Excluding International All Together?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
mrspock
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:49 am
Location: Vulcan

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by mrspock » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:06 pm

AerialWombat wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:51 am
Here we go again...

Can one of the many other US v ex-US threads just be “pinned” to the top of the board?
This. For the love of all that is good and just...

These threads never get anywhere.

02nz
Posts: 2198
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by 02nz » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:38 pm

Jacklh wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:43 pm
I also don't trust some foreign governments or want to support them in any way as I'm sure their priorities are not aligned with mine.
Do you also pull your investments out of the U.S. stock market when U.S. government priorities are not aligned with yours?

randomguy
Posts: 8108
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by randomguy » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:39 pm

RandomWord wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:06 pm

Funny, to me that chart pretty much does look like near-perpetual US dominance.

Sure, there's the downward spike in the 80s. That wasn't because of "international" though, that was just Japan. It was a huge bubble based on ridiculous valuations, and there were some weird theories in 1990s that it was somehow justified for them to have 100 PE because they would soon take over the entire global economy, or whatever. Then the bubble popped. So the lesson is... time the bubbles in international markets very well?
And in 2030 we can talk about the US bubble from 2009-2019 when people bid US stocks up to ridiculous valuation and the weird theories that were used to justify PE10s of 30 despite the fact that every time in the past we have gotten that high, low returns were about to follow . So the lesson is time the bubble in US markets very well?:) Or of course it could turn out the US isn't in a bubble or the bubble lasts another 10 years.

User avatar
hisdudeness
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:26 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by hisdudeness » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:46 pm

After careful consideration, I have decided that I am not cool enough or worldly enough to own international stocks or bonds.

User avatar
oldzey
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:38 pm
Location: Land of Lincoln

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by oldzey » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:18 pm

hisdudeness wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:46 pm
After careful consideration, I have decided that I am not cool enough or worldly enough to own international stocks or bonds.
+1 :thumbsup

The Dude abides.
"The broker said the stock was 'poised to move.' Silly me, I thought he meant up." ― Randy Thurman

stan1
Posts: 7315
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by stan1 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:15 pm

I have a lot more respect for someone who just comes out and says "I'm an American exceptionalist" than someone who tries to argue that the S&P 500 is actually a total world fund. Clear communication is always a plus.

esteen
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu May 23, 2019 12:31 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by esteen » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:45 pm

columbia wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:28 am
Anywhere from zero to global cap is perfectly reasonable.

There are a few here who even overweight international; if that works for them, then :beer
+1. The proponents know just as much as the detractors: that is, nothing. The arguments both for and against have good degrees of basis in historical truths or current state, but it is probably a flip of the coin whether international will outperform US or vice versa in your investing lifetime. In the end, these decisions aren't nearly as important as savings rate, stock/bond asset allocation, and fees.

Then again what else do we have to do on an internet forum but split hairs :sharebeer

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 7378
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by JoMoney » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:51 pm

stan1 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:15 pm
I have a lot more respect for someone who just comes out and says "I'm an American exceptionalist" than someone who tries to argue that the S&P 500 is actually a total world fund. Clear communication is always a plus.
It might be difficult to even define what "American exceptionalism" is supposed to mean, I don't think the people using it in this thread mean the epithet it the way the communists did when they coined the term theorizing why the U.S. economy didn't promote a communist revolution here... or maybe they do :confused ...
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

Erwin007
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:29 am
Location: Intermountain West

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by Erwin007 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:07 pm

I love how Bogle gets trotted out in every one of these threads. He was a smart dude who did some great things for investing, but is he really better at predicting the future than anyone else? Hardly.

I recently read an article from Money magazine about an interview with him from 2015 or early 2016 where they asked about stock:bond asset allocation. He basically said that most people were around 60:40 and should probably stay that way due to low returns ahead. 3-4 years later, how sound does that advice seem? One guy doesn’t know more than anyone else about the future.

