## 20 percent international

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Topic Author
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:30 pm
Location: Florida

### 20 percent international

For some reason this came up in my mind.

Is the internationnal 20% of total portfolio or 20% of stock allocation???

Thanks,
PFInterest
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:25 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

It's any % you want it to be. But it is refers to the stock portion.
Topic Author
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:30 pm
Location: Florida

### Re: 20 percent international

PFInterest wrote:It's any % you want it to be. But it is refers to the stock portion.

so on the 60/40 portfolio. the international part would be 20% of the stock allocation(60). So on the stock side that would be 80% in domestic stock and 20 percent in the international..
PFInterest
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:25 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

Easier to say 60:40 so 48 US 12 Intl and 40 bonds.
Topic Author
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:30 pm
Location: Florida

### Re: 20 percent international

PFInterest wrote:Easier to say 60:40 so 48 US 12 Intl and 40 bonds.
An example of \$100000

bonds \$40000
Domestic stock \$48000
Inter. stock \$12000

Thanks,
nisiprius
Posts: 42567
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

### Re: 20 percent international

You just have to tell from the context. It's sometimes difficult.

When describing strategies, international stock allocations are often stated as a percentage of the stock allocation.
When describing details of actual portfolios, they are often stated as percentages of the portfolio.

For example, looking at some of Vanguard's all-in-one funds, although they never actually give a percentage number, notice their language: "The fund holds ... 20% [of its assets] in stocks, a portion of which is allocated to international stocks..."

Vanguard LifeStrategy Income Fund:
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 12.2%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 8.2%
In this case, we notice that international is 8.2% / 20.4% = 40% (rounded) of the stock allocation.

Vanguard LifeStrategy Growth Fund:
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 47.9%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 32.0%
International is 32/79.9 = 40% of the stock allocation.
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.
Nova1967
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 3:22 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

I never thought of it that way I just assumed 20% INT was 20% of the entire portfolio, For example if I had 100k portfolio at 60/40 I would have 20K in INT. According to the preceding posts I would have 33% in INT much more than I intended to allocate to INT for 2017 but I can't complain considering the strong gains in 2017. I look forward to following this thread to see other perspectives on this topic.
NiceUnparticularMan
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:51 am

### Re: 20 percent international

People don't always have the same international percentage for stocks and bonds in mind. Vanguard, for example, currently recommends 40% for stocks and 30% for bonds. Hence why it makes sense to refer to them separately.
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 7047
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

here at the wiki are some sample portfolios that show you in visual representation how things can be sliced so to speak:

This is why some (William Bernstein himself provided this as an example in his booklet "If You Can") just do 1/3rd (of the total portfolio) in U.S. Stocks, 1/3rd in International Stocks and 1/3rd in U.S. bonds. Doing so gives you a 67/33 portfolio.

Now you may want more or less than 2/3rds (67%) in stocks. Therefore, you have to determine what you want your allocation to be. Also, that sample portfolio would have half (1/2) of your total stocks in international stocks (because you'd have 67% in stocks, half in U.S. and half in international). That might be more than what you want too.

(the third of the sample portfolio's at the link above show the 34/33/33 allocation).

At the following site you see that under the discussion of the Three Fund Lazy Portfolios there are three listed (Taylor's, Scott Burns' and Rick Ferri's):

Scott's has 1/2 U.S. stocks and 1/2 international stocks. But Rick's has 33% international stocks and 67% U.S. stocks (and 20% bonds). Taylor's does not list the percentages in each of the three funds...That's because it's up to you!
It's "Stay" the course, not Stray the Course. Buy and Hold works. You should really try it sometime. Get a plan: www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Investment_policy_statement
Topic Author
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:30 pm
Location: Florida

### Re: 20 percent international

Nova1967 wrote:I never thought of it that way I just assumed 20% INT was 20% of the entire portfolio, For example if I had 100k portfolio at 60/40 I would have 20K in INT. According to the preceding posts I would have 33% in INT much more than I intended to allocate to INT for 2017 but I can't complain considering the strong gains in 2017. I look forward to following this thread to see other perspectives on this topic.
I am in the process of rebalancing my portforlio. I almost made the same mistake. You will go way over the recommended 20% for internationals stocks. The more follow up reading I am doing on John Bogle you have to believe he his correct with the no more that 20 of international stocks in your portfolio.

