Bogleheads.org

Wow this is so interesting thank you for sharing AVGV or AVGE? Let the debate commence! AVGV = higher expected returns, stronger tilts to Value and exUS. For those with an appetite for higher risk/reward AVGE = lower expected returns, smaller tilts to value, home country bias (US). For those that want something closer to VT with less potential tracking error AVGV still feels expensive. I’m guessing we could still replicate it with some ratios of VT + AVDV + AVUV for a lower total cost. Perhaps not quiet as valuey, but I’m not sure .26% is cheap I am still using vanguard funds plus the high factor tilted Avantis funds, though. I don’t really want a one fund solution, since it limits TLH options and I prefer to tilt a bit differently and mor...

Wow this is so interesting thank you for sharing AVGV or AVGE? Let the debate commence! AVGV = higher expected returns, stronger tilts to Value and exUS. For those with an appetite for higher risk/reward AVGE = lower expected returns, smaller tilts to value, home country bias (US). For those that want something closer to VT with less potential tracking error AVGV still feels expensive. I’m guessing we could still replicate it with some ratios of VT + AVDV + AVUV for a lower total cost. Perhaps not quiet as valuey, but I’m not sure .26% is cheap I am still using vanguard funds plus the high factor tilted Avantis funds, though. I don’t really want a one fund solution, since it limits TLH options and I prefer to tilt a bit differently and mor...

CletusCaddy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:55 pm Wow this is so interesting thank you for sharing

AVGV or AVGE? Let the debate commence!

AVGV = higher expected returns, stronger tilts to Value and exUS. For those with an appetite for higher risk/reward

AVGE = lower expected returns, smaller tilts to value, home country bias (US). For those that want something closer to VT with less potential tracking error

visualguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:19 pm

happyisland wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:09 pm Everybody out there knows about the differences between the different stock markets, their relative risks, etc. Guys, this stuff IS PRICED IN.

Not really. For example, new companies aren't priced in. Google, Facebook, Amazon, nVidia, Tesla, etc. weren't priced in before they existed. If everything is somehow magically "priced in", then how could the US return be so much higher than ex-US over the last 30, 50, 120 years? Shouldn't they be equal?

1% higher from 1950-2023

0% higher from 1950-2010

Why is one decade resulting in an extra 1% annualized performance enough to give up on 40% of world market cap?

If we apply this to US and international there should always be a time period over which diversification is helpful. It might be limited to historic periods in which each have outperformed or it it might be continuous - analogous to always owning some bonds in a portfolio. Either answer could make sense. I think what gets lost in the discussion is that ultimately we hold individual stocks, not countries. Look at the holdings of VEA or VWO, these aren't fly by night operations. Canadian banks and railways, Swiss pharmaceuticals, German chemicals, Asian semiconductors, why wouldn't we want to hold these companies in our portfolios, regardless of the historical performance of the markets they are listed in The historical performance of the ma...

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:14 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:08 pm My point was, it made perfect sense to be a diversified VT holder and not a 100% Japanese holder simply because it “might” not matter.

It did

Sure, and I wouldn't be a 100% Japanese holder either. To some extent, US-only folks believe in American exceptionalism. Whether they're right or not remains to be seen.

I’d rather protect against the idea that I could be wrong than actually be wrong and suffer the consequences

The “it may not matter” argument holds no weight. Heads you win. Tails you win. Or… heads you win more. Tails you lose a lot….not those exact odds, but you catch my drift, there’s no reason to turn down the free lunch

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:06 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:02 pm

I don't follow what point you're trying to make, then. Japan came and went...a hypothetical VT holder rode the wave up and down.

My point was, it made perfect sense to be a diversified VT holder and not a 100% Japanese holder simply because it “might” not matter.

It did

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:00 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:59 pm Japanese investor in the 80s could have shrugged and said 1-3 out of 6 is good enough and would have been wrong

What was the composition of VT then, had it existed?

