Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6238
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Nathan Drake »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 10:38 am As far as I can tell, no one's trying to convert others to go 100% US. We just explain why we do what we do. As I said, this is kind of like betting on the favorite, the underdog, or a mixture of both.
There are countless examples of people in this thread using recent past performance to dissuade others from investing globally.

What was the purpose of Taylor bringing up 14% vs 10% annualized returns this past decade?

Feel free to justify 100% US for yourself, but realize that it goes against the conventional wisdom of all financial planning, and is rooted in a flawed investment strategy that could do harm to one’s ability to meet their financial goals.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
LunarOpal
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:10 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by LunarOpal »

Marseille07 wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 11:21 pm
LunarOpal wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 11:19 pm But in these threads, it's mostly just used as an insult against people without an international component...despite the fact that the reason people index in the first place is because of its historical outperformance.
This is exactly right. Those holding ex-US are doing so because of 1980s outperformance, or other time periods. If this isn't performance-chasing, I don't know what is.
Yes, you don’t know what performance chasing is. I thought I explained it well enough, but, again, performance chasing is *repeatedly* (i.e., again and again and again) selling your current funds and then repeatedly buying the funds that had the best performance in the previous year.

It’s buying ARKK in 2021 because they were the best performer in 2020, and then selling
ARKK in 2022 to buy whatever the best performer in 2021 was. And then selling that fund to buy the best performer in 2022. Repeated ad infinitum.

It’s what Jack called rent-a-stock vs. the own-a-stock behavior, and he calls out people like Jim Cramer for constantly talking about the best performing fund.

Making investment decisions based on long term performance, over decades, *isn’t* that.

Your definition would make anything but blind investing performance chasing.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:20 am
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 9:52 am
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:03 am 100% of either one is performance chasing, market timing, or whatever you'd like to call it if that decision came to be based on recent outperformance or under performance of either.

Nathan Drake, Da5id, myself and others are advocating for world market cap. No betting or looking at past performance at all.

Tilting to tech is a sector bet.
Tilting to value is a style bet.
Tilting to small cap is a size bet.
Tilting to U.S. is a country bet.

The only neutral equity portfolio is world market cap.
It's good that you acknowledge 100% of either is performance chasing. This is actually the correct answer in my opinion since at the end of the day we're looking for an asset class to outperform in some way, recently or otherwise.

Now, given we agreed that 100/0 or 0/100 is performance chasing, is 90/10 performance chasing? What about 10/90?
For the record, I don't agree that 100% of either is performance chasing unless changes in allocation are made based on recent performance.

If one changes to the high performing asset, I'd call it performance chasing. If one changes to the low performing asset, I'd call it market timing, but essentially yes, it is going after the asset that you think will outperform. Semantics there and we're likely saying the same thing.

Why the 0/100 example? I honestly don't know that I've seen a single Boglehead post that he or she holds only international equities and no U.S. equities.
Sure, it's fine. Based on recent performance, Da5id and I agreed that US holders are performance chasing and ex-US holders are reversal chasing. I'm good with that take.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6238
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Nathan Drake »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:18 am
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:05 am Buying market cap (whether US if you for whatever reasons want to consider that the investing universe or total world) seems like a neutral position to me. You are expressing ignorance about what stock or group of stocks will outperform. You aren't trying to outperform US/world. I see that as different than the bets made by picking a subsection of the market or a specific stock, as they involve predictions for the future that deviate from those derived from current market prices. But I guess it is a matter of perspective.

I don't have any idea what is the favorite or the underdog going forward, only what is in the past. Which is why I have a mix of the two.

And the thread seems to be about advocacy for US only, no?
Believing in world market weight is fine. I didn't say there's something wrong with it. Just that please understand:

a) it is a one of, there are lots of other combinations of AA.
b) if holding US is performance-chasing, holding ex-US (regardless of weight) is "reversal-chasing." At the end of the day, ex-US has to outperform US at some point for this bet to make sense.

So now we see that US holders are performance-chasing (betting on the favorite), ex-US holders are reversal-chasing (betting on the underdog). I don't see any room for either party to criticize the other.
B) isn’t a requirement, or even the primary motivation, to invest in exUS

I don’t invest in exUS expecting it to outperform US over the long-term. I invest in exUS to reduce the possibility of bad outcomes and smooth out performance over my investment horizon.

Having a 0% decade is far more likely if you go 100% in any asset class. Diversification allows your NW to generally see progressive upward trajectory over time, which is extremely important when it comes to “staying the course” or improving sequence of return risk

However, some people such as Tony (the OP) have some sort of bizarre FOMO based on 14% US vs 10% global weight. I don’t know how anyone could be genuinely disappointed with global performance this past decade even if US has done better.
Last edited by Nathan Drake on Wed May 26, 2021 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Da5id
Posts: 5066
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Da5id »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:18 am Believing in world market weight is fine. I didn't say there's something wrong with it. Just that please understand:

a) it is a one of, there are lots of other combinations of AA.
b) if holding US is performance-chasing, holding ex-US (regardless of weight) is "reversal-chasing." At the end of the day, ex-US has to outperform US at some point for this bet to make sense.

