It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Locked
columbia
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by columbia » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:33 pm

Since cognitive bias has been invoked numerous times: isn’t criticizing the choices of others, because they don’t match yours a cognitive bias? ;)

User avatar
hornet96
Posts: 429
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by hornet96 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:49 pm

columbia wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:33 pm
Since cognitive bias has been invoked numerous times: isn’t criticizing the choices of others, because they don’t match yours a cognitive bias? ;)
Not if their choices are only supported by other cognitive biases (data mining, recency bias, representitiveness bias, confirmation bias, loss aversion bias, etc....to name a few in this thread alone). ;-)

User avatar
oldzey
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:38 pm
Location: Land of Lincoln

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by oldzey » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:53 pm

Tycoon wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:55 pm
oldzey wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:38 am
The inception date of Vanguard Total Stock U.S. Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) was 4/27/1992.

The inception date of Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX) was 4/29/1996.

Per Morningstar, as of 8/13/2018, if you had invested $10,000 in both funds on 4/30/1996, you would currently have $65,648 in your Total Stock U.S. Stock Market Index Fund, which would be more than double as much as the $28,165 in your Total International Stock Index Fund.

Of course, past performance does not indicate future performance.

Image
Compelling.
Yep. 22 years of data. Again, 0% International works for me! :beer
"The broker said the stock was 'poised to move.' Silly me, I thought he meant up." ― Randy Thurman

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by vineviz » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:54 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:30 pm
Believe it or not, I'm not saying that I'm opposed to international equities. But what I am saying is that this notion that with a wave of our hand we can convince intelligent people that 30 years of dramatic underperformance (in total) doesn't change anything is flawed. This was, I believe, the OP's point. If we want to tell others that they need to have a permanent stake in international equities, then we had better have an extremely persuasive argument for doing so. Simply saying things like "stay the course" just doesn't cut it.
I get the point you're trying to make. We all sometimes make decisions based more on emotion than reason: that's the way it has always worked and always has.

My view is that there is nothing inherently WRONG about that, although I do think there is some potential danger when we rationalize those decisions to ourselves.

Where I begin to object most vociferously is when those rationalizations get posted in public in the form of erroneous generalizations or outright misinformation, because then REASONABLE people become confused to the point that they don't even know what is true.

So when I say that there have NOT been "30 years of dramatic underperformance" of international stocks, or explain why that's an inherently biased way of framing the data, it's not than I'm trying to hand wave away anyone's emotional pain. I'm just trying to set the facts straight, because I value the truth.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by vineviz » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:55 pm

columbia wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:33 pm
Since cognitive bias has been invoked numerous times: isn’t criticizing the choices of others, because they don’t match yours a cognitive bias? ;)
Hey, there's a cognitive bias for that one too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence :wink:
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6115
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:00 pm

vineviz wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:54 pm
So when I say that there have NOT been "30 years of dramatic underperformance" of international stocks, or explain why that's an inherently biased way of framing the data, it's not than I'm trying to hand wave away anyone's emotional pain. I'm just trying to set the facts straight, because I value the truth.
I get the feeling that you would not like any time period that compares investment A to investment B. Be careful of the 'all backtests are biased and cherry picked' argument; it's a road that can lead an investor to indecision and uncertainty if they go far enough down it. I say this because I've seen it happen.

Of course the 30 year period I referred to is somewhat cherry picked; I said it was. But that doesn't mean that it isn't deemed to be relevant to many investors, as evidenced by the OP's statement. And for the record, the U.S. has outperformed international over the last 20 and 10 years as well. At some point, people start to wonder if/when this trend will ever stop, and I can't say that I blame them for such contemplation.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 36872
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: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by nisiprius » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:12 pm

"Disaster" is a strong word. I've been invested in international stocks since roughly the year 2000 or so at roughly 20-25% of my total stock allocation, so I have some skin in the game. My position, fairly consistent I think, is that there is no evidence that international stocks have ever made much difference one way or the other; i.e. I'm pretty much a skeptic on the value of international stock investing. But, a disaster?

I decided to look at the performance of VTIAX (Total International, Admiral shares) in a slightly different way. This is the average return (CAGR) that would have been obtained from an investment in VTIAX, made at various starting dates, and held until 7/31/2018. (Hmmm... apparently Morningstar splices in the data for VGTSX before inception of VTIAX, so it's actually a mix; sorry...)

Image

And here are my observations. The time span covers 266 months.
  • For any starting point before 12/1/2017, the investment made money; there was no loss.
  • Thus, for 261 out of 266 possible starting months, or 98% of all starting points, the investment made money.
  • For 95% of all possible starting months, the investment earned an average (CAGR) of over 2%/year.
  • For 83% of all possible starting months, the investment earned an average (CAGR) of over 4%/year.
  • For 63% of all possible starting months, the investment earned an average (CAGR) of over 5%/year.
Nothing to write home about, and I'm not bothering to compare US stocks or explore whether they had a valuable diversification effect (they didn't), or whether we should expect a juicy mean reversion, etc.