OK, that seems like a reasonable analogy to me, and yes, many of us do think ex-US is worthwhile, though I also understand the difference might not be significant. I think I'm ready to call truce now. :sharebeer I've been reasonable all along; it's actually the international camp who made unreasonable claims. Such examples include counting US as one country out of 200 (given VT is 60% US, that's understating the size of US) or suggesting that US-only is like buying stocks starting with letter "A." Betting on numbers 1~4 out of 6 numbers *is* a good approximation of the size of being US-only as you finally acknowledged. Japanese investor in the 80s could have shrugged and said 1-3 out of 6 is good enough and would have been wrong ...

Again, that's a crisis we have the luxury of considering with hindsight bias. Even with how interconnected the global economy is, that doesn't mean there could be crisis that would be disproportionately harmful to the US market and vice versa. For instance, a terrorist attack on a major US shipping port would be probably be significantly more harmful to the US than say Holland or Denmark. Keep in mind the Black Swan fallacy. Humans generally seem to underestimate the likely of events that haven't happened, or that haven't happened in their lifetime. Well obviously there could be crisis that would be disproportionately harmful to the US market. There also might not be since everything is interconnected. Since we don't know, you can't argue ...

Again, that's a crisis we have the luxury of considering with hindsight bias. Even with how interconnected the global economy is, that doesn't mean there could be crisis that would be disproportionately harmful to the US market and vice versa. For instance, a terrorist attack on a major US shipping port would be probably be significantly more harmful to the US than say Holland or Denmark. Keep in mind the Black Swan fallacy. Humans generally seem to underestimate the likely of events that haven't happened, or that haven't happened in their lifetime. Well obviously there could be crisis that would be disproportionately harmful to the US market. There also might not be since everything is interconnected. Since we don't know, you can't argue ...

But depending on the nature of the crises, it might not affect all countries equally. There are all manner of issues I can imagine that would be more harmful for the US market than most others, and of course the converse it true as well. That's the point. If I were acutely clairvoyant and could predict what will have the best returns, that's where I'd invest. As far as I knew, no one has this ability, so global diversification makes sense. It's unlikely to make a material difference as everything is interconnected. 2008 GFC is a good example. The US was the epicenter of the crisis without a doubt, and the matter was highly domestic in nature (US real estate). Yet, ex-US fell harder than US equities. Your globally diversified portfolio didn...

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:43 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:40 pm We're talking about those choosing to concentrate 100% in a single country vs those that don't.

The Japanese investor I am speaking of would be at the peak of their bubble in early 90s

OK, so a Japanese investor running 60(Nikkei) / 40%(ex-Japan) did well is what you're saying.

So let's examine what this means...the 40% ex-Japan is predominantly US equities. This means another investor investing in early 90s holding 100% US would have done just fine.

No, what this means is you need to be prepared if the US turns out to be the next Japan

A VT investor would likely be OK, a VTI investor wouldn’t

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:33 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:26 pm Not true. A Japanese investor starting with 60% Japanese equities did quite well thanks to the 40% ex-Japan allocation over the coming decades.

We're talking about VT of today. I don't know which starting year you're assuming with this Japanese investor, but we'd likely have to examine what would be VT composition then and go from there.

We're talking about those choosing to concentrate 100% in a single country vs those that don't.

The Japanese investor I am speaking of would be at the peak of their bubble in early 90s. Even though the 60% investor still had significant single country exposure, the 40% they diversified into was enough to prevent significant damage to long term wealth

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 3:52 pm

muffins14 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 3:46 pm Well for VT, the US is like 60% of the portfolio and China is probably like 3-4%? all of China could be wiped out for investing and it would have the same impact as if Microsoft disappeared.

So maybe not that the US has higher geopolitical risk, but just there is nonzero risk, and so spreading some risk to other countries is reasonable. I don’t feel like I’m “loaded up” on China risk at just 3.4% of my portfolio

Right, so VT being 60% US means it doesn't hedge all that well should the US face left-tail risk.

Not true. A Japanese investor starting with 60% Japanese equities did quite well thanks to the 40% ex-Japan allocation over the coming decades.

Left tail risk is worth protecting against. It's happened in the US, it's happened in Japan, it's happened in many countries, but you can typically avoid most of the long term damage by diversifying. Sure, but as I responded to muffins14, it's not so clear cut if you are reducing overall left-tail risks. Please read my response there. Your response moves into narratives talking about China. exUS includes many countries, China isn't the largest one, in fact it's only maybe 10% of an exUS fund, and 3% or less of a blended portfolio The point of diversifying risks is you don't know how they will play out. Is China risky? Or is it fear mongering and it ends up doing far better than many expect? I don't know and don't care, it's part of the glo...