So, I quess it's what recommedation you take.
nedsaid
Posts: 14212
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

Nova1967 wrote:I never thought of it that way I just assumed 20% INT was 20% of the entire portfolio, For example if I had 100k portfolio at 60/40 I would have 20K in INT. According to the preceding posts I would have 33% in INT much more than I intended to allocate to INT for 2017 but I can't complain considering the strong gains in 2017. I look forward to following this thread to see other perspectives on this topic.
I am in the process of rebalancing my portforlio. I almost made the same mistake. You will go way over the recommended 20% for internationals stocks. The more follow up reading I am doing on John Bogle you have to believe he his correct with the no more that 20 of international stocks in your portfolio.

So, I quess it's what recommedation you take.
I do not believe John Bogle is correct. I think 20% of stocks in International is at the low range of what I would recommend. Vanguard used to recommend 20%, it went to 30%, and now is 40% of stocks. Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International. My own recommendation is between 20% and 50% of stocks in International. Currently, my International allocation is 27% stocks and 7% bonds.
A fool and his money are good for business.
JonnyDVM
Posts: 2341
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:51 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

### Re: 20 percent international

20% of equity allocation

I'm at 80% equities with 40% of that international. So 320% international.
I’d trade it all for a little more | -C Montgomery Burns
veggivet
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: New England

### Re: 20 percent international

JonnyDVM, that is some serious overweight @ 320%! Using margin?
If you watch your pennies, your dollars will take care of themselves.
abuss368
Posts: 23047
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

### Re: 20 percent international

The correct answer is whatever percentage works for you. Typically this is expressed as a percentage of equity.

Vanguard investment experts recommend 40% of equity. This has increased from 20%, to 30%, and now 40%.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
zaboomafoozarg
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:34 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

Nova1967 wrote:I never thought of it that way I just assumed 20% INT was 20% of the entire portfolio
If I see 20 INT then I assume we're talking D&D
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 7047
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

nedsaid wrote: Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International.
Thanks. I see that too. I wasn't aware they increased the international bond index portion of the bond portfolio from 20% to 30% in their target date retirement funds. But sure enough, they did. Thanks for pointing that out. When did they do that? I don't remember hearing about that. And what justification did they give when they made that change? Higher returns possibly for bonds in this "low rate environment" by investing in riskier governments with longer duration?
It's "Stay" the course, not Stray the Course. Buy and Hold works. You should really try it sometime. Get a plan: www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Investment_policy_statement
nedsaid
Posts: 14212
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

arcticpineapplecorp. wrote:
nedsaid wrote: Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International.
Thanks. I see that too. I wasn't aware they increased the international bond index portion of the bond portfolio from 20% to 30% in their target date retirement funds. But sure enough, they did. Thanks for pointing that out. When did they do that? I don't remember hearing about that. And what justification did they give when they made that change? Higher returns possibly for bonds in this "low rate environment" by investing in riskier governments with longer duration?
I do not have an account with Vanguard but I do own Vanguard Funds and ETF's in my retirement accounts. I do not own their Total International Bond Index fund but might consider it at some point.

Wish I knew their reasoning for including International Bond in their Retirement Target Date and LifeStrategy Funds. I am sure they have white papers on this topic on their website.
A fool and his money are good for business.
NiceUnparticularMan
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:51 am

### Re: 20 percent international

arcticpineapplecorp. wrote:
nedsaid wrote: Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International.
Thanks. I see that too. I wasn't aware they increased the international bond index portion of the bond portfolio from 20% to 30% in their target date retirement funds. But sure enough, they did. Thanks for pointing that out. When did they do that? I don't remember hearing about that. And what justification did they give when they made that change? Higher returns possibly for bonds in this "low rate environment" by investing in riskier governments with longer duration?
They did it in early 2015, as I recall. They released a paper which basically explained it was because their forward-looking asset model was now saying 40% equities and 30% bonds provide the best mix of risk and return.