So now we see that US holders are performance-chasing (betting on the favorite), ex-US holders are reversal-chasing (betting on the underdog). I don't see any room for either party to criticize the other.
I think you are making false equivalences. World market weight is explicitly not "betting" on or even hoping for US or ex-US outperformance going forward. In fact, if you bet on market weight you "lose" relative to those who overweight in either direction if either side outperforms. It is a neutral position.
Da5id
Posts: 5066
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Da5id »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:26 am Sure, it's fine. Based on recent performance, Da5id and I agreed that US holders are performance chasing and ex-US holders are reversal chasing. I'm good with that take.
Please quote me when mischaracterizing my position. That is not in fact what I believe with regard to ex-US holders, and I'd like to see where you got the wrong impression of my views.
Last edited by Da5id on Wed May 26, 2021 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:29 am
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:26 am Sure, it's fine. Based on recent performance, Da5id and I agreed that US holders are performance chasing and ex-US holders are reversal chasing. I'm good with that take.
Please quote me when mischaracterizing my position.
I thought we agreed on this?
Da5id
Posts: 5066
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Da5id »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:30 am
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:29 am
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:26 am Sure, it's fine. Based on recent performance, Da5id and I agreed that US holders are performance chasing and ex-US holders are reversal chasing. I'm good with that take.
Please quote me when mischaracterizing my position.
I thought we agreed on this?
Quote me where I said "ex-US holders are reversal chasing". Or where I implied it. You are not correctly representing my views.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Triple digit golfer »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:26 am
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:20 am
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 9:52 am
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:03 am 100% of either one is performance chasing, market timing, or whatever you'd like to call it if that decision came to be based on recent outperformance or under performance of either.

Nathan Drake, Da5id, myself and others are advocating for world market cap. No betting or looking at past performance at all.

Tilting to tech is a sector bet.
Tilting to value is a style bet.
Tilting to small cap is a size bet.
Tilting to U.S. is a country bet.

The only neutral equity portfolio is world market cap.
It's good that you acknowledge 100% of either is performance chasing. This is actually the correct answer in my opinion since at the end of the day we're looking for an asset class to outperform in some way, recently or otherwise.

Now, given we agreed that 100/0 or 0/100 is performance chasing, is 90/10 performance chasing? What about 10/90?
For the record, I don't agree that 100% of either is performance chasing unless changes in allocation are made based on recent performance.

If one changes to the high performing asset, I'd call it performance chasing. If one changes to the low performing asset, I'd call it market timing, but essentially yes, it is going after the asset that you think will outperform. Semantics there and we're likely saying the same thing.

Why the 0/100 example? I honestly don't know that I've seen a single Boglehead post that he or she holds only international equities and no U.S. equities.
Sure, it's fine. Based on recent performance, Da5id and I agreed that US holders are performance chasing and ex-US holders are reversal chasing. I'm good with that take.
Who is 100% international?
LunarOpal
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:10 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by LunarOpal »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:22 am
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 10:38 am As far as I can tell, no one's trying to convert others to go 100% US. We just explain why we do what we do. As I said, this is kind of like betting on the favorite, the underdog, or a mixture of both.
There are countless examples of people in this thread using recent past performance to dissuade others from investing globally.

What was the purpose of Taylor bringing up 14% vs 10% annualized returns this past decade?

Feel free to justify 100% US for yourself, but realize that it goes against the conventional wisdom of all financial planning, and is rooted in a flawed investment strategy that could do harm to one’s ability to meet their financial goals.
I can’t speak for Taylor, but I can say (and often do say) that US has out-performed ex-US in the past 10 years, the past 20 year, the past 30 years, the past 40 years, and the past 50 years. That’s not “recent”.

The “conventional wisdom” argument is just an argument from authority. It’s not based on data; to the extent it’s based on anything, it’s based on a narrative. A nice story unsupported by data (or, worse, supported by deliberately misleading data). The idea that people must hold an international component is a fairly recent fad development as well.

The idea that not having an international component “could” harm one’s ability to meet financial goals is just scare-mongering. *Having* an international component is just as likely to harm one’s ability to meet financial goals.

But, realistically? People will meet their financial goals either way; the markets are so correlated that there won’t be much of a difference.

