Does "international" offer any diversification?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 16260
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by JoMoney »

Someday, when all the stock markets go to zero, we'll resolve that it really didn't make much difference. :P
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by burritoLover »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:41 am
burritoLover wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:31 am Did we really need 6 pages of discussion as to answer the question if adding 7500+ stocks to your portfolio that you didn't own before across different countries and markets you weren't invested in before offers you "any" diversification? lol, lol, lol.
No, but we all knew it would happen anyway.
True.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by burritoLover »

JoMoney wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:58 am Someday, when all the stock markets go to zero, we'll resolve that it really didn't make much difference. :P
:D :sharebeer
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6234
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Nathan Drake »

vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:56 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:29 am
In this scenario, how would one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
Here is the experience for three possible 1966 retirees withdrawing $350/month (inflation adjusted) from a $100k portfolio with various allocations to international stocks: 10% ("minimal"), 30% ("significant"), and 50% ("maximum"). All portfolios are 60% stock and 40% bonds.

Image
Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vineviz »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
Perhaps, but the point of diversification is NOT that we expect international stocks to outperform on average but rather that we expect periods in which international stocks and US stocks will perform differently.

Because most investors are risk-averse, making the bad times less bad is worth a lot more to most people than what happens on average or in the best case scenario.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
bling
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:49 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by bling »

burritoLover wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:04 am
Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:41 am
burritoLover wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:31 am Did we really need 6 pages of discussion as to answer the question if adding 7500+ stocks to your portfolio that you didn't own before across different countries and markets you weren't invested in before offers you "any" diversification? lol, lol, lol.
No, but we all knew it would happen anyway.
True.
7 now!

to be fair, this wouldn't be BH if there wasn't at least one 5+ page active thread about US vs ex-US at any given moment.
lostdog
Posts: 5368
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by lostdog »

bling wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:24 am
burritoLover wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:04 am
Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:41 am
burritoLover wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:31 am Did we really need 6 pages of discussion as to answer the question if adding 7500+ stocks to your portfolio that you didn't own before across different countries and markets you weren't invested in before offers you "any" diversification? lol, lol, lol.
No, but we all knew it would happen anyway.
True.
7 now!

to be fair, this wouldn't be BH if there wasn't at least one 5+ page active thread about US vs ex-US at any given moment.
This is a good thing. What would the BH forum be like if the US only chest pounding wasn't challenged?
:sharebeer
Stocks-80% || Bonds-20% || Taxable-VTI/VXUS || IRA-VT/BNDW
visualguy
Posts: 2988
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:32 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by visualguy »

burritoLover wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:31 am Did we really need 6 pages of discussion as to answer the question if adding 7500+ stocks to your portfolio that you didn't own before across different countries and markets you weren't invested in before offers you "any" diversification? lol, lol, lol.
Right, the answer to the question asked in the title is trivially yes. The controversial aspect is whether one should diversify with ex-US indexing, and to what extent, but that's a different question.
GaryA505
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by GaryA505 »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:41 am
burritoLover wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:31 am Did we really need 6 pages of discussion as to answer the question if adding 7500+ stocks to your portfolio that you didn't own before across different countries and markets you weren't invested in before offers you "any" diversification? lol, lol, lol.
No, but we all knew it would happen anyway.
So, it wasn't "different this time". :)
Get most of it right and don't make any big mistakes. All else being equal, simpler is better. Simple is as simple does.
User avatar
vanbogle59
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:30 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vanbogle59 »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:56 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:29 am
In this scenario, how would one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
Here is the experience for three possible 1966 retirees withdrawing $350/month (inflation adjusted) from a $100k portfolio with various allocations to international stocks: 10% ("minimal"), 30% ("significant"), and 50% ("maximum"). All portfolios are 60% stock and 40% bonds.

Image
Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
I'm not an "opponent". I hold VTIAX. But I don't think it answers the question either.
How does one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
Da5id
Posts: 5065
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Da5id »

vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:56 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:56 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:29 am
In this scenario, how would one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
Here is the experience for three possible 1966 retirees withdrawing $350/month (inflation adjusted) from a $100k portfolio with various allocations to international stocks: 10% ("minimal"), 30% ("significant"), and 50% ("maximum"). All portfolios are 60% stock and 40% bonds.

Image
Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
I'm not an "opponent". I hold VTIAX. But I don't think it answers the question either.
How does one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
One clearly quantifies them accurately only in retrospect... As in many areas, hindsight is great, future is murky. Mind you that murky future is part of why I own international.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vineviz »

vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:56 am How does one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
I think it should be clear that those are qualitative labels. Plenty of quantitative evidence has already been discussed, so let’s not miss the forest for the trees: some diversification is better than none, and more is better than less.