But I don't think it has been any "disaster." For example, nobody who's been holding for a year or more has lost money. And unless you were fairly unlucky in the time you invested the money, you would have earned an average 4-5% per year.
Last edited by nisiprius on Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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.

gmaynardkrebs
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:48 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by gmaynardkrebs » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:15 pm

vineviz wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:54 pm
Where I begin to object most vociferously is when those rationalizations get posted in public in the form of erroneous generalizations or outright misinformation, because then REASONABLE people become confused to the point that they don't even know what is true.
So when I say that there have NOT been "30 years of dramatic underperformance" of international stocks, or explain why that's an a, it's not than I'm trying to hand wave away anyone's emotional pain. I'm just trying to set the facts straight, because I value the truth.
30 years of dramatic out-performance by US stocks is also an "inherently biased way of framing the data," yet without it, the number of BHers who insist on chiming in with "stay the course" would be approximately zero. Give me a break.

retiringwhen
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:09 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by retiringwhen » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:18 pm

nisiprius wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:12 pm
"Disaster" is a strong word. I've been invested in international stocks since roughly the year 2000 or so at roughly 20-25% of my total stock allocation, so I have some skin in the game. My position, fairly consistent I think, is that there is no evidence that international stocks have ever made much difference one way or the other; i.e. I'm pretty much a skeptic on the value of international stock investing. But, a disaster?

I decided to look at the performance of VTIAX (Total International, Admiral shares) in a slightly different way. This is the average return (CAGR) that would have been obtained from an investment in VTIAX, made at various starting dates, and held until 7/31/2018.

Image

And here are my observations. The time span covers 266 months.
  • For any starting point before 12/1/2017, the investment made money; there was no loss.
  • Thus, for 261 out of 266 possible starting months, or 98% of all starting points, the investment made money.
  • For 95% of all possible starting months, the investment earned an average (CAGR) of over 2%/year.
  • For 83% of all possible starting months, the investment earned an average (CAGR) of over 4%/year.
  • For 63% of all possible starting months, the investment earned an average (CAGR) of over 5%/year.
Nothing to write home about, and I'm not bothering to compare US stocks or explore whether they had a valuable diversification effect (they didn't), or whether we should expect a juicy mean reversion, etc.

But I don't think it has been any "disaster." For example, nobody who's been holding for a year or more has lost money. And unless you were fairly unlucky in the time you invested the money, you would have earned an average 4-5% per year.
I really like this chart, how did you create it? I can see this as way of combating recency bias by visually placing your real recent experience in context.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by vineviz » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:20 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:00 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:54 pm
So when I say that there have NOT been "30 years of dramatic underperformance" of international stocks, or explain why that's an inherently biased way of framing the data, it's not than I'm trying to hand wave away anyone's emotional pain. I'm just trying to set the facts straight, because I value the truth.
I get the feeling that you would not like any time period that compares investment A to investment B. Be careful of the 'all backtests are biased and cherry picked' argument; it's a road that can lead an investor to indecision and uncertainty if they go far enough down it. I say this because I've seen it happen.
Nope, I'm the king of backtesting. I love backtesting. All backtests aren't biased.

This particular time period, on the other hand, seems to have been chosen specifically because it supports an opinion that was already held. That's a no-no.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

columbia
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by columbia » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:23 pm

vineviz wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:55 pm
columbia wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:33 pm
Since cognitive bias has been invoked numerous times: isn’t criticizing the choices of others, because they don’t match yours a cognitive bias? ;)
Hey, there's a cognitive bias for that one too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence :wink:
That was my polite way of saying that there’s been a lot hostility towards the original poster.

JackoC
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by JackoC » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:24 pm

typical.investor wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:09 pm
WanderingDoc wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:31 pm
By 2040, America will be a mere shadow of its former self. No party will last forever.
Nobody knows America's future. And I think it's beside the point anyway.

It won't take economic collapse to lower returns on US stocks which are priced at a premium for their (relative) safety and potential for growth. Even if the US remains the top economic power, it doesn't mean US stocks will be the best investment.

Take real estate in San Francisco for example. It's been on tear in recent years but what do some people there do instead of buying a house. They buy four or five properties in Texas and collect the rent because the returns are better than trying to do that in SF.

I really don't think the bay area has to collapse economically or culturally for it's real estate to cease being the best possible investment. And I don't know that the price there will stop going up.

I, too, am disappointed by Intl returns - especially emerging. My plan, though, was and still is to allocate to a desired exposure and maintain that exposure.
As I said people's reasons ('rah-rah USA, we have by *far* the best system', 'US will be a shadow of itself by X') for investing or not in non-US stocks aren't necessarily right just because their decision turns out right in terms of return over a given even pretty long period. The randomness of markets allows plenty of success for muddled thinking by accident.

I also agree with you the reasons given are also sometimes beside the point. Variations in market performance are fairly loosely correlated to variations in national economic performance except at the margins, particularly the lower margin of major prolonged downtown, social upheaval etc. which is almost never the market's before-the-fact expectation. Even on the pretty extreme upside, stock returns in a national market often have trouble overcoming high market expectations.