We know historically that being globally diversified has resulted in more reliable SWRs than single country investors. That doesn't mean it will have the highest SWR. One of the only free lunches in investing is diversification. The fact that it "may not matter" is besides the point. It may also "matter". And I'd rather diversify to protect me in case it "does matter" rather than HOPE it doesn't. I still haven't heard what exactly you're getting protected by betting $50 on all 6 faces of dice rolls as opposed to betting $300 on face 5. As I said, the only protection is if face 5 stops showing up for a long time (left-tail risk). Left tail risk is worth protecting against. It's happened in the US, it's happened...

You know it HASN'T mattered a whole lot. That is different from saying you know it WON'T MATTER in the future. The exUS data on SWR should give you pause for how much you "trust" the 4% will hold in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FwgCRIS0Wg That's fair, but if you argue that way then you can't say it will matter a whole lot either. The default stance is that it probably won't matter a whole lot until we see data saying otherwise. SAFEMAX is already a safe number, derived from bad sequences of returns. We know historically that being globally diversified has resulted in more reliable SWRs than single country investors. That doesn't mean it will have the highest SWR. One of the only free lunches in investing is diversific...

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:39 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:10 pm You don't know if it's going to matter a whole lot. Quit stating that you do. You are not a fortune teller, and despite what you might think, the last 100 years of modern financial markets is not a very long time period.

I do know it's not going to matter a whole lot: https://retirementresearcher.com/4-rule ... ound-world

You know it HASN'T mattered a whole lot.

That is different from saying you know it WON'T MATTER in the future.

The exUS data on SWR should give you pause for how much you "trust" the 4% will hold in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FwgCRIS0Wg

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:55 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:52 pm I showed you a period where it did matter. A lot.

YOU DO NOT KNOW if it's going to matter a whole lot. That's precisely the point.

No, it just doesn't matter a whole lot.

If you don't agree, show me the SWR for VT/BND portfolio over 30-year periods. I bet it's somewhere around 4% even if it fared better than VTI/BND between 1966~1995.

You don't know if it's going to matter a whole lot. Quit stating that you do. You are not a fortune teller, and despite what you might think, the last 100 years of modern financial markets is not a very long time period.

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:36 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:31 pm What are you after then? It's not really clear to me why you only want to buy a needle rather than the haystack.

Because it's not going to matter a whole lot at the end of the day.

Say we're betting on dice rolls. I bet $300 on the face 5; you bet $50 each on all 6 faces. Aside from the left-tail risk (i.e. face 5 doesn't show up at all for a very very long time), tell me how you are reducing any risk by betting 1/6th each on all faces.

I showed you a period where it did matter. A lot.

YOU DO NOT KNOW if it's going to matter a whole lot. That's precisely the point.

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:30 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:30 pm Relative to other investment opportunities.

I already clarified above that that's NOT what the US-only people are after.

What are you after then? It's not really clear to me why you only want to buy a needle rather than the haystack.

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:27 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:26 pm US can have left-tail risk and still be the world's superpower.

Certainly that was the case in the 1960s through early 1990s.

I don't know. I will give you that arguably 1965~1975 was. I don't think many people think the "roaring 80s" represents left-tail risk.

Relative to other investment opportunities, especially for a retiree with sequence risk.

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:11 pm

happyisland wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:06 pm Wait, so don't "Diversify, Diversify, Diversify"?

As I said, if your goal is to avoid the US left-tail risk then adding international reduces that.

I don't know who said diversify 3 times, but Bogle actually said we don't need international and cap it at 20% at most.

US can have left-tail risk and still be the world's superpower.

Certainly that was the case in the 1960s through early 1990s.