The internet has a tendency to make everyone want to be absolutist and extremist; reality is different.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6238
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Nathan Drake »

LunarOpal wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:38 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:22 am
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 10:38 am As far as I can tell, no one's trying to convert others to go 100% US. We just explain why we do what we do. As I said, this is kind of like betting on the favorite, the underdog, or a mixture of both.
There are countless examples of people in this thread using recent past performance to dissuade others from investing globally.

What was the purpose of Taylor bringing up 14% vs 10% annualized returns this past decade?

Feel free to justify 100% US for yourself, but realize that it goes against the conventional wisdom of all financial planning, and is rooted in a flawed investment strategy that could do harm to one’s ability to meet their financial goals.
I can’t speak for Taylor, but I can say (and often do say) that US has out-performed ex-US in the past 10 years, the past 20 year, the past 30 years, the past 40 years, and the past 50 years. That’s not “recent”.

The “conventional wisdom” argument is just an argument from authority. It’s not based on data; to the extent it’s based on anything, it’s based on a narrative. A nice story unsupported by data (or, worse, supported by deliberately misleading data). The idea that people must hold an international component is a fairly recent fad development as well.

The idea that not having an international component “could” harm one’s ability to meet financial goals is just scare-mongering. *Having* an international component is just as likely to harm one’s ability to meet financial goals.

But, realistically? People will meet their financial goals either way; the markets are so correlated that there won’t be much of a difference.

The internet has a tendency to make everyone want to be absolutist and extremist; reality is different.
This is false. There is plenty of data to support that having more geographical diversification both increases returns and reduces risk. It’s literally one of the only free lunches in investing.

And the US has not outperformed over every time period. You are extrapolating decades with a recent end date already in mind. Adjust both the starting dates and ending dates which reveals a completely different set of outcomes.

And it is completely unknowable whether you will be able to meet your needs with a 100% US only portfolio. This suggests a false level of confidence. There are risks, however low, that any region could suffer a very prolonged period of poor returns. US is not exempt.

Having more diversification leads to a better assurance of meeting financial goals; not less - it’s a completely different topic than “well, my investment returned more, therefore my strategy was clearly better”.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
bgf
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by bgf »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:26 am
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:18 am
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:05 am Buying market cap (whether US if you for whatever reasons want to consider that the investing universe or total world) seems like a neutral position to me. You are expressing ignorance about what stock or group of stocks will outperform. You aren't trying to outperform US/world. I see that as different than the bets made by picking a subsection of the market or a specific stock, as they involve predictions for the future that deviate from those derived from current market prices. But I guess it is a matter of perspective.

I don't have any idea what is the favorite or the underdog going forward, only what is in the past. Which is why I have a mix of the two.

And the thread seems to be about advocacy for US only, no?
Believing in world market weight is fine. I didn't say there's something wrong with it. Just that please understand:

a) it is a one of, there are lots of other combinations of AA.
b) if holding US is performance-chasing, holding ex-US (regardless of weight) is "reversal-chasing." At the end of the day, ex-US has to outperform US at some point for this bet to make sense.

So now we see that US holders are performance-chasing (betting on the favorite), ex-US holders are reversal-chasing (betting on the underdog). I don't see any room for either party to criticize the other.
B) isn’t a requirement, or even the primary motivation, to invest in exUS

I don’t invest in exUS expecting it to outperform US over the long-term. I invest in exUS to reduce the possibility of bad outcomes and smooth out performance over my investment horizon.

Having a 0% decade is far more likely if you go 100% in any asset class. Diversification allows your NW to generally see progressive upward trajectory over time, which is extremely important when it comes to “staying the course” or improving sequence of return risk

However, some people such as Tony (the OP) have some sort of bizarre FOMO based on 14% US vs 10% global weight. I don’t know how anyone could be genuinely disappointed with global performance this past decade even if US has done better.
this appears to be some fundamental disconnect between 100% US advocates and those who advocate US + International.

most if not all of the US only camp provide reasons that seek outperformance, e.g., look at how much US has outperformed over this or that period or the entire ensemble period, look at how much more stable the US government is, look at how great US laws are, look at how awesome US education and talent pool is, etc etc. They are all arguments about superiority.

On the other hand, one of the primary reasons vanguard (and all other target date fund providers) and many of us in the US + International camp hold both is for the reason you mentioned. it isn't about one or the other being superior its about protecting against unknown future bad outcomes. this is what global diversification does.

at this point, the US only crowd chooses to have their cake and eat it too. they rhetorically respond with an argument similar to the argument that 'investing in US gets me exposure to international markets' by arguing that if the US goes down so will the rest of the world.

this is despite the fact that we have repeatedly seen one part of the world get absolutely rekt while another does quite well, WWI and WWII anybody?

all of this is so trite at this point i honestly hate myself for even writing this post and engaging again.
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
User avatar
anon_investor
Posts: 15122
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by anon_investor »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:20 am
For the record, I don't agree that 100% of either is performance chasing unless changes in allocation are made based on recent performance.
Yay we agree on something today! :sharebeer
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15369
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Northern Flicker »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 10:08 am
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 10:01 am You seem to think that this Socratic approach leads somewhere. I disagree.