Further, I think it should be intuitive that there is a point of maximum benefit beyond which adding more international stocks begins to reduce diversification instead of increase it.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
nigel_ht
Posts: 4742
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by nigel_ht »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:56 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:29 am
In this scenario, how would one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
Here is the experience for three possible 1966 retirees withdrawing $350/month (inflation adjusted) from a $100k portfolio with various allocations to international stocks: 10% ("minimal"), 30% ("significant"), and 50% ("maximum"). All portfolios are 60% stock and 40% bonds.

Image
Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
Well why doesn't it include performance up to 2022?

US always outperforms is a straw man. Mostly it's likely just a wash where one or the other outperforms for a period. So having some of both is good. But it's not necessary to hold market weight to have the benefits of holding some international.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6234
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Nathan Drake »

nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:27 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:56 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:29 am
In this scenario, how would one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
Here is the experience for three possible 1966 retirees withdrawing $350/month (inflation adjusted) from a $100k portfolio with various allocations to international stocks: 10% ("minimal"), 30% ("significant"), and 50% ("maximum"). All portfolios are 60% stock and 40% bonds.

Image
Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
Well why doesn't it include performance up to 2022?

US always outperforms is a straw man. Mostly it's likely just a wash where one or the other outperforms for a period. So having some of both is good. But it's not necessary to hold market weight to have the benefits of holding some international.
It’s not a straw man for those advocating 100% US.

Vineviz has already discussed above that it’s “not necessary” to allocate 40-50% to get SOME benefits of international diversification, but the data suggests it to likely be more optimal.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
nigel_ht
Posts: 4742
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by nigel_ht »

vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:10 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:56 am How does one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
I think it should be clear that those are qualitative labels. Plenty of quantitative evidence has already been discussed, so let’s not miss the forest for the trees: some diversification is better than none, and more is better than less.

Further, I think it should be intuitive that there is a point of maximum benefit beyond which adding more international stocks begins to reduce diversification instead of increase it.
While I understand why 1966 is chosen the chart is misleading as to the real differences between minimal, significant and maximum over the entire dataset available.

In any case 10% provides 4.2% SWR over 30 years. That's good enough if the baseline is Trinity outcomes. Without being able to see the outcomes in other years you don't know how much going from 10% to 50% will cost you in more likely scenarios.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vineviz »

nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:27 am Well why doesn't it include performance up to 2022?
Because the 10% international investor in this scenario was completely broke by 2002.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
nigel_ht
Posts: 4742
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by nigel_ht »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:35 am
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:27 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:56 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:29 am
In this scenario, how would one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
Here is the experience for three possible 1966 retirees withdrawing $350/month (inflation adjusted) from a $100k portfolio with various allocations to international stocks: 10% ("minimal"), 30% ("significant"), and 50% ("maximum"). All portfolios are 60% stock and 40% bonds.

Image
Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
Well why doesn't it include performance up to 2022?

US always outperforms is a straw man. Mostly it's likely just a wash where one or the other outperforms for a period. So having some of both is good. But it's not necessary to hold market weight to have the benefits of holding some international.
It’s not a straw man for those advocating 100% US.

Vineviz has already discussed above that it’s “not necessary” to allocate 40-50% to get SOME benefits of international diversification, but the data suggests it to likely be more optimal.
It is absolutely a straw man if folks are advocating 100% because it works well enough and most of the time it's a wash and not because "the US will always outperform".

Vineviz doesn't say that it is necessary to hold market weight but YOU have in the past.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6234
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Nathan Drake »

nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:38 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:10 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:56 am How does one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
I think it should be clear that those are qualitative labels. Plenty of quantitative evidence has already been discussed, so let’s not miss the forest for the trees: some diversification is better than none, and more is better than less.

Further, I think it should be intuitive that there is a point of maximum benefit beyond which adding more international stocks begins to reduce diversification instead of increase it.
While I understand why 1966 is chosen the chart is misleading as to the real differences between minimal, significant and maximum over the entire dataset available.

In any case 10% provides 4.2% SWR over 30 years. That's good enough if the baseline is Trinity outcomes. Without being able to see the outcomes in other years you don't know how much going from 10% to 50% will cost you in more likely scenarios.
Correction, it provided 4.2% in a limited number of sample periods. Not provides in the future tense.

Still, using all the limited samples we have suggests while 10% has provided some benefit, it is not as optimal as a much higher allocation.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
nigel_ht
Posts: 4742
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by nigel_ht »

vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:41 am
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:27 am Well why doesn't it include performance up to 2022?
Because the 10% international investor in this scenario was completely broke by 2002.
Only because you choose 4.2% WR instead of the SWR rate for 1966 (3.9 something?)...the failure in 2002 is a direct result of you picking an unsustainable rate even for 30 years much less 36 years.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6234
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Nathan Drake »

nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:43 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:35 am
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:27 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:56 am

Here is the experience for three possible 1966 retirees withdrawing $350/month (inflation adjusted) from a $100k portfolio with various allocations to international stocks: 10% ("minimal"), 30% ("significant"), and 50% ("maximum"). All portfolios are 60% stock and 40% bonds.