A good system of rule of law and capital market regulation is not beside the point, however the contention that the US system is much superior to the rest of the developed world is highly questionable. There is more of a real difference between developed and emerging (and some idiosyncratic developed markets) but little of the issue of last 10-20 yrs' emerging returns is directly due to legal/regulatory protection of investors. A lot of it, for emergings, seems to be the global system of US dollar hegemony (which is not really even an explicit conscious policy of anybody) that keeps periodically punishing especially USD denominated investors in EM. But like any other attempt at explaining, that's a backward looking observation.

Like I said, I haven't strictly 'stayed the course' because as an almost all taxable account investor, selling winners to buy losers has the hurdle of capital gains taxes. And selling some risk assets to limit total risk asset exposure is also cheaper selling losers. Full blown 'stay the course' is often presented in the idealized case (albeit realistic for predominantly tax deferred investors) of ~zero cost rebalancing.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6115
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:25 pm

vineviz wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:20 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:00 pm
vineviz wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:54 pm
So when I say that there have NOT been "30 years of dramatic underperformance" of international stocks, or explain why that's an inherently biased way of framing the data, it's not than I'm trying to hand wave away anyone's emotional pain. I'm just trying to set the facts straight, because I value the truth.
I get the feeling that you would not like any time period that compares investment A to investment B. Be careful of the 'all backtests are biased and cherry picked' argument; it's a road that can lead an investor to indecision and uncertainty if they go far enough down it. I say this because I've seen it happen.
Nope, I'm the king of backtesting. I love backtesting. All backtests aren't biased.

This particular time period, on the other hand, seems to have been chosen specifically because it supports an opinion that was already held. That's a no-no.
I'm a trend follower, so I'm ambivalent with regard to U.S./international, growth/value, large/small, etc. I act on the data in front of me, and nothing more.

So are you an 'all available data' kind of guy? If so, then why should data from 100 years ago be as relevant as data from 10 years ago?
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

visualguy
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:32 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by visualguy » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:29 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:00 pm
Of course the 30 year period I referred to is somewhat cherry picked; I said it was. But that doesn't mean that it isn't deemed to be relevant to many investors, as evidenced by the OP's statement. And for the record, the U.S. has outperformed international over the last 20 and 10 years as well. At some point, people start to wonder if/when this trend will ever stop, and I can't say that I blame them for such contemplation.
Agreed.

There's an assumption or expectation behind the strategy of buying and holding a very large whole market index as an investment. It is that by holding for the long run, you get a decent return, and this return justifies the volatility. 30 years is most definitely "long run". Whether this period is "cherry picked" or not doesn't matter. It's still the "long run". Ex-US indexing failed the fundamental expectation of this investment strategy in this case, and I don't see how that can be dismissed as anything but a very significant issue with the solidity of this investment.

gmaynardkrebs
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:48 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by gmaynardkrebs » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:34 pm

visualguy wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:29 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:00 pm
Of course the 30 year period I referred to is somewhat cherry picked; I said it was. But that doesn't mean that it isn't deemed to be relevant to many investors, as evidenced by the OP's statement. And for the record, the U.S. has outperformed international over the last 20 and 10 years as well. At some point, people start to wonder if/when this trend will ever stop, and I can't say that I blame them for such contemplation.
Agreed.

There's an assumption or expectation behind the strategy of buying and holding a very large whole market index as an investment. It is that by holding for the long run, you get a decent return, and this return justifies the volatility. 30 years is most definitely "long run". Whether this period is "cherry picked" or not doesn't matter. It's still the "long run". Ex-US indexing failed the fundamental expectation of this investment strategy in this case, and I don't see how that can be dismissed as anything but a very significant issue with the solidity of this investment.
Actually, that's good news. The equity risk premium will therefor be greater for ex-US going forward.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6115
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:37 pm

gmaynardkrebs wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:34 pm
visualguy wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:29 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:00 pm
Of course the 30 year period I referred to is somewhat cherry picked; I said it was. But that doesn't mean that it isn't deemed to be relevant to many investors, as evidenced by the OP's statement. And for the record, the U.S. has outperformed international over the last 20 and 10 years as well. At some point, people start to wonder if/when this trend will ever stop, and I can't say that I blame them for such contemplation.
Agreed.

There's an assumption or expectation behind the strategy of buying and holding a very large whole market index as an investment. It is that by holding for the long run, you get a decent return, and this return justifies the volatility. 30 years is most definitely "long run". Whether this period is "cherry picked" or not doesn't matter. It's still the "long run". Ex-US indexing failed the fundamental expectation of this investment strategy in this case, and I don't see how that can be dismissed as anything but a very significant issue with the solidity of this investment.
Actually, that's good news. The equity risk premium will therefor be greater for ex-US going forward.
Unless the next 10 (20, 30) years look like the last 10 (20, 30). There is no guarantee that volatility leads to higher returns.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

gmaynardkrebs
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:48 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by gmaynardkrebs » Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:23 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:37 pm
gmaynardkrebs wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:34 pm
visualguy wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:29 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:00 pm
Of course the 30 year period I referred to is somewhat cherry picked; I said it was. But that doesn't mean that it isn't deemed to be relevant to many investors, as evidenced by the OP's statement. And for the record, the U.S. has outperformed international over the last 20 and 10 years as well. At some point, people start to wonder if/when this trend will ever stop, and I can't say that I blame them for such contemplation.
Agreed.