Having said that, none of us here have to live with the consequences of others international asset allocation decisions. So find something that you’ll be comfortable with and stick with it. 30% international in my current 90:10 stock bond allocation, and 30% going forward.
Last edited by Erwin007 on Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 7378
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by JoMoney » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Erwin007 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:07 pm
...
I love how Bogle gets trotted out in every one of these threads. He was a smart dude who did some great things for investing, but is he really better at predicting the future than anyone else? ...
Mr. Bogle wrote a book, first published in 1999, called "Common Sense on Mutual Funds", there's a chapter in it titled "On global investing : Acres of Diamonds", in which he criticized the usage of efficient frontier charts that were widely used for justifying international allocations for quite some time.
You might argue that the success of U.S. investing in recent years was unpredictable luck, but Mr. Bogle was clearly right about how wrong the models people were using to justify various international portfolio allocations were.

Image
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 8289
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by Sandtrap » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:33 pm

Boxtrap wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:13 pm
I was messing around on Portfolio Visualizer recently just for my amusement, and I discovered this:

Over the last 25 years, a 90/10 portfolio consisting of equities held at 50% in S&P 500, 25% in mid cap value and 25% in small cap value - plus the 10% FI held in intermediate treasuries, returned almost 50 bps more than a 90/10 Total Stock/Total Bond lumper and with lower volatility. This was a bit eye opening for me, given that there was no international exposure whatsoever, with the exception of the exposure already baked into the S&P 500. It feels like everywhere I turn these days, I hear about international investing and in small caps in particular. The reasoning behind it seems sound, and yet, here's concrete data about the last quarter century that shows it made no difference. Of course, 25 years is only a blip in the pantheon of data, but still it's quite interesting that you could have avoided individual international exposure entirely over the last 25 years - and done better than a Total Market portfolio with less volatility - provided that you just tilted half your equities to mid/small value.

So, I'm curious, how many of you out there have chosen to exclude international holdings all together, and if so, why?
Compared to the last 25 years, 50 years, or more, the expansion of international holdings globally has been exponential. Look at how Vanguard Target Date funds have increased international allocations, both equity and fixed, over just the past years. Same for other brokerages. I can't imagine thinking that I can outsmart the teams of experts there.

FWIW, even if you do not have funds with the word "international" in them in a portfolio, there's already a substantial exposure.

Search the forum archives for this and the threads/posts will be nearly infinite.

j
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know

soccerfreak
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by soccerfreak » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:22 am

I'm 30 and I just sold 25% of SWTSX to buy SWISX.

I had a hard time with it due to looking at historical returns of the US stocks dominating International for my entire adult life. What got me to pull the trigger is remembering the Efficient Market Hypothesis isn't US-specific. The best indicator of something between undervalued is everyone saying it's overvalued; the market doesn't lie.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 5077
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by vineviz » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:15 am

JoMoney wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm
Erwin007 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:07 pm
...
I love how Bogle gets trotted out in every one of these threads. He was a smart dude who did some great things for investing, but is he really better at predicting the future than anyone else? ...
Mr. Bogle wrote a book, first published in 1999, called "Common Sense on Mutual Funds", there's a chapter in it titled "On global investing : Acres of Diamonds", in which he criticized the usage of efficient frontier charts that were widely used for justifying international allocations for quite some time.
You might argue that the success of U.S. investing in recent years was unpredictable luck, but Mr. Bogle was clearly right about how wrong the models people were using to justify various international portfolio allocations were.

Image
Or maybe Bogle, like many others who blindly emulate him, fully understood neither “the models”or efficient frontier graphs.

A backward looking EF graph (which, to be fair, I’ve trotted out when it suited me) is nonsensical: basically just a visual representation of “see, this fund underperformed expectations in this time period)”.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

User avatar
ReformedSpender
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:24 pm
Location: Stone's Throw from Vanguard

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by ReformedSpender » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:49 am

mrspock wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:06 pm
AerialWombat wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:51 am
Here we go again...