I think the issue is that you are using a different definition of performance chasing than others. If your definition of performance chasing is "trying to get higher performance", literally any investment action one takes or doesn't take can be construed performance chasing. If, as is probably more normally held, performance chasing is "selecting or advocating for investments based on recent past performance", then *why* you have a specific investment is relevant. What precisely is your definition anyway?
I was using it to mean someone who looks at some outperformance (recent or otherwise) and making investment decisions. I'm not so convinced if "recency" matters, because those ex-US holders are sure to be looking at the outperformance of the 80s. In my mind, that's also performance chasing and Triple Digit Golfer agreed when we agreed that both 100% US and 100% ex-US are performance chasing.
By this non-standard definition of performance chasing, anything other than stuffing cash in your mattress is performance chasing.
000
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by 000 »

Taylor Larimore wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 9:02 pm According to Vanguard, Total World (VTWAX) returned 9.53% during the past 10 years (longest period shown). Meanwhile Total Stock Market (VTSAX) returned 14.02%.
So?
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:31 am Quote me where I said "ex-US holders are reversal chasing". Or where I implied it. You are not correctly representing my views.
"I don't have any idea what is the favorite or the underdog going forward, only what is in the past. Which is why I have a mix of the two" would be what I had in mind.

Betting on the underdog, even partially, indicates that you are betting on the underdog to perform better one day. This is reversal chasing.
Da5id
Posts: 5066
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Da5id »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:42 pm
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 11:31 am Quote me where I said "ex-US holders are reversal chasing". Or where I implied it. You are not correctly representing my views.
"I don't have any idea what is the favorite or the underdog going forward, only what is in the past. Which is why I have a mix of the two" would be what I had in mind.

Betting on the underdog, even partially, indicates that you are betting on the underdog to perform better one day. This is reversal chasing.
That is a truly tortured reading of my point. "Nobody knows nothing buy the haystack" is surely the most neutral with regard to future expectations one can be. And I acknowledge no "underdog" in the future returns. I don't know. So please don't put words in my mouth.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:45 pm That is a truly tortured reading of my point. "Nobody knows nothing buy the haystack" is surely the most neutral with regard to future expectations one can be. And I acknowledge no "underdog" in the future returns. I don't know. So please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about the haystack. I'm talking about buying US, buying ex-US, or both.

If you criticize US-buying as performance chasing, you need to explain what buying ex-US is or isn't. Please don't conveniently bust out the haystack talk. I know you like to go there, but world market weighting doesn't explain anything about what it means to hold ex-US in your allocation.
Da5id
Posts: 5066
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Da5id »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:51 pm
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:45 pm That is a truly tortured reading of my point. "Nobody knows nothing buy the haystack" is surely the most neutral with regard to future expectations one can be. And I acknowledge no "underdog" in the future returns. I don't know. So please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about the haystack. I'm talking about buying US, buying ex-US, or both.

If you criticize US-buying as performance chasing, you need to explain what buying ex-US is or isn't. Please don't conveniently bust out the haystack talk. I know you like to go there, but world market weighting doesn't explain anything about what it means to hold ex-US in your allocation.
I've not mischaracterized your beliefs AFAIK. Please don't do that on my behalf.

My ability to communicate with you is apparently limited. Perhaps others can answer your questions, I've tried.
goonie
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by goonie »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:51 pm
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:45 pm That is a truly tortured reading of my point. "Nobody knows nothing buy the haystack" is surely the most neutral with regard to future expectations one can be. And I acknowledge no "underdog" in the future returns. I don't know. So please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about the haystack. I'm talking about buying US, buying ex-US, or both.

If you criticize US-buying as performance chasing, you need to explain what buying ex-US is or isn't. Please don't conveniently bust out the haystack talk. I know you like to talk world market weighting, but it doesn't explain anything about what it means to hold ex-US in your allocation.
You took the debate of US-only vs global cap weight, pushed it to the side, and introduced an alternative debate of US-only vs Intl-only (which nobody is interested in). This is a straw man.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:04 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:51 pm
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:45 pm That is a truly tortured reading of my point. "Nobody knows nothing buy the haystack" is surely the most neutral with regard to future expectations one can be. And I acknowledge no "underdog" in the future returns. I don't know. So please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about the haystack. I'm talking about buying US, buying ex-US, or both.