Edit: Here is the 2015 white paper:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icrtdf.pdf

The core discussion of international bonds is on pages 10-11, but you should probably read the whole thing for context, and possibly this additional 2014 paper on their asset model:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGGCM.pdf

And this 2012 white paper on international fixed income in general:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icrif ... 2_high.pdf

Those three papers should give you a reasonably complete picture.
Last edited by NiceUnparticularMan on Tue May 30, 2017 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Topic Author
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:30 pm
Location: Florida

### Re: 20 percent international

20% international

Can we also say what about the percent our Domestic stocks invest in. I would think you are then above the 20 percent.

I believe I read that in one of the books.

But hard to go against the pros (Vanguard) so maybe more needed.
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 7047
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

NiceUnparticularMan wrote:
arcticpineapplecorp. wrote:
nedsaid wrote: Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International.
Thanks. I see that too. I wasn't aware they increased the international bond index portion of the bond portfolio from 20% to 30% in their target date retirement funds. But sure enough, they did. Thanks for pointing that out. When did they do that? I don't remember hearing about that. And what justification did they give when they made that change? Higher returns possibly for bonds in this "low rate environment" by investing in riskier governments with longer duration?
They did it in early 2015, as I recall. They released a paper which basically explained it was because their forward-looking asset model was now saying 40% equities and 30% bonds provide the best mix of risk and return.

Edit: Here is the 2015 white paper:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icrif ... 2_high.pdf

The core discussion of international bonds is on pages 10-11, but you should probably read the whole thing for context, and possibly this additional 2014 paper on their asset model:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGGCM.pdf

And this 2012 white paper on international fixed income in general:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icrif ... 2_high.pdf

Those three papers should give you a reasonably complete picture.
Thanks. That was exactly what I was looking for!
It's "Stay" the course, not Stray the Course. Buy and Hold works. You should really try it sometime. Get a plan: www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Investment_policy_statement
ruralavalon
Posts: 20156
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Illinois

### Re: 20 percent international

nedsaid wrote:
Nova1967 wrote:I never thought of it that way I just assumed 20% INT was 20% of the entire portfolio, For example if I had 100k portfolio at 60/40 I would have 20K in INT. According to the preceding posts I would have 33% in INT much more than I intended to allocate to INT for 2017 but I can't complain considering the strong gains in 2017. I look forward to following this thread to see other perspectives on this topic.
I am in the process of rebalancing my portforlio. I almost made the same mistake. You will go way over the recommended 20% for internationals stocks. The more follow up reading I am doing on John Bogle you have to believe he his correct with the no more that 20 of international stocks in your portfolio.

So, I quess it's what recommedation you take.
I do not believe John Bogle is correct. I think 20% of stocks in International is at the low range of what I would recommend. Vanguard used to recommend 20%, it went to 30%, and now is 40% of stocks. Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International. My own recommendation is between 20% and 50% of stocks in International. Currently, my International allocation is 27% stocks and 7% bonds.
Mr. Bogle is probably correct. Historically, allocating 20% of an equity portfolio to non-U.S. stocks would have captured about 84% of the maximum possible diversification benefit. Vanguard paper (March 2012), "Considerations for investing in non-U.S. equities", p. 6.
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link:Getting Started
NiceUnparticularMan
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:51 am

### Re: 20 percent international

ruralavalon wrote:
nedsaid wrote:
Nova1967 wrote:I never thought of it that way I just assumed 20% INT was 20% of the entire portfolio, For example if I had 100k portfolio at 60/40 I would have 20K in INT. According to the preceding posts I would have 33% in INT much more than I intended to allocate to INT for 2017 but I can't complain considering the strong gains in 2017. I look forward to following this thread to see other perspectives on this topic.
I am in the process of rebalancing my portforlio. I almost made the same mistake. You will go way over the recommended 20% for internationals stocks. The more follow up reading I am doing on John Bogle you have to believe he his correct with the no more that 20 of international stocks in your portfolio.

