar
backpacker
Posts: 1620
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:17 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by backpacker »

JoMoney wrote:Couple of comments,
backpacker wrote: Developed international stocks have beat US stocks since 1972. A 50/50 split between domestic and international did better yet. The full results are here.


The problem is this a period dependent event. If you move the dates around just a little bit you can get a completely different outcome. Even longer periods show the U.S. outperforming a global portfolio...
backpacker wrote:...Adding 20% emerging markets has (over the last thirty-odd years for which I PV has reliable data) improved the risk/return (i.e. the sharp ratio) of a portfolio more than adding 20% developed markets. I'm not sure, then, why someone would think that the risk of EM "isn't worth it".


Again, it's period dependent.[...] the more dramatic ups and downs don't really offer you anything unless your premise is based on some sort of diversification benefit.
Thanks Jo! I suspect that we agree on quite a bit. I don't think international stocks persistently outperform domestic stocks. I was just objecting to the opposite view that domestic stocks can be relied on to outperform international stocks.

As far as the very long term goes, about the best data we have is data used for Triumph of the Optimists. Here's one of their charts that I recently ran across:

Image

Returns and volatility are from the perspective of a US investor (i.e. they are in dollars). As you can see, you're right that the US market had higher returns than the world market over the 100 year period. The US market, however, was also significantly more volatile. This pattern is repeated in both the first half and the second half of the century. This is some good evidence that holding the world market reduces risk compared to holding just the US market.

The results from 1900-1950 are especially interesting I think. The world market was less volatile than the US market despite communist takeovers in China and Russia (which are included in the DMS world index) and two world wars fought on foreign soil. Even though the US was safer militarily and politically, that didn't translate into safer overall stock returns. I would not have guessed that!

As it turns out, because the US market had surprisingly good returns for the century, its sharp ratio is virtually identical to the sharp ratio of the world index (.34 for the world and .33 for the US). Higher returns made up for higher volatility. Since I'm not confident that there will be higher returns for US stocks going forward, I'm not confident that the higher volatility of a US-only portfolio will be rewarded.

None of this is make or break for investors. An extra three points of standard deviation is not going to kill anyone and there is no guarantee that the world market will be less volatile than the US market going forward, especially over short periods of time. Correlation are also rising, so the volatility of the world index should rise as well. Foreign taxes are a real issue so, for investors not getting the foreign tax credit, there may be good reason to not hold the world market portfolio.

I'm mostly worried that new investors will avoid international stocks for all the wrong reasons. Then, when international stocks inevitably have a good run, the arguments for diversification will sound much more convincing. The bad behavior of switching back and forth is the main thing investors need to avoid.
ArthurO
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by ArthurO »

dbr wrote:
ArthurO wrote:
Ged wrote:
Steelersfan wrote:I'm at 20%, low by many bogleheads' standards.

I think international exposure is important for the reasons stated above, but U.S. multi-nationals rely so much on international business, and have investments in so many countries, I keep it at the low end.
The converse is true too, which would suggest increasing your international exposure.
I was 20% international when I built my retirement portfolio, but due to criticism from few bogleheads i increased my total international by 5% and added emerging markets 5% for total international/domestic equity split of 33.33/66/67. So far, looks like it was a mistake since international is lagging US big time, since I made the move anyway.
I think some comments are needed on this.

Not recalling the thread, I would hope that something like 20 vs 25+5 would not be a decision that would be based on "criticism." Inevitably when people ask questions about what is advised there will be many comments. Some comments will be general in nature and often suggest the choice is not very important. Other posters will suggest specific ideas that may or may not be based on some analysis. In any case for someone to take an actually negative view of 20% and suggest that 25% would "fix" the problem would be out of line for sure, even more so for the idea of adding emerging markets. But I doubt that is what anyone really intended. I do agree some threads can end up sounding like a person is stupid for not accepting some view or another, but we should try to avoid that (awarding mea culpas to myself when needed).

So now the other comment actually is kind of a "don't be stupid" comment, and that comment is that lots of investment decisions look like they should be called mistakes in hindsight, but that is not how investing works. Investment strategy is based on average expectation understanding that one should not expect to get what is expected. That is a kind of "clever" way to point out that investment results are variable and that one needs to take into account both the expected average and the uncertainty that one will not get the expected average in any particular period of time. It is still intelligent to make ex ante decisions based on expectations considering also uncertainty. It is not possible to invest any other way. Not getting what is expected doesn't have the nature of being a mistake. The statement is often made that one should not confuse outcome with strategy, meaning that what actually happens in the short run does not establish that a strategy was/is good or bad.
I pretty much agree with everything you commented on, just for clarification, noone called me stupid for having 20% in international, but vast majority of people who were kind enough to critique my allocation mentioned that 20% international was on a low side and further comments were that emerging markets overweight have higher expectation of good returns. My 403b has access to institutional emerg. market fund with expenses of only 0.12 and total international is only investment series with expenses of 0.22 so I took this to consideration also when overweighting emerg. markets.

So now I am 33% international which is closer to average between low and high... so happy with it, and yeah so far the decision to increase international allocation did not work out in my favor since YTD return is negative so if I kept it in 20% I would have made more YTD return, but as you say higher expectation has a standard deviation with it, and so I keep rolling with my decision of 33% international and plan to stay there for the foreseeable future with 5% emerging markets tilt...
YellowJoe
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:50 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by YellowJoe »

backpacker wrote:
YellowJoe wrote:[Jack Bogle] goes on to mention, that he wouldn't put more than 10% into emerging markets if you really really felt the need to diversity into EM. He says all the experts say EM is worthwhile and they should be far smarter than he is, however bogle is steadfast saying "the risks just aren't worth it" over at least a 10 yr outlook...
Adding 20% emerging markets has (over the last thirty-odd years for which I PV has reliable data) improved the risk/return (i.e. the sharp ratio) of a portfolio more than adding 20% developed markets. I'm not sure, then, why someone would think that the risk of EM "isn't worth it".


as i stated, Jack Bogle says so many genius experts who are much smarter than him say that EM is worth the risk-adjusted premium...