If you criticize US-buying as performance chasing, you need to explain what buying ex-US is or isn't. Please don't conveniently bust out the haystack talk. I know you like to talk world market weighting, but it doesn't explain anything about what it means to hold ex-US in your allocation.
You took the debate of US-only vs global cap weight, pushed it to the side, and introduced an alternative debate of US-only vs Intl-only (which nobody is interested in). This is a straw man.
I'm just saying that if US-buying is performance chasing, then ex-US buying is reversal chasing. Responding to this with world market weight is a non-answer.
000
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by 000 »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:06 pm I'm just saying that if US-buying is performance chasing, then ex-US buying is reversal chasing. Responding to this with world market weight is a non-answer.
No, you are trying to redefine commonly used terms so you can knock down the straw man you created.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

000 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:08 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:06 pm I'm just saying that if US-buying is performance chasing, then ex-US buying is reversal chasing. Responding to this with world market weight is a non-answer.
No, you are trying to redefine commonly used terms so you can knock down the straw man you created.
How so? I've already changed the stance to acknowledge that performance chasing is US only, given recent performance. So then, how should we describe ex-US is the question.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Triple digit golfer »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:06 pm
goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:04 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:51 pm
Da5id wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:45 pm That is a truly tortured reading of my point. "Nobody knows nothing buy the haystack" is surely the most neutral with regard to future expectations one can be. And I acknowledge no "underdog" in the future returns. I don't know. So please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about the haystack. I'm talking about buying US, buying ex-US, or both.

If you criticize US-buying as performance chasing, you need to explain what buying ex-US is or isn't. Please don't conveniently bust out the haystack talk. I know you like to talk world market weighting, but it doesn't explain anything about what it means to hold ex-US in your allocation.
You took the debate of US-only vs global cap weight, pushed it to the side, and introduced an alternative debate of US-only vs Intl-only (which nobody is interested in). This is a straw man.
I'm just saying that if US-buying is performance chasing, then ex-US buying is reversal chasing. Responding to this with world market weight is a non-answer.
Your argument really makes no sense at all. The quote, "I don't have any idea what is the favorite or the underdog going forward, only what is in the past. Which is why I have a mix of the two" suggests no performance chasing whatsoever.

Nobody is saying that buying U.S. in and of itself is performance chasing. Nor is buying ex-U.S. reversal chasing.

Dumping international to buy U.S. is performance chasing. Dumping U.S. to buy international is "reversal chasing" although I've not heard that term before.

This isn't complicated. You are trying to make it something that it is not.

I buy U.S. equities. I buy international equities. I don't, nor have I ever, chased performance or reversal. I simply buy, hold, and maintain my AA.

Most here would agree that holding 100% U.S. equities isn't chasing performance unless one is actually chasing it. Someone who's done so for 10 or 20 or 50 years isn't chasing anything. I'd argue they just have a less diversified allocation than they otherwise could have. But that doesn't mean it's performance chasing.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove. To my knowledge, nobody has said that holding 100% U.S. equities is performance chasing if that person has always only held U.S. equities. In the context of this thread, the OP himself said (maybe not in this thread, but certainly many times on the forum) that he grew tired of international's poor performance and chose to go 100% U.S. and that it turns out Jack Bogle and Warren Buffett were right. That is performance chasing.
goonie
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by goonie »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:06 pm
goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:04 pm
You took the debate of US-only vs global cap weight, pushed it to the side, and introduced an alternative debate of US-only vs Intl-only (which nobody is interested in). This is a straw man.
I'm just saying that if US-buying is performance chasing, then ex-US buying is reversal chasing. Responding to this with world market weight is a non-answer.
You're still attacking your straw man. Buying ex-US only could be considered "reversal chasing". Buying both US and ex-US is not "reversal chasing".
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:13 pm Most here would agree that holding 100% U.S. equities isn't chasing performance unless one is actually chasing it. Someone who's done so for 10 or 20 or 50 years isn't chasing anything. I'd argue they just have a less diversified allocation than they otherwise could have. But that doesn't mean it's performance chasing.
Well, if this is the case then there is nothing more to argue here. I was under the impression that two-fund portfolio holders were attacked for presumably dropping international exposure for performance-chasing purposes.
lostdog
Posts: 5368
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by lostdog »

000 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:42 pm
Taylor Larimore wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 9:02 pm According to Vanguard, Total World (VTWAX) returned 9.53% during the past 10 years (longest period shown). Meanwhile Total Stock Market (VTSAX) returned 14.02%.
So?
+1

