Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
Topic Author
LISD
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:52 pm

Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by LISD »

Vanguard Target 2025 Fund (VTTVX) has 22% of it's money in foreign stock, and 32% in US stock - see link, top left side:

https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/vttvx/portfolio

so, of all stock, foreign stock represents over 41% of it!

In Bill Bernstien's The Intelligent Asset Allocator (book), his low-mid risk portfolio is 60/40 stock/bond, with 12% of the portfolio foreign stock.

I guess I'm just surprised at the high weighting of foreign stock - especially considering this is for someone who is expected to retire in 2 years?

Is this a new norm that I missed?

Although Foreign adds diversification, it seems like it always follows US very closely, and usually doesn't do as well (the last few months being one exception). Is there a tool where I can look at the results of back-testing different %foreign allocations?

Thank You
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10430
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by Triple digit golfer »

It is proportional to world market capitalization. More than that or less than that would be a tilted equity portfolio. Therefore, I feel it is totally appropriate.
Silk McCue
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:11 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by Silk McCue »

All of the Target Date Funds and LifeStrategy Funds hold market weight at approximately 60% US and 40% International which is exactly what you are seeing.

If you think you know the future then you can choose other investments, be less globally diversified and take more risk.

Cheers
Silence Dogood
Posts: 1660
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by Silence Dogood »

OP, here is a Bogleheads wiki article about the history of the Vanguard Target Retirement Funds:

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguar ... ds#History

In 2015, Vanguard increased the international stock allocation from 30% to 40% of equity exposure.

For a while, this still resulted in a slight home bias compared to world stock market capitalization, but now it just about matches world stock market capitalization.

My personal preference is a small home bias, but in my opinion, this is really not a big deal one way or another. Your overall stock/bond mix matters a whole lot more, and even more important than that - by far - is your savings rate.
z3r0c00l
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by z3r0c00l »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm It is proportional to world market capitalization. More than that or less than that would be a tilted equity portfolio. Therefore, I feel it is totally appropriate.
Correct, market weighting is the default. Anything else you have to explain through special knowledge of the future performance of stocks, which no one has.
70% Global Stocks / 30% Bonds
ivgrivchuck
Posts: 1670
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by ivgrivchuck »

If you know what the "correct" foreign allocation percentage is, you probably shouldn't be using target date funds.

60/40 is a fine default.
25% VTI | 25% VXUS | 12.5% AVUV | 10% AVDV | 2.5% VWO | 25% BND/SCHR/SCHP
Doctor Rhythm
Posts: 3034
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:55 am

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by Doctor Rhythm »

For comparison, Fidelity’s Freedom Index 2025 has 41% international stock in its allocation to equity.
visualguy
Posts: 2988
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:32 am

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by visualguy »

LISD wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:31 pm Although Foreign adds diversification, it seems like it always follows US very closely, and usually doesn't do as well (the last few months being one exception). Is there a tool where I can look at the results of back-testing different %foreign allocations?
I think you know the answer without the tool - 0% ex-US has been best for returns. Not for "diversification", but there aren't too many businesses out there that accept diversification as payment... If you truly want to diversify, my advice would be to go with a different asset class such as direct real estate.
NiceUnparticularMan
Posts: 6103
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:51 am

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by NiceUnparticularMan »

it seems like it always follows US very closely, and usually doesn't do as well
Here is what that actually looks like (this is US minus ex-US, five-year rolling returns):

Image

So in fact, very rarely does ex-US "follow US very closely", and sometimes it does better, and sometimes it does worse.

We, of course, are looking back at a period where US did do better. So, some people here have come to the conclusion US stocks predictably do better. There is a lot that is odd about that conclusion, including that it implies US stocks predictably do better and yet global stock investors haven't figured that out. And some would say it is classic recency bias and performance chasing. But some people here implicitly believe they have figured something out that the rest of stock investors have missed.

Entities like Vanguard instead basically reason that the recent US overperformance is observably mostly a combination of relative valuation increases and a strengthening USD. And we have seen both those things in the past and eventually they have turned around and gone the other way instead. Meaning to date, such effects can last a long time, but not forever.

But, again some people here implicitly believe that this time is different, that this time the recent relative increases in valuations and strengthening USD will continue on and on and on and never stop, let alone reverse.