So, I quess it's what recommedation you take.
I do not believe John Bogle is correct. I think 20% of stocks in International is at the low range of what I would recommend. Vanguard used to recommend 20%, it went to 30%, and now is 40% of stocks. Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International. My own recommendation is between 20% and 50% of stocks in International. Currently, my International allocation is 27% stocks and 7% bonds.
Mr. Bogle is probably correct. Historically, allocating 20% of an equity portfolio to non-U.S. stocks would have captured about 84% of the maximum possible diversification benefit. Vanguard paper (March 2012), "Considerations for investing in non-U.S. equities", p. 6.
Vanguard has written new papers since then:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icrtdf.pdf

In that paper they stated this:
Our research has shown that allocations of 20% non-U.S.
equities have provided about 85% of the maximum
diversification benefit. Higher amounts such as 30%
and 40% have provided more than 95% of this benefit.
Allocations exceeding 40% would not have historically
particularly when costs are taken into account. We
believe non-U.S. equity allocations between 20% and
full market-cap can be appropriate.
Note the subtle but important difference here: back in 2012 they thought it was 99% at 30% and 100% at 40%, but in 2015, now even at 40% they don't think you have maximized the benefit. Hence why up to global weight is now appropriate in their view.

They then stated:
Although historical analysis strongly supports the benefits
of increasing global diversification, it also demonstrates
that the theoretically optimal portfolio often was NOT the
actual optimal portfolio over a given period. Therefore,
we also take into consideration other factors such as
investors’ home-country preference, costs, liquidity,
concentration, and regulatory constraints. We believe
that if these factors are reasonably balanced against
the incremental diversification benefit achieved, further
movement to market-capitalization weights--a forwardlooking
efficient-market portfolio--is prudent.

Vanguard TDFs currently diversify a U.S. stock portfolio
with international stocks equal to 40% of the total equity
allocation.
There is a lot going on in that statement, but I think a fair summary is they think given the current marginal costs to additional diversification, the additional benefits of diversification are worth it up to at least about 40%.

That does seem to contradict the proposition you should have "no more than" 20%. Vanguard is more arguing you should have at least 20%, and the benefits outweigh the costs up to at least 40%. Hence they recommend going up to 40%.
Topic Author
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:30 pm
Location: Florida

### Re: 20 percent international

The funny thing is that as time goes on and changes made it is not easy staying up to date. I can see the easy way to stay up to date with the pros(and I am a Vanguard fan) is to purchase the Target Dated Fund you like or the Lifestyle Fund. Now the pros decide for you what percent you should own in each sector. If you beleive and agree with them.

Looks like I will be going that way in the future for easy management. Also, Like someone stated on one of the post, easy for my wife and kids to mangage in the future.

Cliff
nedsaid
Posts: 14212
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

ruralavalon wrote:
nedsaid wrote:
Nova1967 wrote:I never thought of it that way I just assumed 20% INT was 20% of the entire portfolio, For example if I had 100k portfolio at 60/40 I would have 20K in INT. According to the preceding posts I would have 33% in INT much more than I intended to allocate to INT for 2017 but I can't complain considering the strong gains in 2017. I look forward to following this thread to see other perspectives on this topic.
I am in the process of rebalancing my portforlio. I almost made the same mistake. You will go way over the recommended 20% for internationals stocks. The more follow up reading I am doing on John Bogle you have to believe he his correct with the no more that 20 of international stocks in your portfolio.

So, I quess it's what recommedation you take.
I do not believe John Bogle is correct. I think 20% of stocks in International is at the low range of what I would recommend. Vanguard used to recommend 20%, it went to 30%, and now is 40% of stocks. Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International. My own recommendation is between 20% and 50% of stocks in International. Currently, my International allocation is 27% stocks and 7% bonds.
Mr. Bogle is probably correct. Historically, allocating 20% of an equity portfolio to non-U.S. stocks would have captured about 84% of the maximum possible diversification benefit. Vanguard paper (March 2012), "Considerations for investing in non-U.S. equities", p. 6.
That is why I have consistently said that between 20% and 50% of International is just fine. The last efficient frontier that I saw between US and International Stocks showed that the sweet spot was at about 30% of stocks in International, but not a very big difference from 20%. Not much different at 40% or even 50%. I honestly don't know what the efficient frontiers say now but I don't think there has been much change. If you want to avoid single company risk, probably 20% is too low. Right now, I am at about 27%.
A fool and his money are good for business.
ruralavalon
Posts: 20156
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Illinois