There's an assumption or expectation behind the strategy of buying and holding a very large whole market index as an investment. It is that by holding for the long run, you get a decent return, and this return justifies the volatility. 30 years is most definitely "long run". Whether this period is "cherry picked" or not doesn't matter. It's still the "long run". Ex-US indexing failed the fundamental expectation of this investment strategy in this case, and I don't see how that can be dismissed as anything but a very significant issue with the solidity of this investment.
Actually, that's good news. The equity risk premium will therefor be greater for ex-US going forward.
Unless the next 10 (20, 30) years look like the last 10 (20, 30). There is no guarantee that volatility leads to higher returns.
There's no guarantee on anything except TIPS. However, (1)If you can bear that risk, you should have higher returns, as you are paid to bear risk; (2)you will be a big winner if the equity risk premium on ex-US contracts, since prices will rise on your holdings. Right now, the equity risk premium is far higher on ex-US than for US equities, where the risk premium has all but disappeared.

User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
Posts: 27512
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course" ??

Post by Taylor Larimore » Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:11 pm

Bogleheads wrote:
It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Buy-and-hold works for some, but it's not for everyone.

The 'problem' with buy-and-hold is that it undermines the basic human tendency to chase after performance.

I think the moral of this thread is to stay the course.... unless you start losing.

By recognizing that there is a business cycle and investing in ETFs that will take advantage of it, I can and have done better than straight index investing with a constant AA.

30 years of dramatic out-performance by US stocks is also an "inherently biased way of framing the data," yet without it, the number of BHers who insist on chiming in with "stay the course" would be approximately zero. Give me a break.

The idea that “staying the course” is a Boglehead mantra that indisputably applies to international investing is obviously flawed.

Simply saying things like "stay the course" just doesn't cut it.
Bogleheads:
"Stay the course. No matter what happens, stick to your program. I've said "Stay the course" a thousand times, and I meant it every time. It is the most important single piece of investment wisdom I can give to you." -- Jack Bogle in "Common Sense on Mutual Funds" (underline mine)

Enough said.

Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle

patrick
Posts: 1624
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:39 am
Location: Mega-City One

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by patrick » Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm

Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?

gmaynardkrebs
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:48 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by gmaynardkrebs » Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:44 pm

patrick wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm
Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?
We are a bunch of dodos?

ThePrince
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:15 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by ThePrince » Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:46 pm

patrick wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm
Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?
All the insular people’s heads just exploded.

gmaynardkrebs
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:48 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by gmaynardkrebs » Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:53 pm

ThePrince wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:46 pm
patrick wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm
Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?
All the insular people’s heads just exploded.
Technically, Australia is not an island, but I'm still sorry their heads exploded.

User avatar
oldzey
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:38 pm
Location: Land of Lincoln

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by oldzey » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:33 pm

gmaynardkrebs wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:53 pm
ThePrince wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:46 pm
patrick wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm
Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?
All the insular people’s heads just exploded.
Technically, Australia is not an island, but I'm still sorry their heads exploded.
I'm guessing just the Tasmanian people's heads.
"The broker said the stock was 'poised to move.' Silly me, I thought he meant up." ― Randy Thurman

midagelawyer
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:37 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by midagelawyer » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:47 pm

Here's how I boil down this whole thread (and every similar one):

Yes, we agree. Over the past 30 years, a US portfolio would have outperformed a US/International diversified portfolio.

Take yourself and place yourself in August 1988. Tell us, based on what information/data/methods/astrology/you name it, would you have predicted that was going to be the case, and how confident would you have been in making that decision? Given the expected risk/reward, expected return, expected volatility, investment horizon, capital needs, etc. of a US only as compared to US/International portfolio, what decision would you have made?

Go ahead and make that decision today. I think we're all curious to hear how you end up. Please come back and let us know.

burnout454
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by burnout454 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:00 pm

HuckFinn wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:55 am

Vanguard suggests this: To get the full diversification benefits, we recommend that you consider investing about 40% of your stock allocation in international stocks. I think this ill suits investors – new and old.

When will we see this: Although there have been short periods where investing in International stocks has been beneficial it has not been proven to reduce risk or provide superior returns over the long term. Therefore we recommend that investors allocate no more than 10% of their stock allocation in International stocks.

If 5 years from now the five year returns are dismal for INTL do we still cling to the 40% suggestion? What if we see another 10 poor years for INT'l is it time yet? That would be 30 years or more of clinging to a bad idea. When is it time to let go of the rope?
+1. How many years of underperformance would it take to make people rethink whether the past periods of outperformance were exceptional and there is something inherently inferior with international markets (on the whole)? 30 years? 40 years?