Personally, I don't know what will happen next. But I am not willing to bet that this time is different and that finally these trends will be sustainable forever.
visualguy
Posts: 2988
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:32 am

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by visualguy »

The US outperformed very significantly during the period in the graph, so I'm not sure what the point is. Sure, it underperformed some of the time, but it outperformed by much more than it underperformed over time.
NiceUnparticularMan
Posts: 6103
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:51 am

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by NiceUnparticularMan »

visualguy wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:51 am The US outperformed very significantly during the period in the graph, so I'm not sure what the point is.
I thought it was pretty clear. I was responding to these claims:
it seems like it always follows US very closely, and usually doesn't do as well
Those claims are observably false.

But another observation is which has "outperformed" on average has depended on when you make that calculation, and specifically on what has happened most recently.

Looking at this information, you could assume whatever the latest long-term averages are currently will now remain the average returns in the next long period, and indeed forever.

Historically, that approach would have led to you being repeatedly wrong, over and over, whenever the next long period was very different from the long-term averages as of the beginning of that period.

Or you could simply embrace the fundamental uncertainty of the situation and recognize it isn't really possible to predict in such detail what is going to happen in the next long period.
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 17338
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by White Coat Investor »

LISD wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:31 pm Vanguard Target 2025 Fund (VTTVX) has 22% of it's money in foreign stock, and 32% in US stock - see link, top left side:

https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/vttvx/portfolio

so, of all stock, foreign stock represents over 41% of it!

In Bill Bernstien's The Intelligent Asset Allocator (book), his low-mid risk portfolio is 60/40 stock/bond, with 12% of the portfolio foreign stock.

I guess I'm just surprised at the high weighting of foreign stock - especially considering this is for someone who is expected to retire in 2 years?

Is this a new norm that I missed?

Although Foreign adds diversification, it seems like it always follows US very closely, and usually doesn't do as well (the last few months being one exception). Is there a tool where I can look at the results of back-testing different %foreign allocations?

Thank You
I can't believe Vanguard didn't call Bill to ask how they should be managing their Target Retirement funds.

If you care enough about what's under the hood of a TR fund to post on Bogleheads about it, you shouldn't be in a TR fund. Heck, if you read that book and understood the math you shouldn't be in a TR fund.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52105
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by nisiprius »

z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:48 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm It is proportional to world market capitalization. More than that or less than that would be a tilted equity portfolio. Therefore, I feel it is totally appropriate.
Correct, market weighting is the default. Anything else you have to explain through special knowledge of the future performance of stocks, which no one has.
I'm sorry, but this ignores the effect of currency fluctuations. Like everything else about US/international this is hotly debated. I will only argue my own side.

Usually we are not concerned with raw return but with risk-adjusted return (with debate on how to measure this).

From the point of view of, say, a German investor buying stock priced in euros, there is some amount of uncertainty in the price of the stock in euros. You can measure this uncertainty how you like, but it represents a risk. Risk in itself is bad. For the same return, we would rather have less risk.

From the point of view of a US investor paying dollars for the stock, there are two layers of uncertainty. They don't know what the stock will be in euros, and on top of that they don't know how many dollars they will need to pay for a euro. So, however you measure it, the uncertainty or risk of the German stock is not the same for the German and US investor. Because of the "law of one price," long-term we expect the effect of currency fluctuations to average out, so long-term they will experience the same return. But the US investor will experience more uncertainty or risk than the German investor.

The German stock is riskier for the US investor than it is for the German investor.

This has nothing to do with the relative coolness of the two countries, because it is exactly the same the other way around. A US stock, the same stock, is riskier for the German investor than for the US investor.

The idea that ex-US stocks are riskier than US stocks for a US investor is almost a truism, and you will find it state explicitly in the prospectus of... well, any fund I've ever actually looked at. Vanguard also illustrates this by putting VTSAX, Total [US] stock, into risk category 4, but VTIAX, Total International Stock, into risk category 5.

The difference in risk isn't huge. If someone wants to claim it's negligible, I'll listen. But I can't accept any claim that it just isn't there.

There's a theorem that says that under a pack of assumptions the market portfolio, or the cap-weighted replica of the market portfolio, has the highest return-for-risk of any other portfolio made from the same stocks. However, one of the assumptions of that theorem is frictionless trading within a single market. There isn't any single "global stock market," there are eighteen with market caps over $1 trillion, and because of currency fluctuations, trading across them isn't frictionless.

So the statement that cap-weighting should be the default isn't true, and there is a justification other than flag-waving why investors rationally should give preference to stocks denominated in their home currency.

