[Taylor Larimore beat me to it...]
Sure there is. John C. Bogle has opined that a U.S. investor does not need any international, and has actively recommended against holding more than 20%
of equities in international. He devoted an entire chapter of Common Sense on Mutual Funds
to that topic. He cites extensive data. Contrary to what some have implied, it's a well-thought-out, well-supported opinion, not know-nothing flag-waving. And it's not a salesman disparaging a product category he doesn't offer, as Vanguard of course offers excellent, popular, well-regarded international funds.
This is one of the areas where many Bogleheads shrug and say "Bogle is wrong." I don't say that; my own views are considerably than that. My personal view is that, very simply, I am too chicken to go so far out of the mainstream as to hold no international at all
, and I really think that the costs and nuisance factor of holding 20% international are negligible.
I don't think you should hold 0% international based solely on costs. I think you need to have some fairly well articulated positive reason that's stronger than that.
20% is a low enough percentage that I was psychologically unaffected recently when international stumbled a bit. I had no difficulty staying the course. I wasn't even paying attention. Then people making concerned posts in this forum. I looked, hey how about that, I'm down to 18%, shrug, OK, go to Vanguard.com, My Portfolio, Exchange, click, done. No anxiety.
Bogle reiterated his opinions in his "Ten Years Later" notes in the revised 2009 edition. His notes begin:
I want to reemphasize my reluctance to enbrace the idea of holding a true global portfolio, in which a U.S. investor's market weighting would be based on the weights of the markets of each major nation, resulting, in mid-2009, in 44% U. S. stocks and 56% international stocks. But I have no reluctance whatsoever to emphasize a truly global strategy, focussed largely on U. S. stocks.
That doesn't address the question of the lower end. In other statements I don't have exact quotations for, he's said that he thinks 0% is fine, but if you want some international up to 20% is fine--but he actually recommends against
more than that.
The arguments are, roughly, that the past data shows no compelling evidence that international is needed, and that the global character of modern business assures that markets are coupled and that you have enough indirect exposure through U.S. companies doing international business that actually holding international business directly is redundant.
You can find articles, in fact I think Vanguard has one, strongly rejecting the idea that holdings of multinational U.S. businesses are a substitute for direct international holdings.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.