Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Percentage of international stocks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I originally intended to be in the 25% range. I'm in the 5-10% range after selling in July.

    Comment


    • #32
      10% of entire portfolio. Half DM, half EM. I think your leaning toward <20% is entirely appropriate.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by bovie View Post
        10% of entire portfolio. Half DM, half EM. I think your leaning toward <20% is entirely appropriate.
        I am starting to think this way. Perhaps that means now is finally the time with international will outperform US? Because I have given up!

        Comment


        • #34
          20% was the idea. I initially wanted to go with VT as a simple option, ie investment in a single fund, but I didn’t like the fact that it’s 45% international. So I went VTI/VXUS 80/20. I have only contributed at 80/20 in the last year, as opposed to rebalancing by contributing more to VXUS. So I’m currently more like 83/17 I think.

          Comment


          • #35
            Y'all made me look, I'm 43% international and 28% US = 60% right on target! I guess my last few purchases of 100% international have kept me in range.

            Comment


            • #36
              Thanks all

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ShredtheGnar View Post
                100% US = cough mmphhh cough recency bias IMO. What’s wrong with market cap weighting all stocks, not just US? You are not buying the haystack if you are only holding US.
                No it is not, please read the threads though even the first two responses were more than enough. US is/does have international exposure, its global. International funds are simply sector bets, and many were just massive China bets lately (hows that been going?).

                Would you allocate specifically to a bank sector for diversification? Energy and materials? China? If not, then why international since thats basically what you're getting. Most countries are very concentrated and its akin to adding a sector fund but with currency and political risks.

                US is more diversified (free lunch) and international than anywhere else. The reasons for the US to do better are a lot, and thats before currency issues, etc...This is just a dumb formula like bond-age that makes for good marketing.

                Theres frankly a lot of good posts and articles if you want to look into it. It doesnt guarantee out performance ofc, but theres no logical reason for international either. Reweight things by sector and the supposed value difference evaporates as well.

                And none of the US out performance should be shocking, the US companies generate more profits...because we have big tech companies with massive earnings, they dont. We have all the normal boring stuffs too, but we also have this, it is the source outside political/systems/etc...for all of it. Normalize to sector and its the same. People make a big deal out of nothing and asset management marketing materials.

                Do you expect Royal dutch shell or Duetshce bank to have earnings, growth and profits of Facebook? Me neither.
                Last edited by Zaphod; 12-04-2021, 01:25 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Zaphod View Post

                  No it is not, please read the threads though even the first two responses were more than enough. US is/does have international exposure, its global. International funds are simply sector bets, and many were just massive China bets lately (hows that been going?).

                  Would you allocate specifically to a bank sector for diversification? Energy and materials? China? If not, then why international since thats basically what you're getting. Most countries are very concentrated and its akin to adding a sector fund but with currency and political risks.

                  US is more diversified (free lunch) and international than anywhere else. The reasons for the US to do better are a lot, and thats before currency issues, etc...This is just a dumb formula like bond-age that makes for good marketing.

                  Theres frankly a lot of good posts and articles if you want to look into it. It doesnt guarantee out performance ofc, but theres no logical reason for international either. Reweight things by sector and the supposed value difference evaporates as well.

                  And none of the US out performance should be shocking, the US companies generate more profits...because we have big tech companies with massive earnings, they dont. We have all the normal boring stuffs too, but we also have this, it is the source outside political/systems/etc...for all of it. Normalize to sector and its the same. People make a big deal out of nothing and asset management marketing materials.

                  Do you expect Royal dutch shell or Duetshce bank to have earnings, growth and profits of Facebook? Me neither.

                  International writ large is highly diversified. No it doesn't have the growth prospects of say US megacap tech, but you're paying for those higher US growth prospects with much higher prices/valuations. In the end I'm not smart enough to know which company in which country will have the best investment returns - in general higher valuations predict lower returns so I don't expect to be severely punished over a fifty to seventy five year investing career by holding value over growth aka international over US. Anyway deviating from global market cap is certainly an active investing decision, and since my primary goal in diversifying is to reduce risk (single country, single currency, etc) I can live with lower returns if I sleep better at night.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X