Bogleheads.org

Siamond, I recall reading some of your analysis of a high equity allocation over longer periods. I specifically remember a graph showing how when equities has outperformed, they have done so by a lot. When they have underperformed, they have done so by very little. If you could point me to the thre...

The data suggest, then, that bonds are better at protecting against shallow risk, but stocks are better at protecting against deep risk. Frankly, I'm not that concerned about shallow risk. Given enough money, enough time, and enough diversification, an investor can come through whatever a "nor...

I guess this is right article link: http://www.etf.com/sections/index-inves ... nopaging=1

Ari, vanguard etfs are actually superior to the Swedish funds for the global market. And the currency exchange fee on dividends is negligible, about 0.006% of assets (2.5% dividend x 0.25% fee). Here's a reply I made to you in another older thread about vanguard etfs: Hi Ari Fellow Swedish investor ...

I suggest you look into Ireland-domiciled Vanguard ETFs to avoid US taxes: https://www.vanguardinvestments.se/portal/site/institutional/se/en/investment-products/detail/etf/overview?portId=9505&assetCode=EQUITY I'm pretty sure those ETFs pay the 15% US withholding tax on the dividends, before d...

Hi Ari Fellow Swedish investor here. I have actually looked into the issue of withholding taxes lately and have come to the conclusion that Vanguard ETFs are far superior to swedish mutual index funds. At least for the US market I'm sure of it. (At the moment looking into to whether it also holds fo...

I'm having difficulty understanding why a market drop is good because it provides an opportunity to buy more stock at lower prices. It's like saying I don't mind if a large chunk of my nestegg just got chopped off so I could add a little piece back at a lower price. I guess by that logic, the more ...

I'd definitely take the bet, but only with a very small piece of my net worth. The bet has a positive expected value, but you're going to lose more often than you win. For example, say we flip just two times. There's four possible outcomes: heads-heads, heads-tails, tails-heads, tails-tails. If hea...

I'd definitely take the bet, but only with a very small piece of my net worth. The bet has a positive expected value, but you're going to lose more often than you win. For example, say we flip just two times. There's four possible outcomes: heads-heads, heads-tails, tails-heads, tails-tails. If head...

livesoft wrote:Did anything end up down more than 2.5% today? I didn't see anything, but I'm only looking at the few things I already own.

Vanguard Pacific (VPL) for those slicing international a bit: -2.78%

The passive investor (indexer) gets success by being appropiately compensated for their risk taking. This in no way contradicts EMH. Hedge funds try to achieve better riskadjusted returns and generally fails to do so.

Using the risk parity approach probably looks good when looking back the last 30 years or so. But that's during a big bull market for bonds, with ever declining interest rates. I'd be more interested to see the performance of the 30-year period before that (1950-1980-ish) with increasing interest ra...

0.62% for Market Vectors Russia (index fund), which has a 4% allocation of my equities. Consider this my play money part of the portfolio. My weighted average equity expense ratio is 0.17%.

Costs matters.

0.20% over here, which is a lot less than what is common in Sweden. Index funds are still a small occurence here, but on the rise. I'm really glad I've found Vanguard's ETF's.

> With HmL, value companies that typically have worse balance sheets and slower earnings growth present greater risk, particularly in times of financial crisis when fears of insolvency are high. Then why do those fast growing, solidly balanced sheet small growth stocks do so poorly? And why did tho...

Instead of keeping the saved amount in cash, you should buy a mutual fund (no transaction costs), that has similar exposure as what you're intending to invest in. That way, you get market returns while saving up for your purchase (of an ETF with lower expense ratio I gather?). Sell the mutual fund, ...

I voted the second statement since I agree with almost everything Mr. Bogle says. I do have some international holdings, not because I'm convinced he is wrong, but rather to have exposure to some equity asset classes that might not correlate perfectly with US equities. I slice and dice so maybe tha...

lazyday wrote:

wbond wrote:Out for ten days, and coming in at 594 pages, has anyone read it yet?

After Larry gave it a strong recommendation

Are you referring to Swedroe? Where did he make this recommendation, can't find it.

Kindle Edition $71.30

An extra tax on non-frugal iPad owners?! Why this ridiculous pricing of e-books?

If one substitutes gold for CFFs in these scenarios, is the outcome relatively similar? Nominal returns and drawdowns: TSM/CCF/5-yr Tr __ CAGR __ Std.Dev. __ Drawdown 70's / 2008 50/0/50 __________ 9,4 __ 10,1 ____ -17 / -12 40/10/50 _________ 9,6 __ 8,6 _____ -8 / -13 30/10/60 _________ 9,4 __ 7,3...

Lbill, I took another look at the 70's. I think you should look at both 1973 and 1974 for the full picture. Here's the drawdown (real) for the whole two years: TSM/CCF/5-yr Tr 50/0/50 ..... -32,2% ..... 1-(1-0,1441)*(1-0,2074) 40/10/50 ... -23,2% ..... 1-(1-0,0644)*(1-0,1794) So I think the "in...

Yes, I think it's usually diversified CCF funds (like Pimco PCRIX in this backtesting) that's referred to and not commodity producers like mining companies for example.

The bottom line is that commodities should improve real (inflation adjusted) returns for the port, or no sense adding them for purpose of offsetting inflation. I don't agree with this statement. You don't add TIPS or bonds to improve your (expected) returns, you do it to reduce volatility and big d...