China is currently 8.4% of VG's Total Int'l Stock Index Fund. Investors can decide if they think 8.4% represents "a very small part of" their international equity sleeve and where that fits in their portfolio. Some who post here hold 20% int'l, some 40%, some 50%. (And some with as little as 0%.) https://i.postimg.cc/vZXXGVSk/China.gif So if we look at two investors, one that owns VT (US and exUS) and the other that owns only VTI (US only), the US only investor has more allocated to single companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc) than the global investor has allocated to an ENTIRE country comprising of many companies within China. Why are we so concerned about a small allocation to a large country but we aren’t when it comes to a single...

What about the costs of holding international and emerging for US investors? Assuming all returns were suddenly equal, wouldn't holding these simply be just more expensive and therefore not optimal? Eg: it cost 1.01% to hold VWO (emerging markets) and 0.30% to hold VTI (US total market) in 2022. The costs to hold the two aren't that wide. International is more expensive in terms of costs, but well worth it for the wide potential dispersions across markets that can happen multiple times over a lifecycle of an investing horizon. These were the actual results of 2022 which I got the information from the spreadsheet that is commonly shared here on the forums: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1owatGsAWQ3Ep60lo25cpLaj7LoH-FtPSXxNPwGuAMk8/e...

rushrocker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:36 pm What about the costs of holding international and emerging for US investors? Assuming all returns were suddenly equal, wouldn't holding these simply be just more expensive and therefore not optimal?

Eg: it cost 1.01% to hold VWO (emerging markets) and 0.30% to hold VTI (US total market) in 2022.

The costs to hold the two aren't that wide. International is more expensive in terms of costs, but well worth it for the wide potential dispersions across markets that can happen multiple times over a lifecycle of an investing horizon.

China represents a very small part of a globally diversified portfolio.... China is currently 8.4% of VG's Total Int'l Stock Index Fund. Investors can decide if they think 8.4% represents "a very small part of" their international equity sleeve and where that fits in their portfolio. Some who post here hold 20% int'l, some 40%, some 50%. (And some with as little as 0%.) https://i.postimg.cc/vZXXGVSk/China.gif So if we look at two investors, one that owns VT (US and exUS) and the other that owns only VTI (US only), the US only investor has more allocated to single companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc) than the global investor has allocated to an ENTIRE country comprising of many companies within China. Why are we so concerned about a ...

Isn’t this all backwards looking? International out performed in the past, so it should again? US out performed in the past, so it shouldn’t in the future? Or should it? The acceptance of the approach of passive indexing is based on the observation of how well it did in the past. If this strategy hadn't proven itself in the past, I don't think any of us would be investing in it. I have to say that if indexing US had performed as poorly as indexing ex-US, I would put 100% of my investments in real estate instead of the 50% that I have now. I don't find ex-US indexing to be a viable investment with its long-term performance of low returns along with high volatility. This holds even when ignoring the underperformance relative to the US market...

What makes you think these supposed advantages have persisted over the past century? If that were true, US returns would almost always have out-performed over that time, but that's not the case. Well, didn't the video itself note that over the past 100 years, in fact the US market did outperform, cumulatively? If the US market didn't outperform, then we're back to subjective feelings about pro-US or anti-US or something like that. Team A vs. Team B. We'd be looking for outperformance, where none exists... and weaving a theory, around clunky and sparse evidence, at best. But isn't our whole assumption here, that the US did in fact outperform, and by a substantial margin? I think it's also important to consider how complex and unpredictable ...

Recruiter was extremely unprofessional. You never, ever add your personal opinions when negotiating with a potential hire and you certainly don't insult them by saying they are greedy. One of my wife's recruiters recently were negotiating with a software engineer. They made an offer of $750,000 besides some other perks. The engineer insisted "they couldn't make it" without an additional $5,000. I found the situation completely ridiculous and let my wife know what I would tell them. My wife and her team stayed professional, kept their opinions to themselves and got the deal done a few days later after working with the hiring manager to find additional money in their budget. Don't let this unfortunate chapter deter you. Make an acc...

We can use PV. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=2&startYear=2007&firstMonth=4&endYear=2023&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Port...

