Bogleheads.org

nisiprius wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:15 pm

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:52 pm...It seems like TIPS are fine, but I'm not sure I'd want to rely on them 100% for fixed income. They appear to be performing worse than inflation over time...

They appear to have performed 1.70%/year better than inflation, over time.

Here is the performance of ACITX, the American Century TIPS fund, since inception. That's essentially the full history of TIPS themselves--January of 1997 for inception of TIPS, February of 1997 for the TIPS fund.

Source

Of course it's time dependent, but the other funds you suggested had negative real over the last decade or so.

I'm a very conservative investor. I don't say that's objectively right, I'm just saying I am. And yes, I do have a high fixed-income allocation, because a) I'm retired and b) I'm a conservative investor. I don't see any significant downside to TIPS. The big question is "why not TIPS?" and the "why nots" always seem like technicalities to me. Bonds are for safety, and I don't see the point of taking unnecessary inflation risk in bonds, even if you expect to be rewarded for taking that risk. I have never liked the idea of relying solely on stocks for inflation protection. That may be true over the long run, but the long run is longer than my personal patience. In the words of Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffett's mentor: On t...

I agree. I think the 2nd option might only appeal to investors who don't plan to use the money for at least a decade willing to take significant risk. That's not me. I'm content with the more moderate of AVGE. You shouldn’t be investing in stocks at all unless you largely plan to hold for a decade and not completely sell off the entirety of the holding A portfolio tilted more to value tends to have less start date sensitivity as well But a portfolio that heavily value tilted will likely be highly volatile and has more short-term under-performance risk. That's not appealing for many investors. It's basically a Larry Light, which is great for me. Allows me to have two-funds, only having to rebalance between fixed income and equity. Makes the...

It’s for those that want a single equity solution with higher value tilts and higher exUS exposure for higher expected returns I think the posters above have it right collectively. Most would probably use AVGV in either one of two ways. (1) Mix with market-cap weighted index funds to desired value tilt. For example: 30% VTI, 20% VXUS, 50% AVGV. This could provide similar factor exposure to AVGE, but it would be an easier transition for someone with large unrealized gains in their taxable Vanguard funds. (2) 100% AVGV for a higher value allocation than AVGE provides. I personally wouldn’t do this, but a vocal minority seems to be really enthusiastic here. I agree. I think the 2nd option might only appeal to investors who don't plan to use t...

Why would AVGV on its own with those 5 funds be appealing to people? Would this be used in combo with something like VT? It's missing big segments, right? AVGE seems like a more diversified single holding? I tend to agree. While I'm convinced factors provide beneficial diversification, AVGV seems like too much of a good thing. Overall AVGE seems like a better single-fund equity option. I wish it had a little more ex-US allocation, but that's not a deal breaker. At this point I just need to ignore my portfolio until late June when dividends are issued. It’s for those that want a single equity solution with higher value tilts and higher exUS exposure for higher expected returns I think the posters above have it right collectively. Most would...

I tend to agree. While I'm convinced factors provide beneficial diversification, AVGV seems like too much of a good thing. Overall AVGE seems like a better single-fund equity option. I wish it had a little more ex-US allocation, but that's not a deal breaker. At this point I just need to ignore my portfolio until late June when dividends are issued. It’s for those that want a single equity solution with higher value tilts and higher exUS exposure for higher expected returns AVGV does not seem to be a higher "value tilt" though, it's exclusively value holdings. Sure it does. By definition, it is exclusively Value and has higher value loadings, therefore it has a higher Value tilt since ALL of Avantis funds implement Value at some ...

geo99 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:20 pm Seems like an awful lot of Avantis funds to choose from. Does a company with this amount of assets usually have so many funds?

As for what’s new, AVGV is closer to what I want than AVGE but still prefer my current mix of:

AVUS 30%
AVUV 25%
AVDE 20%
AVDV 15%
AVEM 10%

It's easy enough to implement fund-of-fund solutions for clients of various tastes, so why not? People like a one fund solution, but a one fund solution may not fit all tastes - so you have multiple ones out there.

Nothing wrong with just holding the underlying ones and having a 5 fund or so portfolio mix - that's what I prefer since it allows for unique TLH opportunities.

If I am reading the filing correctly, AVGV (All Equity Markets Value ETF) looks to be made up of 5 underlying ETFs: Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF (23%) Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF (16%) Avantis International Large Cap Value ETF (47%) Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF (24%) Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF (8%) The percentages within parentheses reflect the annual portfolio turnover of each ETF, per the Avantis annual report from 31 Aug 2022. For comparison, the annual turnover of Vanguard's VOO and VIOV ETFs are 2% and 36%, respectively. You will know that higher turnover can translate into higher capital gains, depending on how effective Avantis's ETF structure is in mitigating those gains. Many ETF's are pretty effectiv...

I read through most of the AVGV filing's fine print in an attempt to better gage how suitable it could be for taxable accounts. Given the fund of funds approach, the component funds & their AVGE FOF track record (albeit very limited), I'm left hoping it will be reasonably simpatico for taxable accounts. Anybody develop a more convicted view on AVGV's taxable acc suitability? If I am reading the filing correctly, AVGV (All Equity Markets Value ETF) looks to be made up of 5 underlying ETFs: Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF (23%) Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF (16%) Avantis International Large Cap Value ETF (47%) Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF (24%) Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF (8%) The percentages within parentheses re...

Emerging markets are perennially underperforming on average -- there's logical reasons for that, and the reality doesn't really seem to change from century to century. The 19th century Victorians generally lost as much money in emerging markets as we do. But you know, hope springs eternal and folks keep trotting out clever numbers & statistics that purport to show otherwise. But somehow those number & statistics rarely seem to translate into actual dollars in the pockets of ordinary folks. But notwithstanding all this, i still invest in in Total Intl Index rather than Developed Markets! Why? I guess i'm just irrational. Plus it's sort of the Boglehead way -- There's certain segments of market that i don't like and don't expect to o...

muffins14 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:11 am

Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:00 am
2% expected

But I plan for no premium at all just to set expectations low, I like the diversification even with no premium

With no premium, but definite costs of 0.2-0.38%, it seems like you’re paying for a higher-variance asset and hoping for enough not-correlation and rebalancing to be worth the fees?

Yes, at a minimum I expect those benefits to exceed the hurdle rate of additional fees for planning purposes

Of course I would expect it to return much more over the long term

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...