Once again it seems to always come down to a competition between US vs International.
Stocks-80% || Bonds-20% || Taxable-VTI/VXUS || IRA-VT/BNDW
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:16 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:06 pm
goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:04 pm
You took the debate of US-only vs global cap weight, pushed it to the side, and introduced an alternative debate of US-only vs Intl-only (which nobody is interested in). This is a straw man.
I'm just saying that if US-buying is performance chasing, then ex-US buying is reversal chasing. Responding to this with world market weight is a non-answer.
You're still attacking your straw man. Buying ex-US only could be considered "reversal chasing". Buying both US and ex-US is not "reversal chasing".
There's no straw man here. The difference is I'm looking at the AA as separate portions (US & ex-US) while you are having some arbitrary cutoff point at which the portfolio is no longer chasing performance or reversal. Just different viewpoints on how to look at a portfolio.
BabaWawa
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:47 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by BabaWawa »

000 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:42 pm
Taylor Larimore wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 9:02 pm According to Vanguard, Total World (VTWAX) returned 9.53% during the past 10 years (longest period shown). Meanwhile Total Stock Market (VTSAX) returned 14.02%.
So?

My guess is moderators may soon be merging the extensive 3 fund portfolio thread into this one :D
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Triple digit golfer »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:23 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:13 pm Most here would agree that holding 100% U.S. equities isn't chasing performance unless one is actually chasing it. Someone who's done so for 10 or 20 or 50 years isn't chasing anything. I'd argue they just have a less diversified allocation than they otherwise could have. But that doesn't mean it's performance chasing.
Well, if this is the case then there is nothing more to argue here. I was under the impression that two-fund portfolio holders were attacked for presumably dropping international exposure for performance-chasing purposes.
If they do that, they're performance chasing. Most two funders don't. Most have been holding two funds for a long time.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Triple digit golfer »

lostdog wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:26 pm
000 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:42 pm
Taylor Larimore wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 9:02 pm According to Vanguard, Total World (VTWAX) returned 9.53% during the past 10 years (longest period shown). Meanwhile Total Stock Market (VTSAX) returned 14.02%.
So?
+1

Once again it seems to always come down to a competition between US vs International.
Exactly. In fact, I'd prefer U.S. outperform because I own more of it.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:49 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:23 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:13 pm Most here would agree that holding 100% U.S. equities isn't chasing performance unless one is actually chasing it. Someone who's done so for 10 or 20 or 50 years isn't chasing anything. I'd argue they just have a less diversified allocation than they otherwise could have. But that doesn't mean it's performance chasing.
Well, if this is the case then there is nothing more to argue here. I was under the impression that two-fund portfolio holders were attacked for presumably dropping international exposure for performance-chasing purposes.
If they do that, they're performance chasing. Most two funders don't. Most have been holding two funds for a long time.
Crisis averted. Let's now talk about EF!
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Triple digit golfer »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:53 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:49 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:23 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:13 pm Most here would agree that holding 100% U.S. equities isn't chasing performance unless one is actually chasing it. Someone who's done so for 10 or 20 or 50 years isn't chasing anything. I'd argue they just have a less diversified allocation than they otherwise could have. But that doesn't mean it's performance chasing.
Well, if this is the case then there is nothing more to argue here. I was under the impression that two-fund portfolio holders were attacked for presumably dropping international exposure for performance-chasing purposes.
If they do that, they're performance chasing. Most two funders don't. Most have been holding two funds for a long time.
Crisis averted. Let's now talk about EF!
I don't talk about things I don't invest in :D :wink:
Gaston
Posts: 1220
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Gaston »

I’m not against a portion invested in non-US equities, but my experience is that the USD-denominated returns on those equities derives more from exchange rate movements than underlying company performance, and especially so in emerging markets and in countries whose governments manipulate their currencies.
“My opinions are just that - opinions.”
goonie
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by goonie »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:27 pm
goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:16 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:06 pm
goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:04 pm
You took the debate of US-only vs global cap weight, pushed it to the side, and introduced an alternative debate of US-only vs Intl-only (which nobody is interested in). This is a straw man.
I'm just saying that if US-buying is performance chasing, then ex-US buying is reversal chasing. Responding to this with world market weight is a non-answer.
You're still attacking your straw man. Buying ex-US only could be considered "reversal chasing". Buying both US and ex-US is not "reversal chasing".
There's no straw man here. The difference is I'm looking at the AA as separate portions (US & ex-US) while you are having some arbitrary cutoff point at which the portfolio is no longer chasing performance or reversal. Just different viewpoints on how to look at a portfolio.
Ok, to summarize...

- continuing to buy the underperforming stocks in your portfolio is "reversal chasing", even if you're continuing to buy the outperforming stocks as well
- market cap weight is an arbitrary cutoff point
- these are good rebuttals to the notion that dropping the underperforming stocks in your portfolio is performance chasing

Is that it?
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6238
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Nathan Drake »

Gaston wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:09 pm I’m not against a portion invested in non-US equities, but my experience is that the USD-denominated returns on those equities derives more from exchange rate movements than underlying company performance, and especially so in emerging markets and in countries whose governments manipulate their currencies.
Certainly the US is immune from currency manipulation...reserve currency status could certainly impact a US only investor, but as someone with healthy amounts of exUS I’m not concerned
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:14 pm Ok, to summarize...