Image
Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
Well why doesn't it include performance up to 2022?

US always outperforms is a straw man. Mostly it's likely just a wash where one or the other outperforms for a period. So having some of both is good. But it's not necessary to hold market weight to have the benefits of holding some international.
It’s not a straw man for those advocating 100% US.

Vineviz has already discussed above that it’s “not necessary” to allocate 40-50% to get SOME benefits of international diversification, but the data suggests it to likely be more optimal.
It is absolutely a straw man if folks are advocating 100% because it works well enough and most of the time it's a wash and not because "the US will always outperform".

Vineviz doesn't say that it is necessary to hold market weight but YOU have in the past.
Many 100% US advocates justify their allocation because they believe it will perform better. Not because it “worked well enough”.

I have never said it is necessary to hold market weight. Please do not falsify my position. I have said much the same as what Vineviz is suggesting. 20% provides a benefit, higher allocations closer to market cap are more likely to provide more benefits.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
nigel_ht
Posts: 4742
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by nigel_ht »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:46 am
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:38 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:10 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:56 am How does one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
I think it should be clear that those are qualitative labels. Plenty of quantitative evidence has already been discussed, so let’s not miss the forest for the trees: some diversification is better than none, and more is better than less.

Further, I think it should be intuitive that there is a point of maximum benefit beyond which adding more international stocks begins to reduce diversification instead of increase it.
While I understand why 1966 is chosen the chart is misleading as to the real differences between minimal, significant and maximum over the entire dataset available.

In any case 10% provides 4.2% SWR over 30 years. That's good enough if the baseline is Trinity outcomes. Without being able to see the outcomes in other years you don't know how much going from 10% to 50% will cost you in more likely scenarios.
Correction, it provided 4.2% in a limited number of sample periods. Not provides in the future tense.

Still, using all the limited samples we have suggests while 10% has provided some benefit, it is not as optimal as a much higher allocation.
It worked in 1966 which is our current worst case. I suppose that we could repeat 1966 with worse international and end up with less than 4%.
nigel_ht
Posts: 4742
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by nigel_ht »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:49 am
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:43 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:35 am
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:27 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am

Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
Well why doesn't it include performance up to 2022?

US always outperforms is a straw man. Mostly it's likely just a wash where one or the other outperforms for a period. So having some of both is good. But it's not necessary to hold market weight to have the benefits of holding some international.
It’s not a straw man for those advocating 100% US.

Vineviz has already discussed above that it’s “not necessary” to allocate 40-50% to get SOME benefits of international diversification, but the data suggests it to likely be more optimal.
It is absolutely a straw man if folks are advocating 100% because it works well enough and most of the time it's a wash and not because "the US will always outperform".

Vineviz doesn't say that it is necessary to hold market weight but YOU have in the past.
Many 100% US advocates justify their allocation because they believe it will perform better. Not because it “worked well enough”.

I have never said it is necessary to hold market weight. Please do not falsify my position. I have said much the same as what Vineviz is suggesting. 20% provides a benefit, higher allocations closer to market cap are more likely to provide more benefits.
Fine. I'll find a quote. Given how often you post it may take a while but we've argued this point in the past.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6234
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Nathan Drake »

nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:51 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:49 am
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:43 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:35 am
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:27 am

Well why doesn't it include performance up to 2022?

US always outperforms is a straw man. Mostly it's likely just a wash where one or the other outperforms for a period. So having some of both is good. But it's not necessary to hold market weight to have the benefits of holding some international.
It’s not a straw man for those advocating 100% US.

Vineviz has already discussed above that it’s “not necessary” to allocate 40-50% to get SOME benefits of international diversification, but the data suggests it to likely be more optimal.
It is absolutely a straw man if folks are advocating 100% because it works well enough and most of the time it's a wash and not because "the US will always outperform".

Vineviz doesn't say that it is necessary to hold market weight but YOU have in the past.
Many 100% US advocates justify their allocation because they believe it will perform better. Not because it “worked well enough”.

I have never said it is necessary to hold market weight. Please do not falsify my position. I have said much the same as what Vineviz is suggesting. 20% provides a benefit, higher allocations closer to market cap are more likely to provide more benefits.
Fine. I'll find a quote. Given how often you post it may take a while but we've argued this point in the past.
Good luck, I don’t think it’s worth the effort because “necessary” is a very definitive term, and different from believing it is “a more optimal starting point”
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vineviz »

nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:38 am
While I understand why 1966 is chosen the chart is misleading as to the real differences between minimal, significant and maximum over the entire dataset available.
The chart was an illustration of the kind of difference various levels of diversification can provide.