Bogle says they could be right, but to him, EM is just not worth the risk for a portfolio with at least 10 yr outlook....

I believe you can easily diversify without even touching EM.

MCSI World stock market index doesn't even touch EM while FTSE All-World index does include EM. Both are 50% USA and 50% international....
YellowJoe
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:50 am

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by YellowJoe »

upon even more thinking over this..."why own international at all"...

to include International or not; is marginal and doesnt really matter. Keep fees LOW and rebalance stocks/bonds every year is the key....

Bogle says 7% (2% dividends, 5% earnings growth) is a safe conservative annualized growth number moving forward from here....

But if you were to include International, I personally like "developed nations" that include the companies with the strongest international brands and diversified businesses (ie. nestle company). developed nations also have less corupt and stable goverments. Currency risks are also minimized since you are mostly dealing with USD, Euro and GBP.

EM..past historical data could support slightly better returns due to its risk premium, but to me, its doesnt really matter if you include it. I'm with Bogle here...

USA, International "developed nations": This to me for a long term hold is very safe and should keep up with the conservative 7% annualized returns Bogle is stating.
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 17413
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by White Coat Investor »

BreakfastTaco wrote:In the era of globalization why own greater than a smudgeon of international?

The long-term performance of the total international index is much lower than the total stock market index. Seems like all the risks without the returns.

Thanks
Performance chasing. It is unlikely this question would have been posted here if International had been outperforming domestic this year. There will be years when the opposite occurs. When the dollars weakens and China and Europe boom, it sure feels good to own some international.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
HopeToGolf
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:04 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by HopeToGolf »

backpacker wrote:
JoMoney wrote:Couple of comments,
backpacker wrote: Developed international stocks have beat US stocks since 1972. A 50/50 split between domestic and international did better yet. The full results are here.


The problem is this a period dependent event. If you move the dates around just a little bit you can get a completely different outcome. Even longer periods show the U.S. outperforming a global portfolio...
backpacker wrote:...Adding 20% emerging markets has (over the last thirty-odd years for which I PV has reliable data) improved the risk/return (i.e. the sharp ratio) of a portfolio more than adding 20% developed markets. I'm not sure, then, why someone would think that the risk of EM "isn't worth it".


Again, it's period dependent.[...] the more dramatic ups and downs don't really offer you anything unless your premise is based on some sort of diversification benefit.
Thanks Jo! I suspect that we agree on quite a bit. I don't think international stocks persistently outperform domestic stocks. I was just objecting to the opposite view that domestic stocks can be relied on to outperform international stocks.

As far as the very long term goes, about the best data we have is data used for Triumph of the Optimists. Here's one of their charts that I recently ran across:

Image

Returns and volatility are from the perspective of a US investor (i.e. they are in dollars). As you can see, you're right that the US market had higher returns than the world market over the 100 year period. The US market, however, was also significantly more volatile. This pattern is repeated in both the first half and the second half of the century. This is some good evidence that holding the world market reduces risk compared to holding just the US market.

The results from 1900-1950 are especially interesting I think. The world market was less volatile than the US market despite communist takeovers in China and Russia (which are included in the DMS world index) and two world wars fought on foreign soil. Even though the US was safer militarily and politically, that didn't translate into safer overall stock returns. I would not have guessed that!

As it turns out, because the US market had surprisingly good returns for the century, its sharp ratio is virtually identical to the sharp ratio of the world index (.34 for the world and .33 for the US). Higher returns made up for higher volatility. Since I'm not confident that there will be higher returns for US stocks going forward, I'm not confident that the higher volatility of a US-only portfolio will be rewarded.

None of this is make or break for investors. An extra three points of standard deviation is not going to kill anyone and there is no guarantee that the world market will be less volatile than the US market going forward, especially over short periods of time. Correlation are also rising, so the volatility of the world index should rise as well. Foreign taxes are a real issue so, for investors not getting the foreign tax credit, there may be good reason to not hold the world market portfolio.

I'm mostly worried that new investors will avoid international stocks for all the wrong reasons. Then, when international stocks inevitably have a good run, the arguments for diversification will sound much more convincing. The bad behavior of switching back and forth is the main thing investors need to avoid.
In the 1950-2000 period, why does the world have lower averages than the world-ex US and US? I would think the world is some combination of the two.
sschullo
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:25 am
Location: Long Beach, CA
Contact:

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by sschullo »

John3754 wrote:Diversification.
+1
More companies in the Vanguard World index, over 6000, including the U.S.
Vanguard Total Stock market index has only 3700+ domestic companies.
Never in the history of market day-traders’ has the obsession with so much massive, sophisticated, & powerful statistical machinery used by the brightest people on earth with such useless results.
User avatar
backpacker
Posts: 1620
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:17 pm

Re: Why own International at all?

Post by backpacker »

HopeToGolf wrote:
backpacker wrote: Image
In the 1950-2000 period, why does the world have lower averages than the world-ex US and US? I would think the world is some combination of the two.
Nice spot. That really strange and can't be right. Typo?
Post Reply