- continuing to buy the underperforming stocks in your portfolio is "reversal chasing", even if you're continuing to buy the outperforming stocks as well
- market cap weight is an arbitrary cutoff point
- these are good rebuttals to the notion that dropping the underperforming stocks in your portfolio is performance chasing

Is that it?
Kind of, but I think TDG and I agreed that two fund portfolio holders are no longer attacked or criticized for performance chasing. We come in peace here.
goonie
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by goonie »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:28 pm
goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:14 pm Ok, to summarize...

- continuing to buy the underperforming stocks in your portfolio is "reversal chasing", even if you're continuing to buy the outperforming stocks as well
- market cap weight is an arbitrary cutoff point
- these are good rebuttals to the notion that dropping the underperforming stocks in your portfolio is performance chasing

Is that it?
Kind of, but I think TDG and I agreed that two fund portfolio holders are no longer attacked or criticized for performance chasing. We come in peace here.
I'm glad I was able to summarize your takes. I don't agree with them whatsoever though.

Also, I think TDG agreed that it's not performance chasing if someone has always been US-only. That's different from what you just said.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:42 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:28 pm
goonie wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:14 pm Ok, to summarize...

- continuing to buy the underperforming stocks in your portfolio is "reversal chasing", even if you're continuing to buy the outperforming stocks as well
- market cap weight is an arbitrary cutoff point
- these are good rebuttals to the notion that dropping the underperforming stocks in your portfolio is performance chasing

Is that it?
Kind of, but I think TDG and I agreed that two fund portfolio holders are no longer attacked or criticized for performance chasing. We come in peace here.
I'm glad I was able to summarize your takes. I don't agree with them whatsoever though.

Also, I think TDG agreed that it's not performance chasing if someone has always been US-only. That's different from what you just said.
I let Tony deal with those issues. I've always been US-only :D
000
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by 000 »

BabaWawa wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:30 pm My guess is moderators may soon be merging the extensive 3 fund portfolio thread into this one :D
Think of all the erratas to the three fund book that are going to have to be sent out!! :twisted:
000
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by 000 »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:10 pm How so? I've already changed the stance to acknowledge that performance chasing is US only, given recent performance. So then, how should we describe ex-US is the question.
You are still claiming - via your invented term "reversal chasing" - that ex-US stock investing is only being done to "chase" returns and not on sound fundamentals. There are many sound reasons to invest in ex-US stocks. Holding a world stock portfolio because one believes in that kind of diversification has nothing in common with holding 100% US because of recent performance. They are not the same category of thing.
User avatar
anon_investor
Posts: 15122
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by anon_investor »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:54 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:53 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:49 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:23 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:13 pm Most here would agree that holding 100% U.S. equities isn't chasing performance unless one is actually chasing it. Someone who's done so for 10 or 20 or 50 years isn't chasing anything. I'd argue they just have a less diversified allocation than they otherwise could have. But that doesn't mean it's performance chasing.
Well, if this is the case then there is nothing more to argue here. I was under the impression that two-fund portfolio holders were attacked for presumably dropping international exposure for performance-chasing purposes.
If they do that, they're performance chasing. Most two funders don't. Most have been holding two funds for a long time.
Crisis averted. Let's now talk about EF!
I don't talk about things I don't invest in :D :wink:
One person's EF is another's fixed income allocation... :twisted:
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

anon_investor wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:45 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:54 pm I don't talk about things I don't invest in :D :wink:
One person's EF is another's fixed income allocation... :twisted:
On a serious note, my two-fund portfolio is really just equities and EF, because my EF is exactly that - fixed income allocation.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Triple digit golfer »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:47 pm
anon_investor wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:45 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:54 pm I don't talk about things I don't invest in :D :wink:
One person's EF is another's fixed income allocation... :twisted:
On a serious note, my two-fund portfolio is really just equities and EF, because my EF is exactly that - fixed income allocation.
My 3 fund portfolio is my emergency fund. That is, I'd keep my AA the same ratios regardless. So yes, I would sell stocks in an emergency. $100,000 ago, I was 80/20. If I have a $100,000 emergency, I'll be back where I was then. Why would it be any different? That's my logic.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:23 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:47 pm
anon_investor wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:45 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:54 pm I don't talk about things I don't invest in :D :wink:
One person's EF is another's fixed income allocation... :twisted:
On a serious note, my two-fund portfolio is really just equities and EF, because my EF is exactly that - fixed income allocation.
My 3 fund portfolio is my emergency fund. That is, I'd keep my AA the same ratios regardless. So yes, I would sell stocks in an emergency. $100,000 ago, I was 80/20. If I have a $100,000 emergency, I'll be back where I was then. Why would it be any different? That's my logic.
Imo it's better to take a hit in fixed income then replenish later, than to maintain the same allocation the whole time.