Over the full period from 1961 to present, here's how various levels of international diversification affected average SWR, minimum SWR, and the volatility of SWR. Increased allocations improved the sustainable retirement income and reduced the cohort-to-cohort variability in income.

Code: Select all

Intl.		Average		Minimum		Std. Dev. Of
Allocation	SWR		SWR		SWR

0%		6.60%		3.94%		2.03%
10%		6.64%		4.09%		1.96%
20%		6.67%		4.24%		1.89%
30%		6.70%		4.34%		1.82%
40%		6.72%		4.43%		1.77%
50%		6.74%		4.52%		1.71%
60%		6.75%		4.60%		1.67%
70%		6.76%		4.68%		1.63%
80%		6.76%		4.76%		1.60%
90%		6.75%		4.83%		1.57%
100%		6.74%		4.89%		1.56%
Last edited by vineviz on Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6234
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Nathan Drake »

vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:15 pm
nigel_ht wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:38 am
While I understand why 1966 is chosen the chart is misleading as to the real differences between minimal, significant and maximum over the entire dataset available.
The chart was an illustration of the kind of difference various levels of diversification can provide.

Over the full period from 1961 to present, here's how various levels of international diversification affected average SWR, minimum SWR, and the volatility of SWR. Increased allocations improved the sustainable retirement income and reduced the cohort-to-cohort variability in income.

Code: Select all

Intl.		Average		Minimum		Std. Dev. Of
Allocation	SWR		SWR		SWR

0%		6.6%		3.9%		2.0%
10%		6.6%		4.1%		2.0%
20%		6.7%		4.2%		1.9%
30%		6.7%		4.3%		1.8%
40%		6.7%		4.4%		1.8%
50%		6.7%		4.5%		1.7%
60%		6.8%		4.6%		1.7%
70%		6.8%		4.7%		1.6%
80%		6.8%		4.8%		1.6%
90%		6.8%		4.8%		1.6%
100%		6.7%		4.9%		1.6%
Great data here. Just shows how 100% US has actually been the least optimal allocation, even when compared to 100% exUS which has a surprisingly high SWR. Intuitively this makes sense since 100% exUS is far more diversified than 100% US, and yet the former is unheard of while the latter position is quite common on this forum.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Random Walker
Posts: 5561
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Random Walker »

vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:56 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:08 am
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:56 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:29 am
In this scenario, how would one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
Here is the experience for three possible 1966 retirees withdrawing $350/month (inflation adjusted) from a $100k portfolio with various allocations to international stocks: 10% ("minimal"), 30% ("significant"), and 50% ("maximum"). All portfolios are 60% stock and 40% bonds.

Image
Very interesting chart

Opponents will argue “this is 2022, not 1966!”. US always outperforms now because of [insert fallacy here]
I'm not an "opponent". I hold VTIAX. But I don't think it answers the question either.
How does one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
I have no clue how to quantify the difference between minimal, significant, maximum. And this is especially true since we can’t predict the future and can’t predict the future over our individually relevant finite investing lifetimes. But I think one can make very good decisions thinking qualitatively. The first steps down the diversification path have the biggest bang for the buck. For example, the marginal benefit of adding the first 20% international to a portfolio is greater than adding the second 20% to get to a total 40% allocation. Thinking beyond international, one can look at the marginal benefits and marginal costs to diversifying across asset classes, geographies, styles, factors, Alts. In general, the greatest bang for the buck is with the first steps. As one goes further and further down the diversification path, slicing and dicing towards smaller % allocations to individual investments, the marginal benefits decrease and the marginal costs increase. I don’t mind complexity, and I do perceive lack of portfolio efficiency as a real cost. So I tend to run with more complexity. I figure as long as perceived marginal benefit greater than marginal cost, go for it; even if the incremental benefit is small. Once a portfolio is established, it’s on IPS/spreadsheet autopilot, so I don’t think complexity is a real issue. I suppose some investors can perceive complexity as a cost too. It’s up to each individual investor to decide at what point down the diversification path marginal costs outweigh marginal benefits, and where to draw the line.

Dave
User avatar
vanbogle59
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:30 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vanbogle59 »

TY, but I am confused.
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:10 am
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:56 am How does one go about quantifying the difference between minimal, significant and maximum?
I think it should be clear that those are qualitative labels. Plenty of quantitative evidence has already been discussed, so let’s not miss the forest for the trees: some diversification is better than none, and more is better than less.

Further, I think it should be intuitive that there is a point of maximum benefit beyond which adding more international stocks begins to reduce diversification instead of increase it.
That makes perfect sense.
vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:15 pm
The chart was an illustration of the kind of difference various levels of diversification can provide.