Regarding International (sub) performance, perhaps someone can help me figure this math problem out: From April 30, 2007 (the date I started investing in a taxable account) to February 17, 2023 (the date I last checked), Vanguard Total Stock Market (VTSAX) gained 275.90% while Vanguard FTSE Ex-US (VFWAX) gained 51.44%. (Figures are from Morningstar data). And if I am reading the Morningstar chart correctly, $10,000, invested on April 30, 2007, would now be worth worth $37,590.26 if invested in VTSAX, and $15,099.25 if invested in VFWAX. That’s quite a difference in returns. But here is my first question: Assuming that VTSAX stays stagnant (ie, returns 0% going forward and the value of one’s holding in it stays at $37,590.26), how much woul...

While Chinese companies may post good returns, it doesn't appear the largess is widely dispersed among shareholders. I suppose 8.4% of a small number is an even smaller number. https://www.morningstar.ca/ca/news/225163/china-stocks-the-road-to-nowhere.aspx https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1085524/chinese-stocks-what-went-wrong All markets go through periods of poor performance. The US has had very poor sequences throughout its history that has resulted in returns being worse than Bonds or other equity markets. China is no exception. That does not mean that the expected return on Chinese stocks today is low, or that returns throughout any predefined period are guaranteed to be low. And a 2-3% allocation for a standard globally diversifi...

While Chinese companies may post good returns, it doesn't appear the largess is widely dispersed among shareholders. I suppose 8.4% of a small number is an even smaller number. https://www.morningstar.ca/ca/news/225163/china-stocks-the-road-to-nowhere.aspx https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1085524/chinese-stocks-what-went-wrong All markets go through periods of poor performance. The US has had very poor sequences throughout its history that has resulted in returns being worse than Bonds or other equity markets. China is no exception. That does not mean that the expected return on Chinese stocks today is low, or that returns throughout any predefined period are guaranteed to be low. And a 2-3% allocation for a standard globally diversifi...

China represents a very small part of a globally diversified portfolio.... China is currently 8.4% of VG's Total Int'l Stock Index Fund. Investors can decide if they think 8.4% represents "a very small part of" their international equity sleeve and where that fits in their portfolio. Some who post here hold 20% int'l, some 40%, some 50%. (And some with as little as 0%.) https://i.postimg.cc/vZXXGVSk/China.gif So if we look at two investors, one that owns VT (US and exUS) and the other that owns only VTI (US only), the US only investor has more allocated to single companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc) than the global investor has allocated to an ENTIRE country comprising of many companies within China. Why are we so concerned about a ...

China represents a very small part of a globally diversified portfolio.... China is currently 8.4% of VG's Total Int'l Stock Index Fund. Investors can decide if they think 8.4% represents "a very small part of" their international equity sleeve and where that fits in their portfolio. Some who post here hold 20% int'l, some 40%, some 50%. (And some with as little as 0%.) https://i.postimg.cc/vZXXGVSk/China.gif So if we look at two investors, one that owns VT (US and exUS) and the other that owns only VTI (US only), the US only investor has more allocated to single companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc) than the global investor has allocated to an ENTIRE country comprising of many companies within China. Why are we so concerned about a ...

I dislike YouTube as a medium for financial information. Swedroe for example, like him or not, cites his sources. OK, so Felix contends that US outperformance is due to luck of expected disasters not materializing and investors learning the US is safer which drives up valuations. To me, discussion of Felix's presentation style is irrelevant. What I want to know, is what is his criterion of 'expected disasters'? Are we see fewer nuclear meltdowns? Is it a climate (drought) thing? Is this geography related? Or is is related to the devastating effects of war? Are avoidance of these 'expected disasters' truly due to luck or explained by something else. Without examination of that fundamental assertion, how do we know if his claim is true? Mayb...

I agree. He articulates complex financial information understandably without oversimplifying. As you said, he also seems open to new information and understands how complex and ambiguous some aspects of investing and finance is. +1. Very informative video. Thanks for sharing. I dislike YouTube as a medium for financial information. Swedroe for example, like him or not, cites his sources. OK, so Felix contends that US outperformance is due to luck of expected disasters not materializing and investors learning the US is safer which drives up valuations. To me, discussion of Felix's presentation style is irrelevant. What I want to know, is what is his criterion of 'expected disasters'? Are we see fewer nuclear meltdowns? Is it a climate (drou...

