lostdog wrote: ↑
Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
junior wrote: ↑
Thu May 14, 2020 7:21 am
Rosencrantz1 wrote: ↑
Wed May 13, 2020 7:30 pm
junior wrote: ↑
Wed May 13, 2020 6:41 pm
If you read Vanguard`s annual economic report you'll see they expect international to outperform U. S. over the next 10 years.
I don't know if they will be right or wrong but they certainly seem more educated than the 100% U. S. crowd who seem to be operating on folk wisdom rather than data.
I'd encourage you to compare US vs exUS CAGR for the last 10 years, the last 20 years, the last 30 years, the last 50 years. I'm not sure how you define 'folk wisdom rather than data' - but, it seems to me there's an awful lot of historical data out there. Speaking for myself, I invest in equities precisely because of the historical returns of stocks. Otherwise, I'd just put the money in a pillow case and stuff in under the mattress
My point exactly. The economists at Vanguard and elsewhere study math and data. The 100% U. S. folks spend a few minutes on a website widget, cherry pick some data, then make up a folk story about U. S. being number one, pillow cases and beer.
The reasons stated on this site for U.S. only investing are very odd and absurd. Throwing common sense and intelligence out the window. Vineviz mentioned there was a study showing lack of formal education in this crowd.
Also the point Junior was trying to get across is to go with Vanguard's recommendation over a group speculators and performance chasers arm chair expertise based on personal ideologies of foreign countries.
I think people on both sides of this debate are not careful with their language. Not every
reason given is odd and absurd. Read Common Sense on Mutual Funds and tell me if the math and data indicating that a long-term investor will likely see no measurable benefit to his portfolio by owning ex-us stocks is "odd and absurd." I think Jack's explanation is pretty logical: over the long-run, returns tend to even out regardless of which country you are investing in, although there are definitely some countries that have had one or two terrible 30-year periods of performance. Thankfully, all Jack's data show that the U.S. has rarely, if ever, been a severe underperformer over any given 30-year period. So, Jack says, you can go ahead and own ex-us, but I see nothing in the math and data that makes it likely that it will help you. It might, but that's just not clear. This, I humbly submit, is neither an odd or absurd line of reasoning.
I 100% agree that some reasons given for U.S.-only investing are odd and absurd, but I 100% disagree that investing solely in a U.S. total-stock-market index fund is always (or ever) illogical. I think it should be pretty uncontroversial here that, if one could only hold one asset and that asset was VTI, one is in a relatively advantageous position compared to all investors.
And just to sum up my view about why this really should not be such a controversial topic (but of course it's also the reason why it is a controversial topic), I'll say this: it is 100% true that nobody here knows whether investing in ex-us equities will increase long-term returns. There is just no getting around that truth. Investing in ex-us might have some benefits, so I think it logically makes sense to own at least some. But, no, however upset it might make us, we cannot know if buying ex-U.S. equities is the absolute right decision. Ex-U.S. investors take that uncertainty and say, "Well, I'd better own some." U.S.-only investors take that uncertainty and say, "Well, if there's no compelling evidence that I absolutely need to have it, I won't make my life unnecessarily complicated." Neither of these positions is illogical, and only time will tell us if one position was correct.
"I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know." - Socrates. "Nobody knows nothing." - Jack Bogle