Over the full period from 1961 to present, here's how various levels of international diversification affected average SWR, minimum SWR, and the volatility of SWR. Increased allocations improved the sustainable retirement income and reduced the cohort-to-cohort variability in income.

Code: Select all

Intl.		Average		Minimum		Std. Dev. Of
Allocation	SWR		SWR		SWR

0%		6.60%		3.94%		2.03%
10%		6.64%		4.09%		1.96%
20%		6.67%		4.24%		1.89%
30%		6.70%		4.34%		1.82%
40%		6.72%		4.43%		1.77%
50%		6.74%		4.52%		1.71%
60%		6.75%		4.60%		1.67%
70%		6.76%		4.68%		1.63%
80%		6.76%		4.76%		1.60%
90%		6.75%		4.83%		1.57%
100%		6.74%		4.89%		1.56%

But this seems to contradict it. If I say "optimize for minimum SWR", 100% int wins. Right?

1) I find that very surprising. Are you really saying the highest minimum SWR (presumably for all rolling 30 year periods from 1961 to 2021) is obtained by excluding the US stock market completely? (Or does that just mean something like you have to eliminate 1966 US to raise the minimum?)

2) I also note that the average SWRs are VERY tightly grouped. Which would seem to be an argument for not worrying about this too much.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by willthrill81 »

vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:51 pm But this seems to contradict it. If I say "optimize for minimum SWR", 100% int wins. Right?

1) I find that very surprising. Are you really saying the highest minimum SWR (presumably for all rolling 30 year periods from 1961 to 2021) is obtained by excluding the US stock market completely? (Or does that just mean something like you have to eliminate 1966 US to raise the minimum?)

2) I also note that the average SWRs are VERY tightly grouped. Which would seem to be an argument for not worrying about this too much.
1. While Portfolio Charts only includes data going back to 1970, it yields the same result. A 60/40 AA with only ex-U.S. stock had a 30 year SWR of 4.7%, while a 60/40 AA with only U.S. stock had a 30 year SWR of 4.4%.

2. The point remains though that ex-U.S. improved the worst historic periods in the years analyzed, which is what SWRs are all about in the first place; in other words, it reduced downside risk. However, going back to my earlier argument, owning ex-U.S. stocks has had only a minor diversification benefit compared to other factors, such as how much exposure one had to SCV or gold. For instance, a 60/40 where the stocks were evenly split between U.S. and ex-U.S. SCV since 1970 had a 30 year SWR of 5.8%. And if the bond allocation were reduced from 40% to 30% and that 10% moved into gold, the 30 year SWR went up to 6.1%.
The Sensible Steward
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Triple digit golfer »

I agree that in most cases, international stocks haven't made a huge difference in SWR.

However, it's most cases, not all. Vineviz's chart from 1966 on showed the danger of an equity allocation that is 100% U.S.

The other thing is, just because international stocks haven't made a huge difference in SWR in the past doesn't mean they won't in the future. Why do so many assume that the U.S. is immune to a 30 year period of zero real returns? It has happened to other countries throughout history and it can certainly happen here.

Cue the "if it rains in the U.S. it'll poor everywhere else" argument.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vineviz »

vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:51 pm But this seems to contradict it. If I say "optimize for minimum SWR", 100% int wins. Right?
The data above is just the historical data, which is obviously quite noisy. In general we'd expect the highest worst-case SWR to appear near the point of maximum diversification which is roughly 55% US/45% international.
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:51 pm 1) I find that very surprising. Are you really saying the highest minimum SWR (presumably for all rolling 30 year periods from 1961 to 2021) is obtained by excluding the US stock market completely? (Or does that just mean something like you have to eliminate 1966 US to raise the minimum?)
Historically this was the case, but it is important to remember that all of the worse SWR periods started in the late 1960s. I think it would be as imprudent to be 100% ex-US stocks as to be 100% US stocks.
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:51 pm 2) I also note that the average SWRs are VERY tightly grouped. Which would seem to be an argument for not worrying about this too much.
I think this would be an improper conclusion. We can see examples in the historical record where despite the tight grouping of average returns the sequence of returns generated notably different outcomes. Because most people are loss averse we generally do feel the pain of the worst outcomes disproportionately more than good outcomes of similar magnitude. If we only cared about average outcomes we'd always be 100% in stocks instead of mixing stocks with bonds.