Can one of the many other US v ex-US threads just be “pinned” to the top of the board?
This. For the love of all that is good and just...

These threads never get anywhere.
Aren't topics of this nature, in essence, the intent of this forum as a whole? :confused

If you don't like the topic, don't waste your time clicking on the thread. Seems quite easy.

:beer
Market history shows that when there's economic blue sky, future returns are low, and when the economy is on the skids, future returns are high. The best fishing is done in the most stormy waters.

lostdog
Posts: 1908
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:15 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by lostdog » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:55 am

hagridshut wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:40 pm
tea_pirate wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:27 am
AerialWombat wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:51 am
Here we go again...

Can one of the many other US v ex-US threads just be “pinned” to the top of the board?
It's the cognitive dissonance in action. As a result the "100% US forever and ever" crowd needs constant reinforcement of their views. The world market cap folks essentially seem to participate in these threads so it's not just a wall of misleading information which is toxic to newcomers. IMO it's clear to me which side is truly content with their decision.

Notice how the 100% US side almost always starts these threads. I don't think a week has gone by without a "why international sucks" thread popping up. Meanwhile I can't even recall the last time I saw a thread started where the thesis was "why one should invest at world market cap weights."
I think there is a constant stream of justification because 100% US equities goes against one of the First Principles of Boglehead investing: own the entire haystack because nobody knows which individual pieces of the haystack will succeed. The haystack is global. Owning just US equity funds means not owning the entire haystack.

That said, I don't believe that allocating equities to 100% US stock funds is necessarily a bad thing. Having 100% of stocks in Total Stock Market or S&P500 is still very diverse. Some people sleep better at night and are less likely to make bad decisions if they have funds that avoid investments (like emerging markets) that make them nervous. I don't criticize anyone who just wants to buy US stock funds.

When I started investing in my 401k 15 years ago, I allocated 20% to an International Index, 10% to bonds, and 70% to US equities. That's what I've maintained for the most part over the years. Has it underperformed a theoretical allocation of 10% bonds and 90% US stocks? Yes. But I don't care. I still collected healthy overall returns and a more than satisfactory nest egg so far. Regretting 20% international is as pointless as regretting not putting my 70% US Market index funds into only FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflicks, Google) stocks. My goal is to get a good return, not an optimized or perfect one. I still maintain 20% International Index. There's just no way to know what part of the haystack will grow best in coming years.
These threads are created to keep a steady stream of justification, when subconsciously they know it's betting and performance chasing. It helps the egoic part of their mind stay the course. If the there is a break in the stream, some minor hand wringing will occur therefore the next "no international" thread will get created. The egoic part of the mind gets reassured with the virtual high fives and "Jack was right" statements while throwing logic and the boglehead principles out the window. This fix will last another few weeks until they need another fix. The human subconscious is a powerful beast.

The world market cap crowd steps in to remind novice investors of the boglehead principles.

columbia
Posts: 1821
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by columbia » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:25 am

I like this take on it:

Your allocation between stocks and bonds is the cake, everything else is the icing on the cake, and avoid an infatuation with brightly light candles because they are quickly extinguished and thrown away.

Rick Ferri
🍰

BigMoneyNoWhammies
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by BigMoneyNoWhammies » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:31 am

Boxtrap wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:13 pm
I was messing around on Portfolio Visualizer recently just for my amusement, and I discovered this:

Over the last 25 years, a 90/10 portfolio consisting of equities held at 50% in S&P 500, 25% in mid cap value and 25% in small cap value - plus the 10% FI held in intermediate treasuries, returned almost 50 bps more than a 90/10 Total Stock/Total Bond lumper and with lower volatility. This was a bit eye opening for me, given that there was no international exposure whatsoever, with the exception of the exposure already baked into the S&P 500. It feels like everywhere I turn these days, I hear about international investing and in small caps in particular. The reasoning behind it seems sound, and yet, here's concrete data about the last quarter century that shows it made no difference. Of course, 25 years is only a blip in the pantheon of data, but still it's quite interesting that you could have avoided individual international exposure entirely over the last 25 years - and done better than a Total Market portfolio with less volatility - provided that you just tilted half your equities to mid/small value.

