I found this interesting. It is close to the definition of confirmation bias. Do you sense any of that, in evaluating the arguments people are putting forward?GaryA505 wrote:This is the best conclusion I have read, and aligns with my personal way of thinking.nisiprius wrote: My own convictions are that the "conventional wisdom" consensus among authorities I trust is so overwhelmingly in favor of holding some international that I do not and would not feel comfortable holding none at all; and my own explorations have failed to convince me that there is anything bad enough with international to make me avoid it. The combination of "authorities say yes" and "can't personally find a reason to say no" was enough to convince me to hold some, and not enough to convince me to hold it at anything close to global cap-weight.
Actually, the "stand-off" is at 47%, which is the compromise. The goal is not to passively pick an international allocation in proportion to what Bogleheads do. That is not being a passive market-weight investor.GaryA505 wrote:I went back and re-read the previous thread started by Taylor Larimore. The first time I read it I was totally clueless, now I'm only about 80% clueless, so I'd say that's progress. viewtopic.php?t=196956
Anyway, thanks for all the replies. It would be great to get at least a loose consensus, but I can see that's not going to happen (at least probably not in my lifetime). I think the best we've got is a stand-off, and 20% would probably be the compromise. This seemed to be the case in Taylor Larimore's previous thread as well.
I'll pose one more question/comment though. It has occurred to me that if all bogleheads really believed they should be truly diversified and invest in intl stock according to market weight, they would invest at 55/45 US/intl, but they don't.
Also, many Bogleheads do invest in intl stock at market weight, a few more at 50/50 (because it's close enough right now and is easier to manage). You might not see a lot of such people because many get tired of making the same points and correcting the same misconceptions in each thread asking the same question. It is better to be persuaded by ideas than to "follow the herd".
Taylor's logic doesn't make much sense, in my humble opinion, as I discuss here:
triceratop wrote:But it's more like this:bertilak wrote:Think Venn diagram.BogleAlltheWay wrote:I have read on here that we should put 20% in international because Bogle recommended up to 20% and Vanguard and others recommended at least 20%. "Up to" and "at least" mean different things. I don't understand that logic.
The overlap area is 20%. It is the only value that satisfies both criteria.
If the experts disagree so profoundly (mathematically we would say they agree on a set of measure zero) why do we think that their disagreements are so easily rectifiable by simply choosing the extreme limits of what they find acceptable. It's much better to actually be convinced by one of the two arguments. Taking the far limits of recommendations is assigning very little value to each argument.