I presented the average SWRs to illustrate that the improvement in SWR from having international diversification wasn't simply a one-time phenomenon.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
vanbogle59
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:30 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vanbogle59 »

vineviz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:22 pm
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:51 pm But this seems to contradict it. If I say "optimize for minimum SWR", 100% int wins. Right?
The data above is just the historical data, which is obviously quite noisy. In general we'd expect the highest worst-case SWR to appear near the point of maximum diversification which is roughly 55% US/45% international.
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:51 pm 1) I find that very surprising. Are you really saying the highest minimum SWR (presumably for all rolling 30 year periods from 1961 to 2021) is obtained by excluding the US stock market completely? (Or does that just mean something like you have to eliminate 1966 US to raise the minimum?)
Historically this was the case, but it is important to remember that all of the worse SWR periods started in the late 1960s. I think it would be as imprudent to be 100% ex-US stocks as to be 100% US stocks.
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:51 pm 2) I also note that the average SWRs are VERY tightly grouped. Which would seem to be an argument for not worrying about this too much.
I think this would be an improper conclusion. We can see examples in the historical record where despite the tight grouping of average returns the sequence of returns generated notably different outcomes. Because most people are loss averse we generally do feel the pain of the worst outcomes disproportionately more than good outcomes of similar magnitude. If we only cared about average outcomes we'd always be 100% in stocks instead of mixing stocks with bonds.

I presented the average SWRs to illustrate that the improvement in SWR from having international diversification wasn't simply a one-time phenomenon.
OK. That all makes pretty good sense to me.
TY
User avatar
vanbogle59
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:30 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by vanbogle59 »

willthrill81 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:03 pm
vanbogle59 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:51 pm But this seems to contradict it. If I say "optimize for minimum SWR", 100% int wins. Right?

1) I find that very surprising. Are you really saying the highest minimum SWR (presumably for all rolling 30 year periods from 1961 to 2021) is obtained by excluding the US stock market completely? (Or does that just mean something like you have to eliminate 1966 US to raise the minimum?)

2) I also note that the average SWRs are VERY tightly grouped. Which would seem to be an argument for not worrying about this too much.
1. While Portfolio Charts only includes data going back to 1970, it yields the same result. A 60/40 AA with only ex-U.S. stock had a 30 year SWR of 4.7%, while a 60/40 AA with only U.S. stock had a 30 year SWR of 4.4%.

2. The point remains though that ex-U.S. improved the worst historic periods in the years analyzed, which is what SWRs are all about in the first place; in other words, it reduced downside risk. However, going back to my earlier argument, owning ex-U.S. stocks has had only a minor diversification benefit compared to other factors, such as how much exposure one had to SCV or gold. For instance, a 60/40 where the stocks were evenly split between U.S. and ex-U.S. SCV since 1970 had a 30 year SWR of 5.8%. And if the bond allocation were reduced from 40% to 30% and that 10% moved into gold, the 30 year SWR went up to 6.1%.
Yes.

As you and I have discussed before, I continue to consider changing my IPS.
FWIW, I am 50/50 equity/fixed, and my equity is 80/20 vtsax/vtiax. Been like that for years.
I am still very committed to the 50/50 (for reasons that are entirely personal).

But I did add vaipx and I-bonds on the fixed side this year. The IPS says I have to stick with that until SS kicks in.
And the mix of equities is very much on the table (including SC and Int).
Even maybe a dollop of the shiny stuff? :shock:

All of this precisely to add diversity and minimize downside risk in retirement.
To my great surprise, when I mentioned a potential change to DW, she was very much interested.
So, who knows? I just might pull the trigger some day soon.
User avatar
steve r
Posts: 1300
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Connecticut

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by steve r »

DB2 wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:37 am
CraigTester wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:55 pm I stumbled on this factoid in a WSJ article today.... Seems tangentally relevant to this discussion:

From 1950 to 2010, U.S. stocks returned 6.9% a year above inflation, including dividends, while the rest of the world returned 7.6%, according to market historians Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton
Why only go up to 2010? That seems like cherry picking dates given how strong the U.S. stock market has performed since that time.

Let's see what 1950 to 2020 looks like.
Better still .... since 1921 (through 2021)
http://efinance.org.cn/cn/fm/Global%20S ... entury.pdf
Journal of Finance (top tier journal, I believe)

The U.S. returned 4.3 percent real (though 1996) in dollars. The other 38 countries, 0.8 percent median (abstract).

Using Simba data from 1997 to 2021, 7.42 real in U.S. versus 3.05 ex US.

I guess you cold argue it is not fair to include WWII. OK, but then why is fair to focus on a date with the recovery from WWII. I would also point out that the U.S. trounced the returns of all countries that had continuous history during the period.

FWIW, I am a big holder of VT. :confused
"Owning the stock market over the long term is a winner's game. Attempting to beat the market is a loser's game. ..Don't look for the needle in the haystack. Just buy the haystack." Jack Bogle
rosalee
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:17 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by rosalee »

Yes, but VT is more than 50% USA. So it seems to me that your International exposure is rather low, compared to some fund that is 100% Intl.
ParlayBogle
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:01 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by ParlayBogle »

I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Marseille07 »

ParlayBogle wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
The first part of what you're saying is correct, the overseas-revenue argument is flawed.