For example, if I have 800K in equities and 200K in fixed income and a 100K emergency hits, I'd probably make it 800K in equities & 100K fixed income rather than 720K and 180K, which hurts my equities portion by 10% - a massive cut.
User avatar
anon_investor
Posts: 15122
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by anon_investor »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:52 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:23 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:47 pm
anon_investor wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:45 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:54 pm I don't talk about things I don't invest in :D :wink:
One person's EF is another's fixed income allocation... :twisted:
On a serious note, my two-fund portfolio is really just equities and EF, because my EF is exactly that - fixed income allocation.
My 3 fund portfolio is my emergency fund. That is, I'd keep my AA the same ratios regardless. So yes, I would sell stocks in an emergency. $100,000 ago, I was 80/20. If I have a $100,000 emergency, I'll be back where I was then. Why would it be any different? That's my logic.
Imo it's better to take a hit in fixed income then replenish later, than to maintain the same allocation the whole time.

For example, if I have 800K in equities and 200K in fixed income and a 100K emergency hits, I'd probably make it 800K in equities & 100K fixed income rather than 720K and 180K, which hurts my equities portion by 10% - a massive cut.
Is your fixed income all total bond?
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

anon_investor wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 7:12 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:52 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:23 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:47 pm
anon_investor wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:45 pm

One person's EF is another's fixed income allocation... :twisted:
On a serious note, my two-fund portfolio is really just equities and EF, because my EF is exactly that - fixed income allocation.
My 3 fund portfolio is my emergency fund. That is, I'd keep my AA the same ratios regardless. So yes, I would sell stocks in an emergency. $100,000 ago, I was 80/20. If I have a $100,000 emergency, I'll be back where I was then. Why would it be any different? That's my logic.
Imo it's better to take a hit in fixed income then replenish later, than to maintain the same allocation the whole time.

For example, if I have 800K in equities and 200K in fixed income and a 100K emergency hits, I'd probably make it 800K in equities & 100K fixed income rather than 720K and 180K, which hurts my equities portion by 10% - a massive cut.
Is your fixed income all total bond?
My fixed income is cash, I don't have bonds. The spending order would be the same though.
User avatar
anon_investor
Posts: 15122
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by anon_investor »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 7:13 pm
anon_investor wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 7:12 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:52 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:23 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:47 pm

On a serious note, my two-fund portfolio is really just equities and EF, because my EF is exactly that - fixed income allocation.
My 3 fund portfolio is my emergency fund. That is, I'd keep my AA the same ratios regardless. So yes, I would sell stocks in an emergency. $100,000 ago, I was 80/20. If I have a $100,000 emergency, I'll be back where I was then. Why would it be any different? That's my logic.
Imo it's better to take a hit in fixed income then replenish later, than to maintain the same allocation the whole time.

For example, if I have 800K in equities and 200K in fixed income and a 100K emergency hits, I'd probably make it 800K in equities & 100K fixed income rather than 720K and 180K, which hurts my equities portion by 10% - a massive cut.
Is your fixed income all total bond?
My fixed income is cash, I don't have bonds. The spending order would be the same though.
I have I Bonds and CDs, so basically the same thing but better interest. :twisted:
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Triple digit golfer »

Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:52 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 6:23 pm
Marseille07 wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:47 pm
anon_investor wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 5:45 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:54 pm I don't talk about things I don't invest in :D :wink:
One person's EF is another's fixed income allocation... :twisted:
On a serious note, my two-fund portfolio is really just equities and EF, because my EF is exactly that - fixed income allocation.
My 3 fund portfolio is my emergency fund. That is, I'd keep my AA the same ratios regardless. So yes, I would sell stocks in an emergency. $100,000 ago, I was 80/20. If I have a $100,000 emergency, I'll be back where I was then. Why would it be any different? That's my logic.
Imo it's better to take a hit in fixed income then replenish later, than to maintain the same allocation the whole time.

For example, if I have 800K in equities and 200K in fixed income and a 100K emergency hits, I'd probably make it 800K in equities & 100K fixed income rather than 720K and 180K, which hurts my equities portion by 10% - a massive cut.
Why? When I had $900k before I was $720/180. What changed?
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio

Post by Marseille07 »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 7:40 pm Why? When I had $900k before I was $720/180. What changed?
Nothing changed, it's really a matter of preserving equities when you can. This is not to say 720/180 is a terrible idea, but less desirable than 800/100 imo.
Post Reply