My small contribution: I've always been baffled by those who assume foreign equities are virtually the same as US equities. Many say, "why not be more diversified in the global market." Or, "foreign markets will come back due to reversion to the mean." All of this assumes that foreign markets would perform comparably to the US market over a person's investing horizon, say, 40-50 years. I question all of these assumptions because, in my amateur view, (many) foreign ECONOMIES are not like the US ECONOMY for various reasons, some but not all of which could be construed as political.

That said, I'm 20% international because I want to hedge my bets and I have a long time horizon to invest.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6115
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:51 pm

burnout454 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:00 pm
HuckFinn wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:55 am

Vanguard suggests this: To get the full diversification benefits, we recommend that you consider investing about 40% of your stock allocation in international stocks. I think this ill suits investors – new and old.

When will we see this: Although there have been short periods where investing in International stocks has been beneficial it has not been proven to reduce risk or provide superior returns over the long term. Therefore we recommend that investors allocate no more than 10% of their stock allocation in International stocks.

If 5 years from now the five year returns are dismal for INTL do we still cling to the 40% suggestion? What if we see another 10 poor years for INT'l is it time yet? That would be 30 years or more of clinging to a bad idea. When is it time to let go of the rope?
+1. How many years of underperformance would it take to make people rethink whether the past periods of outperformance were exceptional and there is something inherently inferior with international markets (on the whole)? 30 years? 40 years?

My small contribution: I've always been baffled by those who assume foreign equities are virtually the same as US equities. Many say, "why not be more diversified in the global market." Or, "foreign markets will come back due to reversion to the mean." All of this assumes that foreign markets would perform comparably to the US market over a person's investing horizon, say, 40-50 years. I question all of these assumptions because, in my amateur view, (many) foreign ECONOMIES are not like the US ECONOMY for various reasons, some but not all of which could be construed as political.

That said, I'm 20% international because I want to hedge my bets and I have a long time horizon to invest.
And the "reversion to the mean" argument is a tenuous one, at best, because means can go a very long time without reverting.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

passiveTiger
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by passiveTiger » Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:25 am

HuckFinn wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:15 am
Using actual ten year performance data Investor A, who chose not to invest Internationally ten years ago would be a whopping $710,762.00 ahead of the investor who went the 60/40 route.

I'll repeat... $710,762.00 ahead because he chose to invest simply in the US and not add an International Fund.

For the record I have slowly weened my personal Int'l exposure from about 35% to 14% over the years and am not adding to it.
John Bogle wrote in “Common Sense in Mutual Funds” that international holdings at 0% are just fine. He also wrote that they should not be above 20%. Vanguard has 40% international allocations in its funds of funds offerings and its allocation recommendation as you have noted.

It is a clear example of how Bogle and Vanguard are not the same thing.

I say go with Bogle. Your current 14% (and I’m assuming declining) allocation is consistent with his recommendation of 0% generally but no more than 20% if any.

People can disagree with your motivation for lowering your international allocation, but “correcting” your allocation to what is recommended in “Common Sense on Mutual Funds” is not crazy or undisciplined.

Someone may want to eat properly and exercise regularly, because that person thinks that procreation activity can then occur with greater frequency and/or with partners that the person thinks are more attractive than current procreation activity partners. While I might disagree with the person’s motivation, I do not disagree with eating properly and exercising regularly.

WanderingDoc
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:21 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by WanderingDoc » Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:38 am

patrick wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm
Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?
Exactly. We should be tapering our U.S. and Int'l holdings down to zero and ratchet up Aus stocks to 100% (by that logic). 119 years. Long term!
Don't wait to buy real estate. Buy real estate, and wait. | Rent where you live, buy where others pay your mortgage for you.

typical.investor
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:17 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by typical.investor » Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:16 am

WanderingDoc wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:38 am
patrick wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm
Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?
Exactly. We should be tapering our U.S. and Int'l holdings down to zero and ratchet up Aus stocks to 100% (by that logic). 119 years. Long term!
Not even the Aussies do that I think....

According to Vanguard.au “Australian investors allocate about half their equity allocation to domestic shares.”

AlohaJoe
Posts: 3833
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: Saigon, Vietnam

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by AlohaJoe » Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:02 am

typical.investor wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:16 am
WanderingDoc wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:38 am
patrick wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm
Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?
Exactly. We should be tapering our U.S. and Int'l holdings down to zero and ratchet up Aus stocks to 100% (by that logic). 119 years. Long term!
Not even the Aussies do that I think....

According to Vanguard.au “Australian investors allocate about half their equity allocation to domestic shares.”
But the other half is allocated to real estate. (Sorry, Australian, joke.)

ignition
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:28 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by ignition » Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:27 am

I blame Japan for much of the underperformance of the last 30 years. Its market cap was higher than the US in 1989, dominating the international portfolio and it has gone nowhere since then.

Europe actually did quite well. Up until 2009 it kept pace with the US but the last 10 years haven't been great with the USA doubling relative to Europe (although USA's Shiller CAPE is also double relative to Europe and currency movements during that time were unfavorable for US investors).