### Re: 20 percent international

NiceUnparticularMan wrote: Vanguard has written new papers since then:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icrtdf.pdf

In that paper they stated this:
Our research has shown that allocations of 20% non-U.S.
equities have provided about 85% of the maximum
diversification benefit. Higher amounts such as 30%
and 40% have provided more than 95% of this benefit.
Allocations exceeding 40% would not have historically
particularly when costs are taken into account. We
believe non-U.S. equity allocations between 20% and
full market-cap can be appropriate.
Note the subtle but important difference here: back in 2012 they thought it was 99% at 30% and 100% at 40%, but in 2015, now even at 40% they don't think you have maximized the benefit. Hence why up to global weight is now appropriate in their view..
I see the subtle difference, it appears that it is probably an unimportant difference. "Allocating 30% to non-U.S. stocks would have captured about 99% of the maximum possible benefit" (in 2012) and "30% and 40% have provided more than 95% of this benefit" (in 2015) are perfectly consistent statements; there doesn't seem to be an important difference in the data.

The maximum potential diversification benefit was stated to be 75 basis points (2012 paper, p. 6), so getting another 15% of that benefit is about 0.11% in additional performance. The extra expense ratio to invest in international stocks is 0.07% (Admiral Shares of total stock vs total international). So there doesn't appear to be much benefit to going far beyond 20% of stocks in international stocks. 20% seems good enough.

The striking thing about all these debates over international allocation is that anything in the area 20 - 50% can be justified, because the data doesn't seem to clearly favor any particular point in that range (see the very flat and shallow curve in Figure 3 on p. 5 of the 2012 paper).
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link:Getting Started
NiceUnparticularMan
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:51 am

### Re: 20 percent international

ruralavalon wrote:I see the subtle difference, it appears that it is probably an unimportant difference. "Allocating 30% to non-U.S. stocks would have captured about 99% of the maximum possible benefit" (in 2012) and "30% and 40% have provided more than 95% of this benefit" (in 2015) are perfectly consistent statements; there doesn't seem to be an important difference in the data.
Note in 2012, they also stated:
Looking at the blue
line in Figure 3, which represents a portfolio
composed entirely of equities, the maximum
historical diversification benefit would have been
achieved by allocating approximately 40% of an
equity portfolio to non-U.S. equities (although the
difference between 30% non-U.S. and 40% non-U.S.
is within 0.01%), with a net reduction in volatility of
75 basis points.
As I understand the 2015 paper, the maximum point doesn't appear to be at 40% anymore, but rather somewhere around market weight.

I don't know whether this is "important" or not, but it would seem to provide some support for going all the way to market weights, rather than stopping at 40%, as long as the marginal costs were low enough. That is a change from 2012, where going past 40% appeared to be a bad idea irrespective of costs.
The maximum potential diversification benefit was stated to be 75 basis points (2012 paper, p. 6), so getting another 15% of that benefit is about 0.11% in additional performance. The extra expense ratio to invest in international stocks is 0.07% (Admiral Shares of total stock vs total international). So there doesn't appear to be much benefit to going far beyond 20% of stocks in international stocks. 20% seems good enough.
So I wouldn't assume that number is the same now, given the new distribution they are reporting. Moreover, that was a reduction in volatility they were talking about, not return (see the quote above). Finally, I don't know if they already accounted for ER in those calculations.

But let's assume it was returns unadjusted for ER, and it hasn't changed since 2012, just for fun. You're at 0.07 more for international but that is just applied to 20% of your portfolio moving from 20% to 40%, which means you have added just 0.014% to your portfolio ER. Versus 0.11% marginal gain for your portfolio, that's a small marginal cost in comparison.
The striking thing about all these debates over international allocation is that anything in the area 20 - 50% can be justified, because the data doesn't seem to clearly favor any particular point in that range (see the very flat and shallow curve in Figure 3 on p. 5 of the 2012 paper).
Again, it appears the curve now looks different.