However, the argument being flawed doesn't mean global cap weight is the conclusion. Imo we can't draw any conclusion from the flawed argument.
GaryA505
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by GaryA505 »

Marseille07 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:47 pm
ParlayBogle wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
The first part of what you're saying is correct, the overseas-revenue argument is flawed.

However, the argument being flawed doesn't mean global cap weight is the conclusion. Imo we can't draw any conclusion from the flawed argument.
Can someone give an explanation as to why the overseas-revenue argument is flawed? Wasn't it the overseas-revenue argument that Bogle used for not owning ex-US equity?
Get most of it right and don't make any big mistakes. All else being equal, simpler is better. Simple is as simple does.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by willthrill81 »

GaryA505 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:53 am
Marseille07 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:47 pm
ParlayBogle wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
The first part of what you're saying is correct, the overseas-revenue argument is flawed.

However, the argument being flawed doesn't mean global cap weight is the conclusion. Imo we can't draw any conclusion from the flawed argument.
Can someone give an explanation as to why the overseas-revenue argument is flawed? Wasn't it the overseas-revenue argument that Bogle used for not owning ex-US equity?
Part of the problem with that argument is that it wrongly assumes that revenues alone are responsible for stock returns.
The Sensible Steward
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Marseille07 »

willthrill81 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 am
GaryA505 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:53 am
Marseille07 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:47 pm
ParlayBogle wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
The first part of what you're saying is correct, the overseas-revenue argument is flawed.

However, the argument being flawed doesn't mean global cap weight is the conclusion. Imo we can't draw any conclusion from the flawed argument.
Can someone give an explanation as to why the overseas-revenue argument is flawed? Wasn't it the overseas-revenue argument that Bogle used for not owning ex-US equity?
Part of the problem with that argument is that it wrongly assumes that revenues alone are responsible for stock returns.
Correct, but there's even more to it. If we say we don't need ex-US because US companies are earning money overseas, the same argument can be made that we don't need US because ex-US companies are earning money in the US. Imo neither statement makes sense.
nigel_ht
Posts: 4742
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by nigel_ht »

willthrill81 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 am
GaryA505 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:53 am
Marseille07 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:47 pm
ParlayBogle wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
The first part of what you're saying is correct, the overseas-revenue argument is flawed.

However, the argument being flawed doesn't mean global cap weight is the conclusion. Imo we can't draw any conclusion from the flawed argument.
Can someone give an explanation as to why the overseas-revenue argument is flawed? Wasn't it the overseas-revenue argument that Bogle used for not owning ex-US equity?
Part of the problem with that argument is that it wrongly assumes that revenues alone are responsible for stock returns.
Well, lack of revenues will certainly impact stock returns. If Apple gets locked out of China sales we can expect an "AAPL in Freefall" thread...and that won't do good things for VTI either...

And, if folks believe that valuation matters then why wouldn't global revenues impact stock returns? The only two parts of that equation is price and earnings...
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by willthrill81 »

Marseille07 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:04 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 am
GaryA505 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:53 am
Marseille07 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:47 pm
ParlayBogle wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
The first part of what you're saying is correct, the overseas-revenue argument is flawed.

However, the argument being flawed doesn't mean global cap weight is the conclusion. Imo we can't draw any conclusion from the flawed argument.
Can someone give an explanation as to why the overseas-revenue argument is flawed? Wasn't it the overseas-revenue argument that Bogle used for not owning ex-US equity?
Part of the problem with that argument is that it wrongly assumes that revenues alone are responsible for stock returns.
Correct, but there's even more to it. If we say we don't need ex-US because US companies are earning money overseas, the same argument can be made that we don't need US because ex-US companies are earning money in the US. Imo neither statement makes sense.
And that argument (i.e., 'I don't need U.S. stocks because much of ex-U.S.'s revenue comes from the U.S.') falls apart when you look at the 7% annualized divergence between U.S. and ex-U.S. stock returns over the last 15 years.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by willthrill81 »

nigel_ht wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:09 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 am
GaryA505 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:53 am
Marseille07 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:47 pm
ParlayBogle wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
The first part of what you're saying is correct, the overseas-revenue argument is flawed.

However, the argument being flawed doesn't mean global cap weight is the conclusion. Imo we can't draw any conclusion from the flawed argument.
Can someone give an explanation as to why the overseas-revenue argument is flawed? Wasn't it the overseas-revenue argument that Bogle used for not owning ex-US equity?
Part of the problem with that argument is that it wrongly assumes that revenues alone are responsible for stock returns.
Well, lack of revenues will certainly impact stock returns.
Of course, but it's hardly the only factor, as I just noted above. A significant part of ex-U.S.'s revenues come from the U.S., but that hasn't stopped the U.S. from outperforming by nearly 7% annualized since 2007.