To my surprise Europe outperformed USA from 1968 to 2017 with 0,6% per year.

typical.investor
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:17 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by typical.investor » Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 am

burnout454 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:00 pm
HuckFinn wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:55 am

Vanguard suggests this: To get the full diversification benefits, we recommend that you consider investing about 40% of your stock allocation in international stocks. I think this ill suits investors – new and old.

When will we see this: Although there have been short periods where investing in International stocks has been beneficial it has not been proven to reduce risk or provide superior returns over the long term. Therefore we recommend that investors allocate no more than 10% of their stock allocation in International stocks.

If 5 years from now the five year returns are dismal for INTL do we still cling to the 40% suggestion? What if we see another 10 poor years for INT'l is it time yet? That would be 30 years or more of clinging to a bad idea. When is it time to let go of the rope?
+1. How many years of underperformance would it take to make people rethink whether the past periods of outperformance were exceptional and there is something inherently inferior with international markets (on the whole)? 30 years? 40 years?

My small contribution: I've always been baffled by those who assume foreign equities are virtually the same as US equities. Many say, "why not be more diversified in the global market." Or, "foreign markets will come back due to reversion to the mean." All of this assumes that foreign markets would perform comparably to the US market over a person's investing horizon, say, 40-50 years. I question all of these assumptions because, in my amateur view, (many) foreign ECONOMIES are not like the US ECONOMY for various reasons, some but not all of which could be construed as political.

That said, I'm 20% international because I want to hedge my bets and I have a long time horizon to invest.

Baffled? Really?

Of course the US economy is (perhaps) better for those reasons and more. Let’s just assume that is a given.

Still, foreign equities can have better returns.

Is that baffling? If you think so, then understand why crappy value companies can produce decent (equal or better) returns than companies poised for growth.

It’s not about whether US companies and the economy is superior, it’s whether or not the amount of superiority justifies the price.

Or join the “real estate at any price club” and wait ... been there right.

So which is better to buy today at current valuation given your holding period? I really have no idea, and think neither do you.

selters
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:26 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by selters » Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:30 am

Although at times it's felt like eg. European stocks have been hopeless over the last few years, in local currency terms, the MSCI Europe index have these returns since 2012: 18%, 20%, 7%, 8%, 3% 11% and 4% YTD. This is in line with, or even slightly above what one can reasonably expect from the stock market.

This makes me think that it is US returns that have been abnormally high lately and international returns have been pretty normal. I expect this to revert somewhat in the coming years. But I don't know, of course, so I diversify globally.

User avatar
privatefarmer
Posts: 350
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 2:45 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by privatefarmer » Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:34 am

Has INTNL under performed? I wouldn’t know. Honestly. I don’t pay attention. Maybe once a year or so I’ll check my allocation and rebalance if needed. I know it’s said time and time again and is boring advice. But it works.

The fact is, the markets are efficient. We have no way of knowing which country, sector, or individual stock is going to do the best the next 30 years. US makes up about half the global equities so therefore I put half my equities domestic and half INTNL. Actually, I won’t need to rebalance since it’ll just adjust automatically with the market caps. If domestic does better, my portfolio will match whatever the current domestic/INTNL allocation is.

Anyhow, just set it and forget it. Seriously. None of us can predict the future but there is absolutely no reason why equities overseas won’t do just as well as equities here. Everyone is trying to make a buck whether you’re European or American. Just put half in US and half INTNL and leave it alone for 30 years.

Spindrift
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:46 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by Spindrift » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:01 am

I must agree with the original poster, Int'l investing has not paid off in the last 26 years. Everyone has their own bias based on their frame of reference. My lens begins in 1992 when I began tracking my investments. Since 1992, Int'l markets (EAFE) have severely underperformed having delivered an average return of 3.9% and a std. deviation of 19.1. This compares with the S&P return of 9.36% and std. deviation of 17.0. More risk and less return over a 26 year period...perhaps not a disaster but definitely a fail. Over this timeframe with increased globalization correlation coefficients have also declined minimizing the diversification benefit as most all large US firms have a global footprint. A $10K investment in the EAFE made in 1992 would be worth $31,788 today vs. $104,146 if invested in the S&P. In 1992 as a newly minted MBA-Finance grad I followed my recent acquired knowledge and allocated 20% of my portfolio to Int'l. Fortunately I never had the stomach to rebalance over the years and only added modestly to my original position. Today Int'l makes up ~5% of my portfolio. Following conventional wisdom would have cost me dearly. If Int'l begins a streak of out-performance (I thought last year was the year) that will be great and a few years from now it will make up 10% of my holdings. In summary...I think that 26 years is a significant time horizon to make a call on this.

gmaynardkrebs
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:48 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by gmaynardkrebs » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:20 am