That said--at the end of the day, if this was just about normal volatility reduction, I agree the stakes would be pretty low. I do think the "no more than 20%" proposition is hard to support, but the "20% to market weight, meh, whatever" proposition is relatively easy to support.

Tail risk is a different issue, but outside the scope of this discussion.
ruralavalon
Posts: 20156
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Illinois

### Re: 20 percent international

The 2015 paper does not show a curve such as in Figure 3 in the 2012 paper, and I don't assume that the curve has changed.

The 2015 paper does not say that the 40% allocation no longer provides 100% of the maximum potential diversification benefit, or say that the 30% allocation no longer provides 99% of the maximum potential diversification benefit. The 2015 paper just says that the "30% and 40% [allocations] have provided more than 95% of this benefit".
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link:Getting Started
NiceUnparticularMan
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:51 am

### Re: 20 percent international

ruralavalon wrote:The 2015 paper does not show a curve such as in Figure 3 in the 2012 paper, and I don't assume that the curve has changed.
It must have. If 40% was 100% of the benefit in 2012, and only 95% of the benefit in 2015, the curve must have changed.
The 2015 paper does not say that the 40% allocation no longer provides 100% of the maximum potential diversification benefit, or say that the 30% allocation no longer provides 99% of the maximum potential diversification benefit. The 2015 paper just says that the "30% and 40% [allocations] have provided more than 95% of this benefit".
If Vanguard still meant 99% and 100% when they changed the language to "more than 95%", that would be an incredibly misleading change.

I don't think Vanguard is playing such games with us.
Gort
Posts: 644
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:07 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

I wish Vanguard offered an Admiral Version of the Total World Stock Index. Using that with the Total Bond Fund would be a very easy allocation to periodically rebalance. Think how easy a 50/50 portfolio would be to manage!! I know an ETF version with a lower ER than the investor share class is available but I would prefer a mutual fund.
inbox788
Posts: 7803
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:24 pm

### Re: 20 percent international

ruralavalon wrote:
nedsaid wrote:
Nova1967 wrote:I never thought of it that way I just assumed 20% INT was 20% of the entire portfolio, For example if I had 100k portfolio at 60/40 I would have 20K in INT. According to the preceding posts I would have 33% in INT much more than I intended to allocate to INT for 2017 but I can't complain considering the strong gains in 2017. I look forward to following this thread to see other perspectives on this topic.
I am in the process of rebalancing my portforlio. I almost made the same mistake. You will go way over the recommended 20% for internationals stocks. The more follow up reading I am doing on John Bogle you have to believe he his correct with the no more that 20 of international stocks in your portfolio.

So, I quess it's what recommedation you take.
I do not believe John Bogle is correct. I think 20% of stocks in International is at the low range of what I would recommend. Vanguard used to recommend 20%, it went to 30%, and now is 40% of stocks. Just recently, Vanguard started recommending a 30% allocation of bonds to International. My own recommendation is between 20% and 50% of stocks in International. Currently, my International allocation is 27% stocks and 7% bonds.
Mr. Bogle is probably correct. Historically, allocating 20% of an equity portfolio to non-U.S. stocks would have captured about 84% of the maximum possible diversification benefit. Vanguard paper (March 2012), "Considerations for investing in non-U.S. equities", p. 6.
Bogle is correct. Vanguard is correct.

Why Bogle is correct. There will be an equilibrium between US and world markets and if one is far lower or higher in return, folks will tilt or hedge funds will get in there and drive the prices towards convergence. That and the US companies have large international exposure.

Why Vanguard is correct. Vanguard sells tons of mutual funds and if they didn't sell the world markets in sufficient amounts, they would drive prices down for international while driving US prices up. They're big enough if they don't adjust to the market supplies that they can drive disequilibrium.

I believe this is also why they are recommending international bonds, which many folks here don't seem to have much desire to get into. The complication of adding another fund vs. the small fraction of AA that might have a small difference isn't worth the added trouble. Plus for now, there are plenty of bond traders bringing the markets to equilibrium that there's not a lot of difference in performance or risk adjusted performance.

FWIW, my target is 50%, but I'm well under target and not in a hurry to get there. Will eventually approach it incrementally.