So, I'm curious, how many of you out there have chosen to exclude international holdings all together, and if so, why?
International allocation has been debated ad nauseum on this board and may be the most contentious issue that gets regularly discussed here, with strongly held opinions by those in both camps.. There are some very long threads about the issue; If you search the board a bit you'll find the threads and quickly come across all the major talking points both for and against. At the end of the day make the decision that best suits you.

BigMoneyNoWhammies
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by BigMoneyNoWhammies » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:36 am

mrspock wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:06 pm
AerialWombat wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:51 am
Here we go again...

Can one of the many other US v ex-US threads just be “pinned” to the top of the board?
This. For the love of all that is good and just...

These threads never get anywhere.
+1

If you already have an opinion on this matter, nothing the other side throws at you will persuade you. I've never seen a 0% international person be converted to holding 25% intl or vice versa. no point in rehashing the same debate over and over. Pin it some newbies can read what's already been discussed and be done with it.

User avatar
ReformedSpender
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:24 pm
Location: Stone's Throw from Vanguard

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by ReformedSpender » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:01 pm

BigMoneyNoWhammies wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:31 am


International allocation has been debated ad nauseum on this board and may be the most contentious issue that gets regularly discussed here, with strongly held opinions by those in both camps.. There are some very long threads about the issue; If you search the board a bit you'll find the threads and quickly come across all the major talking points both for and against. At the end of the day make the decision that best suits you.
Same is true for threads on bonds, individual stocks, ETFs vs MFs, TIPs, REITs, etc. :oops:

What shall we discuss then?
Market history shows that when there's economic blue sky, future returns are low, and when the economy is on the skids, future returns are high. The best fishing is done in the most stormy waters.

Jacklh
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by Jacklh » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:26 pm

02nz wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:38 pm
Jacklh wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:43 pm
I also don't trust some foreign governments or want to support them in any way as I'm sure their priorities are not aligned with mine.
Do you also pull your investments out of the U.S. stock market when U.S. government priorities are not aligned with yours?
When I said "priorities" I was thinking about confiscation of financial assets that happened when communism came to some countries and recently in Zimbabwe for example with the seizure of nearly all the 4,500 commercial farms that were owned by foreigners. I know the risks of third world countries are reflected in their valuation and I have no problem with anyone investing a portion of their assets there if they wish.

I have held as much as 50% foreign stocks in the past but at 68 years old, I want to simplify and have decided that VBIAX (balanced index fund) is good enough for me. I feel that the stock/bond ratio is the most important to get right by far and the mix of foreign and domestic for a U.S. investor is of lessor importance and mostly serves to lower volatility. Right or wrong, that's my choice for me.

As far as the U.S. government priorities not being aligned with mine, you're right, but I live here and my account falls under the laws here. Not much I can really do about it without establishing foreign accounts or hoarding gold and I'm not about to do either.

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 7378
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by JoMoney » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:55 pm

soccerfreak wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:22 am
I'm 30 and I just sold 25% of SWTSX to buy SWISX.

I had a hard time with it due to looking at historical returns of the US stocks dominating International for my entire adult life. What got me to pull the trigger is remembering the Efficient Market Hypothesis isn't US-specific. The best indicator of something between undervalued is everyone saying it's overvalued; the market doesn't lie.
I find your story a bit puzzling, at first you imply a belief in EMH and then imply there are indicators of certain stocks being "undervalued" or "overvalued" ? How do you reconcile those conflicting beliefs ??? :shock:
I'm really confused about what you're saying in the last sentence altogether, who has said what is overvalued ?
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
Posts: 28584
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

International Stocks?