Spindrift wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:01 am
I must agree with the original poster, Int'l investing has not paid off in the last 26 years. Everyone has their own bias based on their frame of reference. My lens begins in 1992 when I began tracking my investments. Since 1992, Int'l markets (EAFE) have severely underperformed having delivered an average return of 3.9% and a std. deviation of 19.1. This compares with the S&P return of 9.36% and std. deviation of 17.0. More risk and less return over a 26 year period...perhaps not a disaster but definitely a fail. Over this timeframe with increased globalization correlation coefficients have also declined minimizing the diversification benefit as most all large US firms have a global footprint. A $10K investment in the EAFE made in 1992 would be worth $31,788 today vs. $104,146 if invested in the S&P. In 1992 as a newly minted MBA-Finance grad I followed my recent acquired knowledge and allocated 20% of my portfolio to Int'l. Fortunately I never had the stomach to rebalance over the years and only added modestly to my original position. Today Int'l makes up ~5% of my portfolio. Following conventional wisdom would have cost me dearly. If Int'l begins a streak of out-performance (I thought last year was the year) that will be great and a few years from now it will make up 10% of my holdings. In summary...I think that 26 years is a significant time horizon to make a call on this.
If you prefer the safety of US, that's fine, but your returns will likely be greater if you up your international allocation. The market has already priced in everything you have observed. That's why international has lower valuations than US, and why, therefore, the expected returns of international are better than US going forward.

lostdog
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:15 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by lostdog » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:34 am

WanderingDoc wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:38 am
patrick wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:37 pm
Australian stocks have dramatically outperformed US stocks over the period from 1900 to present. That's much longer term than a mere 30 years! Since including US stocks would have dragged down returns compared to an all-Australia portfolio, why are we still considering investing in the US when the long term data proves it is better to buy only Australian stocks?
Exactly. We should be tapering our U.S. and Int'l holdings down to zero and ratchet up Aus stocks to 100% (by that logic). 119 years. Long term!
"0% international works for me but I am 100% Australia. I do this because Jake Bagle and Wayne Barret who reside in Australia said so. They can predict the future and make really good bets about the Aussie economy. I don't trust any other country. Thanks Jake and Wayne!"

Valuethinker
Posts: 36346
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by Valuethinker » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:44 am

tadamsmar wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:18 pm
Valuethinker wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:24 am
tadamsmar wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:12 am
Valuethinker wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:48 am

Depends on your dating of the Fall of Rome ;-). Note that the Roman Republic lasted a lot shorter time. The Roman Empire was very different - it was deliberately multicultural (making citizens of prominent members of *all* the subject peoples) and latterly Rome was capital in name only - the real capital was along the Danube and Rhine frontiers. The crisis of the 3rd C AD would make anyone sit up and notice.
But, if you were a citizen of Rome in 200 AD, would you have thought that you were living in a republic? Augustus declared the republic to be restored shortly after he took power as emperor.
That was a conceit that died with Augustus, I think?
Saying that openly on the streets of Rome after Augustus death might have gotten you arrested. Not sure what the typical Roman citizen thought about the matter.

The Roman Senate outlasted the Empire. It's last recorded act was 603 AD.
You could date the end of the Roman Empire from 622 (or that battle in Palestine about 10 years later between the Arabs and the Byzantine governor - Yarmuk?).

But in the West it died a long time before that.

Post the Julio-Claudian emperors I doubt anyone believed they lived in a Republic. You could perhaps mark the end of the Republic as the assassination of Cicero (bias: I have just seen the stage plays based on Robert Harris' Imperium trilogy about Cicero).

If your point is that a nation can have a complete change in how it is governed and its form of government and still hold on to some of the historic trappings, yes I agree. The Russian Czars put out that they were the logical descendants of the Roman Caesars (via Constantinople): Caesar = Czar (and Kaiser*).

But Rome the city state and then expansionary Republic was very different from what evolved in the Roman Empire - most specifically on the question of citizenship as well as the obvious points of having an Emperor, vastly larger in scope etc.

In contemporary terms it would perhaps be similar to calling Henry VIII's England as The British Empire. Except the capital of both happened to be London and no one has ever governed England (since the Middle Ages) from anywhere other than England.

* I once saw a hilarious debate between an Italian student and a German whether Caesar is pronounced Chesare or Kay-zer -- when in fact we know it is pronounced See-zur ;-).

asif408
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:34 am
Location: Florida

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by asif408 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:47 am

lostdog wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:34 am
"0% international works for me but I am 100% Australia. I do this because Jake Bagle and Wayne Barret who reside in Australia said so. They can predict the future and make really good bets about the Aussie economy. I don't trust any other country. Thanks Jake and Wayne!"
I agree, 0% international, and I live in Spain. My heroes Juan Bogles and Madriguera Buffett said so.

buylowbuyhigh
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:34 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by buylowbuyhigh » Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:06 am

asif408 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:47 am
lostdog wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:34 am
"0% international works for me but I am 100% Australia. I do this because Jake Bagle and Wayne Barret who reside in Australia said so. They can predict the future and make really good bets about the Aussie economy. I don't trust any other country. Thanks Jake and Wayne!"
I agree, 0% international, and I live in Spain. My heroes Juan Bogles and Madriguera Buffett said so.
:mrgreen:

Sadly, names starting with 'B' are quite rare in Finland, which is why I am 99.65% international.

