I would be perfectly comfortable leaving a 30-year investment in VTI and never checking it again.
I'd also feel perfectly comfortable contributing to Vanguard's Lifestrategy Growth fund (VASGX) for 30 years, which is actually what we are doing.

It is certainly true that, for example, the EAFE index outperformance the US market in the 1970s, 1980s, and 2000s decades. So the possibility of outperformance between some point in the 1960s and early 2010s is not out of the realm of possibility. I don't want to put in the effort to find that information, but I figured since you had such a strong opinion you must be using actual data and can show that didn't happen.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:45 pmCorrect. I was just saying it wasn't like 1960~2010. There are spots of international outperformance here and there, just not a half century.jason2459 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:41 pmIf someone started in 2000 ex-US would have outperformed in that time frame.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:36 pmI don't know which dataset the poster was looking, but international outperformance ended around 1990 when Nikkei collapsed; and US was certainly outperforming during the dot-com boom. There's no way it lasted until early 2010s.
It's hard to judge if the graph is right or wrong, because having an AA of US & ex-US with rebalancing and measuring the CAGR / volatility of that, would carry a lot more implications than simply saying "US outperformed ex-US" or vice versa.asif408 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:33 pmIt is certainly true that, for example, the EAFE index outperformance the US market in the 1970s, 1980s, and 2000s decades. So the possibility of outperformance between some point in the 1960s and early 2010s is not out of the realm of possibility. I don't want to put in the effort to find that information, but I figured since you had such a strong opinion you must be using actual data and can show that didn't happen.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:45 pmCorrect. I was just saying it wasn't like 1960~2010. There are spots of international outperformance here and there, just not a half century.jason2459 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:41 pmIf someone started in 2000 ex-US would have outperformed in that time frame.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:36 pmI don't know which dataset the poster was looking, but international outperformance ended around 1990 when Nikkei collapsed; and US was certainly outperforming during the dot-com boom. There's no way it lasted until early 2010s.
In fact, our own Bogleheads wiki shows a 38 year period where US stocks were only a drag to a portfolio: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/File:US ... erging.png. Is this graph wrong? If so, it should be removed.
The US us #3 in population and #3 in area. It is #2 in natural resources behind Russia.
Why? The easy scenario is grandparents give each grandchild $10K at birth in a trust. Park it in Wellington or Target Date fund and ignore for 30 years (other than paying taxes and trustee fees) until the terms of the trust releases the final amount to the grandchild (aka 30 years).TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:21 pmHonestly, to me it is an implausible proposition.Ben8848 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:07 pm Let's say you're going to be away from your investments for 30 years and will never add another dime or see your portfolio. The point is to take human emotion out of the equation completely, so you're Tom Hanks in Cast Away for 30 years and can't find out what the markets are/economy is doing if you wanted to.
You can set up your portfolio to rebalance automatically 60/40, 70/30, etc. but it has to stay set that way for 30 years. After that you'll have a few years to adjust for fixed income in retirement.
What would your asset allocation be set to for 30 years? What's wrong with 100% VTI when taking out human emotion and why doesn't everyone do this? As someone said to eat your password in a different post.
Historically we know 100% equities will always win out in the highest return (10.29%):
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... RiskReturn
Ever heard the phrase "priced in"?nigel_ht wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:55 pm The US us #3 in population and #3 in area. It is #2 in natural resources behind Russia.
It currently has a small but positive population growth rate.
We’re number 1 not just because of two world wars, for which Asia and Europe has recovered from but because we have abundant resources, a large but manageable population density, have culturally rewarded innovation and a form of government that is the worst except for all the others.
While China may overtake the US we won’t likely become 2nd tier unless we have a civil war or vote our way into hyperinflation somehow.
That China COULD eclipse the US is a distinct possibility but investing in China has higher systemic risk of the central government doing whatever it wants even if it crashes the stock market. Ex-US without China is...mostly uninteresting...
At the rate of change in the world it is implausible for me to pick a single set and forget investment or to even have a desire to.nigel_ht wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:07 pmWhy? The easy scenario is grandparents give each grandchild $10K at birth in a trust. Park it in Wellington or Target Date fund and ignore for 30 years (other than paying taxes and trustee fees) until the terms of the trust releases the final amount to the grandchild (aka 30 years).TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:21 pmHonestly, to me it is an implausible proposition.Ben8848 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:07 pm Let's say you're going to be away from your investments for 30 years and will never add another dime or see your portfolio. The point is to take human emotion out of the equation completely, so you're Tom Hanks in Cast Away for 30 years and can't find out what the markets are/economy is doing if you wanted to.
You can set up your portfolio to rebalance automatically 60/40, 70/30, etc. but it has to stay set that way for 30 years. After that you'll have a few years to adjust for fixed income in retirement.
What would your asset allocation be set to for 30 years? What's wrong with 100% VTI when taking out human emotion and why doesn't everyone do this? As someone said to eat your password in a different post.
Historically we know 100% equities will always win out in the highest return (10.29%):
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... RiskReturn
If richer, park $100K or whatever in there (after taxes).
The rest can go to charity or whatever.
Well, presumably I’ll be dead sometime in that 30 year period. So it’s set and forget from my perspective.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:47 pmAt the rate of change in the world it is implausible for me to pick a single set and forget investment or to even have a desire to.nigel_ht wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:07 pmWhy? The easy scenario is grandparents give each grandchild $10K at birth in a trust. Park it in Wellington or Target Date fund and ignore for 30 years (other than paying taxes and trustee fees) until the terms of the trust releases the final amount to the grandchild (aka 30 years).TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:21 pmHonestly, to me it is an implausible proposition.Ben8848 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:07 pm Let's say you're going to be away from your investments for 30 years and will never add another dime or see your portfolio. The point is to take human emotion out of the equation completely, so you're Tom Hanks in Cast Away for 30 years and can't find out what the markets are/economy is doing if you wanted to.
You can set up your portfolio to rebalance automatically 60/40, 70/30, etc. but it has to stay set that way for 30 years. After that you'll have a few years to adjust for fixed income in retirement.
What would your asset allocation be set to for 30 years? What's wrong with 100% VTI when taking out human emotion and why doesn't everyone do this? As someone said to eat your password in a different post.
Historically we know 100% equities will always win out in the highest return (10.29%):
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... RiskReturn
If richer, park $100K or whatever in there (after taxes).
The rest can go to charity or whatever.
If "you" means me (HanSolo), then there's the question who can speak for me.nisiprius wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:01 pmI agree that I was too categorical on the first point.HanSolo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:09 amIf you mean the above are true for all persons, I'm not sure that's true, or at least I don't know how to confirm it.nisiprius wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:12 pm Why doesn't everyone take out human emotion?
1) Because it is not possible to take out human emotion.
2) Because if you do you take out human emotion, then it doesn't matter what your asset allocation is, because you will not experience either happiness or sadness, whatever the outcome.
For example, on the second point, while emotional outcomes may be all that matters to some, I'm not sure we can say that's true for all persons.
I think you misunderstood my second point. If you "take out human emotion," then you cannot experience happiness or sadness, or generally, you cannot care about the outcome. If you do not care about the outcome, then you do not care about your asset allocation.
If I was planning on starting withdraws in the 30th year I wouldn't want it to be during a major downturn with 100% in VTI. If I couldn't change my AA in the in-between time I would select an AA halfway between what I do now (80/20) and what I want when I'm 65(50/50?). My answer is 70/30.