Post by Taylor Larimore » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:38 pm

Boxtrap:

You can read Mr. Bogle's reasons for limiting International stocks to 20% here:

https://www.investmentnews.com/article/ ... nal-stocks

You can read my thoughts about "International Investing" here:

viewtopic.php?t=196956

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

soccerfreak
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by soccerfreak » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:57 pm

JoMoney wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:55 pm
soccerfreak wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:22 am
I'm 30 and I just sold 25% of SWTSX to buy SWISX.

I had a hard time with it due to looking at historical returns of the US stocks dominating International for my entire adult life. What got me to pull the trigger is remembering the Efficient Market Hypothesis isn't US-specific. The best indicator of something between undervalued is everyone saying it's overvalued; the market doesn't lie.
I find your story a bit puzzling, at first you imply a belief in EMH and then imply there are indicators of certain stocks being "undervalued" or "overvalued" ? How do you reconcile those conflicting beliefs ??? :shock:
I'm really confused about what you're saying in the last sentence altogether, who has said what is overvalued ?
Hah I mean you're right. What I really meant there is I shouldn't be caught up in all of the people saying international isn't worth it. EMH all the way.

RJC
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:40 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by RJC » Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:30 am

vineviz wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:27 pm
RJC wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:39 am
Tycoon wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:03 am
No international for me. Silly name calling and baseless assumptions about why aren't helpful.
+1. They seem to have a chip on their shoulder.
I'm not sure who "they" are, and I doubt that name calling and making baseless assumptions is any more helpful in one direction than another.
"They" are the handful of folks that constantly try to put down anyone that has more than the market weight of US stocks. I don't see this happening the other way around.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 5077
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by vineviz » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:31 am

RJC wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:30 am
"They" are the handful of folks that constantly try to put down anyone that has more than the market weight of US stocks. I don't see this happening the other way around.
Interestingly, I don't see anyone putting down folks based on their asset allocations.

I DO see a healthy debate about the quality of data and logic used to support different asset allocations, but that's an intellectual debate (IMO) and not a personal attack.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 8289
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by Sandtrap » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:32 am

azanon wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:08 pm
I'm so excited by just my general observation of the number of these types of threads, and how much they've picked up lately. The turnaround for international is probably just around the corner, given the final holdouts of globally-diversified portfolios are now capitulating despite "giants" (e.g. 5 Trillion AUM Vanguard) telling them it'd be a mistake. So I think I'm going to quit making a case for globally-diversified investing. Just go ahead and sell, and if you don't mind, choose "market order". Thanks!
Good points.
Well said.

Is it possible that these threads are more numerous now because of the expectation of flattening yields and investors are seeking it elsewhere?
j
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 8289
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: International Stocks?

Post by Sandtrap » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:37 am

Taylor Larimore wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:38 pm
Boxtrap:

You can read Mr. Bogle's reasons for limiting International stocks to 20% here:

https://www.investmentnews.com/article/ ... nal-stocks

You can read my thoughts about "International Investing" here:

viewtopic.php?t=196956

Best wishes.
Taylor
Thanks for the links. Read them again.

Jack Bogle suggested "no more than 20% International" in 2010.

Now, 20 years later, with domestic companies having a larger global presence, isn't there already that higher percentage of International than there was in 2010 (And, perhaps increasing exponentially) ????

Aloha
jim :happy
Last edited by Sandtrap on Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 7378
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by JoMoney » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:48 am

vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:31 am
RJC wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:30 am
"They" are the handful of folks that constantly try to put down anyone that has more than the market weight of US stocks. I don't see this happening the other way around.
Interestingly, I don't see anyone putting down folks based on their asset allocations.