User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 7324
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:12 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by jeffyscott » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:28 am

ignition wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:27 am
I blame Japan for much of the underperformance of the last 30 years. Its market cap was higher than the US in 1989, dominating the international portfolio and it has gone nowhere since then.
This sort of thing is one reason that I am not a fan of cap weighted indexing, particularly when lumping all foreign stocks in one fund. Here's a chart showing returns by region using M* category averages that demonstrates your point. Start date is the earliest possible for including the Asia ex-Japan average. I used Wellington to create the chart because I knew it had a long history and would allow me to make longest possible chart, but this does show that diversified portfolio via 100% Wellington would've worked out well :!: :happy

Image
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fun ... A%5B%5D%7D
press on, regardless - John C. Bogle

JohnDindex
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:59 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by JohnDindex » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:33 am

I think I will base my international allocation on whoever wins the ryder cup this year. I think this approach is just as if not more than reasonable than looking at the past 10 years.

jrbdmb
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:27 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by jrbdmb » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:45 am

sambb wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:24 am
this thread has reminded me to buy international this week
buy low sell high is nice
I noticed that my 401K hit it's rebalancing band today, so I just moved some $$$ out of everything else into my 401K's Vanguard international fund. Then I found this link. I guess I'm staying the course.

I will say I do avoid Vanguard's "one fund for everything" funds because I'm not comfortable with their high weighting in international. I'm fine with my current 65% equity allocation being split 45% US, 20% international.
Last edited by jrbdmb on Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

gmaynardkrebs
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:48 am

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by gmaynardkrebs » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:53 am

buylowbuyhigh wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:06 am
Sadly, names starting with 'B' are quite rare in Finland, which is why I am 99.65% international.
Not surprised. The Finnish phone book has only four last names.

jrbdmb
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:27 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by jrbdmb » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:05 am

gmaynardkrebs wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:20 am
If you prefer the safety of US, that's fine, but your returns will likely be greater if you up your international allocation. The market has already priced in everything you have observed. That's why international has lower valuations than US, and why, therefore, the expected returns of international are better than US going forward.
If the markets are efficient and have priced in all available information, then they would also see a situation where "the expected returns of international are better than US going forward" and adjust accordingly. The very fact that so many are calling for international to outperform the US tells me that the markets are not efficient (at least over the short term) or that market forecasters aren't as accurate as they'd like us to believe. :D

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 36872
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: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by nisiprius » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:14 am

No matter how efficient the market is, it cannot change the fact that a European investor buying European stocks with euros experiences less risk than a US investor buying those identical European stocks with dollars, and that a US investor buying US stocks in dollars experiences less risk and the European investor buying those identical US stocks with euros.
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.

User avatar
vitaflo
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:02 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by vitaflo » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:45 am

ignition wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:27 am
I blame Japan for much of the underperformance of the last 30 years. Its market cap was higher than the US in 1989, dominating the international portfolio and it has gone nowhere since then.
The Japan example is exactly why I invest in international. Putting 100% of your risk into one country only seems foolish. To me it's akin to only buying stock from companies in one state or one sector of the market. There's a reason we don't do this, even though I'm sure someone could make a bunch of charts showing how California has outperformed the rest of the US for the past 10 years.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 6115
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by willthrill81 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:14 am

vitaflo wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:45 am
ignition wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:27 am
I blame Japan for much of the underperformance of the last 30 years. Its market cap was higher than the US in 1989, dominating the international portfolio and it has gone nowhere since then.
The Japan example is exactly why I invest in international. Putting 100% of your risk into one country only seems foolish. To me it's akin to only buying stock from companies in one state or one sector of the market. There's a reason we don't do this, even though I'm sure someone could make a bunch of charts showing how California has outperformed the rest of the US for the past 10 years.
That's very true of most world markets. Australia, for instance, has a market capitalization of about $1.5 trillion. But the U.S. is roughly 50% of the world's market capitalization, over $30 trillion. The U.S. only investor is buying a stake in 50% of the world's stock; no other home-country-only investor can come close to that.

One must ask how the rest of the world's stocks would perform if the U.S. did a repeat of Japan. That's a matter of conjecture, but I doubt that most believe that a 20% allocation to international stocks would 'save the day'.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by vineviz » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:18 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:14 am
One must ask how the rest of the world's stocks would perform if the U.S. did a repeat of Japan. That's a matter of conjecture, but I doubt that most believe that a 20% allocation to international stocks would 'save the day'.
20% probably wouldn't save the day, but it'd almost certainly be better than 0%.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

Dave55
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:51 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: It's not enough to mumble "Stay the Course"... INT'L Investing has been a disaster!

Post by Dave55 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:20 am

Disclaimer: Not trying to persuade anyone of anything.

Most sovereign wealth funds invest worldwide, see:
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/17/the-wor ... ml#slide=1 -
watch the whole slide show to see each countries details.

Interesting to note that Norway's Pension Fund has over $1 trillion in its fund and is invested in 77 countries worldwide in 9000 companies. Most if not all endowment funds and pension funds also invest worldwide.

Dave

Locked