[Inappropriate comment remoived. Moderator Pops1860] He's right but didn't make a compelling anything. Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I really love the plain language Felix uses to lay out fairly complicated topics, and his knowledge and intellectual curiosity are second to none. (In my opinion, obviously. haha) I agree. He articulates complex financial information understandably without oversimplifying. As you said, he also seems open to new information and understands how complex and ambiguous some aspects of investing and finance is. +1. Very informative video. Thanks for sharing. I dislike YouTube as a medium for financial information. Swedroe for example, like him or not, cites his sources. OK, so Felix contends that US outperformance...

Great video that succinctly summarizes the entire “debate“

I disagree, and we can look at the data to confirm my position. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2023&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=0&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&p...

sycamore wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 4:50 pm Taking a break from the SVB threads, I see not much going on here.

My small cap value fund (VBR) was down 7.8% the past week versus down 5.7% for Total Stock. Presumably a greater drop due to exposure to financial stocks?

Anyway, carry on fellow SCV investors.

Yep. "Risk" showed up. SCV is riskier.

*shrug* I just hold VT, which gives me global market weight. Let the efficient market sort out which regions are best. Hmm its about 60% in US so I dont think this will do well if US enters into Japanese Style Lost Decades scenario where 30 Year Return is 0%. I disagree, and we can look at the data to confirm my position. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2023&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=0&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&...

*shrug* I just hold VT, which gives me global market weight. Let the efficient market sort out which regions are best. Hmm its about 60% in US so I dont think this will do well if US enters into Japanese Style Lost Decades scenario where 30 Year Return is 0%. I disagree, and we can look at the data to confirm my position. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2023&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=0&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&...

GaryA505 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:02 pm I would be interested to see all the available data, not just 1966 to present. Is that even possible?

Yes, you can use portfolio visualizr, but even then the data is limited to a few decades.

I think many people fail to realize just how small of a sample size we have for modern markets

It would be great if this "US equity vs. international equity" debate could be settled once and for all. Then everyone could just invest in a globally-weighted portfolio and be happy. :happy It's not necessarily versus, but and. Ex-US markets provide different sources of risk and potential return than only US markets, so it makes sense to hold both. I agree it makes sense to hold both. The arguments for international equity diversification always make sense to me, logically. What I don't know, and nobody knows, is whether it will lead to better future return. I wouldn't take the past underperformance of international to mean that it will or won't outperform in the future. Logically I would think it should, but obviously nobody kn...

Well, I'm 100% US with 2.5 years to go until retirement. I've been US forever, initially due to ignorance, and most recently deliberately. I'm finally 100% indexed - the two-fund portfolio. At this stage of the game, do I take the next step and add international, or just stay the course? International is the most important DURING retirement when you are making withdrawals. You've already reached your goals, and increased diversification mitigates sequence risk. If we are going into a period as a retiree like 1966, you would wish you would have added exUS diversification 30 years later. 20% is probably the minimum you would want in exUS. Vanguard recommends 40%. https://i.imgur.com/zyIL716.png I still haven't made a decision, but I'm much c...

Well, I'm 100% US with 2.5 years to go until retirement. I've been US forever, initially due to ignorance, and most recently deliberately. I'm finally 100% indexed - the two-fund portfolio. At this stage of the game, do I take the next step and add international, or just stay the course? International is the most important DURING retirement when you are making withdrawals. You've already reached your goals, and increased diversification mitigates sequence risk. If we are going into a period as a retiree like 1966, you would wish you would have added exUS diversification 30 years later. 20% is probably the minimum you would want in exUS. Vanguard recommends 40%. https://i.imgur.com/zyIL716.png I still haven't made a decision, but I'm much c...

Your wants are perfectly fine. Don't back down from them. They won't find who they want locally. There's no way I'd move my family across the country unless I'm getting a big increase. You have the upper hand here. If they won't agree to most of your wants, please don't be afraid of telling them no and stay where you're at. Yes. Worse case scenario I stay at my current job with great work/life balance? Could be worse Is it possible you could just stay with your current company, remotely, and move wherever you want? You’re in a position where you can say no to the new company. A 10-15% increase for a step up in responsibility and significant move across the country with a large amount of risk isn’t reasonable. The fact that they won’t even ...