I DO see a healthy debate about the quality of data and logic used to support different asset allocations, but that's an intellectual debate (IMO) and not a personal attack.
Interesting that you don't see it... but I suppose these things happen, I didn't see the Scarecrow in Wizard of OZ had a gun.
What I see, is an OP who used the same sort of back-testing factor tilters use to justify alternative allocations, and then some of those same factor tilters dismissing it when it comes to allocating to international.
And then there's the things like expenses, taxes, and risks involved with international that the other side doesn't adequately address and is unwilling to concede are legitimate concerns.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

stan1
Posts: 7315
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by stan1 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:58 pm

fortyofforty wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:12 pm
Yet many of these same "citizens of the world" scrupulously avoid international bonds. The Boglehead Paradox is on repeated display.
Well, for me Top 10 holdings are pretty factual and I like to look under the hood to see what I'm investing in. I can understand investing in Nestle, Shell, and Samsung stock whose products I buy along with those from Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

Maybe buying a bond from the Republic of Indonesia at 5.88% [Top holding in VEMBX Emerging Bond Fund] might give me the possibility of compensated risk.

Now as far as loaning money to the governments of Germany and France at 0.0% face yield when I can get a US Treasury bond at 2% or even an 3.5% FDIC insured CD (which I bought in January for my mom)? I'm open to a similar plain English explanation that I could use so my spouse understands our portfolio. It's not just "diversification". I've read Vanguard's papers and am not convinced.
Last edited by stan1 on Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

randomguy
Posts: 8108
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by randomguy » Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:05 pm

fortyofforty wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:12 pm
vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:10 am
ERguy101 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:07 am
lostdog wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:58 pm
I have NOT chosen to exclude international because I want diversification. I avoid American exceptionalism, xenophobia, recency bias and performance chasing compared to alot on this board.

With diversification, you'll have a fund that is underperforming. Logical investing 101.
God, this sounds horrible when I read it. As if you're accusing everyone of xenophobia who doesn't want to invest in international stocks. Given that this is BH I'll stop here, but this is one heck of a slippery slope.
I see four possible explanations for avoiding international diversification, with xenophobia being just one of them, so I don't think this characterization is quite fair.
Yet many of these same "citizens of the world" scrupulously avoid international bonds. The Boglehead Paradox is on repeated display.
They also aren't buying a junk bonds. Is that ok?:)

User avatar
fortyofforty
Posts: 1585
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:33 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by fortyofforty » Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:37 pm

stan1 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:58 pm
fortyofforty wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:12 pm
Yet many of these same "citizens of the world" scrupulously avoid international bonds. The Boglehead Paradox is on repeated display.
Well, for me Top 10 holdings are pretty factual and I like to look under the hood to see what I'm investing in. I can understand investing in Nestle, Shell, and Samsung stock whose products I buy along with those from Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

Maybe buying a bond from the Republic of Indonesia at 5.88% [Top holding in VEMBX Emerging Bond Fund] might give me the possibility of compensated risk.

Now as far as loaning money to the governments of Germany and France at 0.0% face yield when I can get a US Treasury bond at 2% or even an 3.5% FDIC insured CD (which I bought in January for my mom)? I'm open to a similar plain English explanation that I could use so my spouse understands our portfolio. It's not just "diversification". I've read Vanguard's papers and am not convinced.
Each of us is able to make excuses for not investing internationally. No one is forced to invest in foreign debt or foreign equities. I personally wouldn't label you xenophobic for choosing to keep more of your personal investment funds in the United States, whatever the reasoning involved.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell | Diligentia. Vis. Celeritas. - Jeff Cooper | Original Vanguard Diehard

User avatar
dmcmahon
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:29 pm

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by dmcmahon » Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:52 pm

I targeted 1/3 of my equity investments for international. Because of inertia this has drifted down to about 1/4 now. I keep thinking eventually i’ll be right and it will begin to outperform the US, so I stick with it. The strong dollar has been cited on this thread, but another factor to consider is that there are very different sector weights in international shares that might explain a lot of the performance differences. In particular the US market’s much heavier weighting of tech stocks (hot) versus international’s heavier weight of things like financials that have struggled in the low rate environment we seem trapped in. JMHO.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 56360
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Excluding International All Together?

Post by LadyGeek » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:08 pm

I removed a number of off-topic posts (derailed, political policy, xenophobia, etc.). This thread has run its course and is locked. See: Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:
  • US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
  • conspiracy theories of any type
  • discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Locked