I don't say any of this as being 'pro' either side. Both sides of the issue have what I believe to be compelling arguments.
The Sensible Steward
Dottie57
Posts: 12379
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: International Diversification -- why why???

Post by Dottie57 »

Nathan Drake wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:27 am
  • Because of Japan
  • Because of Germany
  • Because of the US during 1965 - 1982.
Because what performed best in the recent or even long-term past may not perform best in the future when you need it the most. Diversification is an acceptance of some portion of your portfolio underperforming at any given time.

I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp - can you possibly be just fine being US only? Possibly. But why take that gamble? It MAY not pay off. Markets can get overvalued even though they are still good markets. No different than an individual company stock

You say you don't want the "risk", as though "risk and returns" arent inextricably linked. Sometimes the risk shows up, sometimes it doesn't. There can, and will be, long periods where any assetclass outperforms or underperforms. US included.
+100.

Look at the anger in the U.S. over Covid and the dreaded P-word.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Marseille07 »

willthrill81 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:10 am And that argument (i.e., 'I don't need U.S. stocks because much of ex-U.S.'s revenue comes from the U.S.') falls apart when you look at the 7% annualized divergence between U.S. and ex-U.S. stock returns over the last 15 years.
Well, falling apart or not isn't the issue though. The argument of not needing XYZ because rev comes from ABC is just incorrect whether you're on the right side of the coin or not.
nigel_ht
Posts: 4742
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by nigel_ht »

Marseille07 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:04 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 am
GaryA505 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:53 am
Marseille07 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:47 pm
ParlayBogle wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:11 pm I don't at all understand the argument that owning Intl is unnecessary because US companies earn x% of their revenue from overseas. The natural corollary is that Intl companies also earn significant revenue from the US. So if the point is that the designation of these corporations as "US" or "Intl" is somewhat arbitrary (differentiated only by physical HQ location and some local regulations and tax codes), then isn't that a strong argument in favor of a total global market-cap weighted approach?
The first part of what you're saying is correct, the overseas-revenue argument is flawed.

However, the argument being flawed doesn't mean global cap weight is the conclusion. Imo we can't draw any conclusion from the flawed argument.
Can someone give an explanation as to why the overseas-revenue argument is flawed? Wasn't it the overseas-revenue argument that Bogle used for not owning ex-US equity?
Part of the problem with that argument is that it wrongly assumes that revenues alone are responsible for stock returns.
Correct, but there's even more to it. If we say we don't need ex-US because US companies are earning money overseas, the same argument can be made that we don't need US because ex-US companies are earning money in the US. Imo neither statement makes sense.
Except that the US holds the lion's share of tech revenue...Tencent is really the only non-US platform with a global footprint...

US investors can live without ex-US but non-US investors can't live without US.

In time that will change.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: International Diversification -- why why???

Post by willthrill81 »

Nathan Drake wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:27 am
  • Because of Japan
Owning ex-Japanese stock would certainly have benefited Japanese investors over the past 50 years in the form of producing higher SWRs, but the benefit was possibly smaller and the optimal range of proportions is probably very different from what many believe them to be. Japanese investors wholly invested in Japanese stocks and bonds at a 60/40 AA had a 30 year SWR of 3.0%. Evenly dividing their stocks between Japanese and ex-Japanese stocks increased the SWR to 3.8%, but greater allocations to ex-Japanese stocks would not have improved the SWR. For instance, the 30 year SWR for a 25% U.S. stock, 25%, ex-U.S. stock, 10% Japanese stock, and 40% Japanese bonds was 3.5%.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by willthrill81 »

Marseille07 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:20 am
willthrill81 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:10 am And that argument (i.e., 'I don't need U.S. stocks because much of ex-U.S.'s revenue comes from the U.S.') falls apart when you look at the 7% annualized divergence between U.S. and ex-U.S. stock returns over the last 15 years.
Well, falling apart or not isn't the issue though. The argument of not needing XYZ because rev comes from ABC is just incorrect whether you're on the right side of the coin or not.
My point was just that the last 15 years of returns for U.S. and ex-U.S. stocks demonstrates that there is much more going on with returns than revenue alone or else ex-U.S. wouldn't have underperformed the U.S. so much for so long.
The Sensible Steward
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Marseille07 »

willthrill81 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:27 am My point was just that the last 15 years of returns for U.S. and ex-U.S. stocks demonstrates that there is much more going on with returns than revenue alone or else ex-U.S. wouldn't have underperformed the U.S. so much for so long.
Agree completely with that take. :beer
Booogle
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:57 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by Booogle »

Nevermind.
Last edited by Booogle on Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Does "international" offer any diversification?

Post by burritoLover »

I did a backtest on my house and for its 25 year life, I found that it did not catch on fire or get robbed. Therefore, I cancelled my home owner's insurance as the data clearly shows that this will never happen since it hasn't happened for 25 years.
Locked