I don't know if Vanguard's choice of making 40% of stocks international is the result of careful research, or just spitballing in a meeting room. It went from 20% to 30% to 40%. But I suspect that "40% rather than cap-weighted" is defensible. It's interesting that so far Vanguard hasn't replaced separate holdings of Total [US] Stock and Total International with a single holding of Total World. It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually did, and it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
OldSport
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by OldSport »

nisiprius wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:40 am
z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:48 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm It is proportional to world market capitalization. More than that or less than that would be a tilted equity portfolio. Therefore, I feel it is totally appropriate.
Correct, market weighting is the default. Anything else you have to explain through special knowledge of the future performance of stocks, which no one has.
I'm sorry, but this ignores the effect of currency fluctuations. Like everything else about US/international this is hotly debated. I will only argue my own side.

Usually we are not concerned with raw return but with risk-adjusted return (with debate on how to measure this).

From the point of view of, say, a German investor buying stock priced in euros, there is some amount of uncertainty in the price of the stock in euros. You can measure this uncertainty how you like, but it represents a risk. Risk in itself is bad. For the same return, we would rather have less risk.

From the point of view of a US investor paying dollars for the stock, there are two layers of uncertainty. They don't know what the stock will be in euros, and on top of that they don't know how many dollars they will need to pay for a euro. So, however you measure it, the uncertainty or risk of the German stock is not the same for the German and US investor. Because of the "law of one price," long-term we expect the effect of currency fluctuations to average out, so long-term they will experience the same return. But the US investor will experience more uncertainty or risk than the German investor.

The German stock is riskier for the US investor than it is for the German investor.

This has nothing to do with the relative coolness of the two countries, because it is exactly the same the other way around. A US stock, the same stock, is riskier for the German investor than for the US investor.

The idea that ex-US stocks are riskier than US stocks for a US investor is almost a truism, and you will find it state explicitly in the prospectus of... well, any fund I've ever actually looked at. Vanguard also illustrates this by putting VTSAX, Total [US] stock, into risk category 4, but VTIAX, Total International Stock, into risk category 5.

The difference in risk isn't huge. If someone wants to claim it's negligible, I'll listen. But I can't accept any claim that it just isn't there.

There's a theorem that says that under a pack of assumptions the market portfolio, or the cap-weighted replica of the market portfolio, has the highest return-for-risk of any other portfolio made from the same stocks. However, one of the assumptions of that theorem is frictionless trading within a single market. There isn't any single "global stock market," there are eighteen with market caps over $1 trillion, and because of currency fluctuations, trading across them isn't frictionless.

So the statement that cap-weighting should be the default isn't true, and there is a justification other than flag-waving why investors rationally should give preference to stocks denominated in their home currency.

I don't know if Vanguard's choice of making 40% of stocks international is the result of careful research, or just spitballing in a meeting room. It went from 20% to 30% to 40%. But I suspect that "40% rather than cap-weighted" is defensible. It's interesting that so far Vanguard hasn't replaced separate holdings of Total [US] Stock and Total International with a single holding of Total World. It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually did, and it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.

Vanguard has a Total World Stock fund that is cap weighted. If you want to keep a simple portfolio but tilt it more to US and less bonds, you can simply add VTSAX or VTI to the Target Date Fund to get the mix you want or just manage your own Boglehead 3 fund portfolio.
NiceUnparticularMan
Posts: 6103
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:51 am

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by NiceUnparticularMan »

nisiprius wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:40 am
z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:48 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm It is proportional to world market capitalization. More than that or less than that would be a tilted equity portfolio. Therefore, I feel it is totally appropriate.
Correct, market weighting is the default. Anything else you have to explain through special knowledge of the future performance of stocks, which no one has.
I'm sorry, but this ignores the effect of currency fluctuations. Like everything else about US/international this is hotly debated. I will only argue my own side.

Usually we are not concerned with raw return but with risk-adjusted return (with debate on how to measure this).

From the point of view of, say, a German investor buying stock priced in euros, there is some amount of uncertainty in the price of the stock in euros. You can measure this uncertainty how you like, but it represents a risk. Risk in itself is bad. For the same return, we would rather have less risk.

From the point of view of a US investor paying dollars for the stock, there are two layers of uncertainty. They don't know what the stock will be in euros, and on top of that they don't know how many dollars they will need to pay for a euro. So, however you measure it, the uncertainty or risk of the German stock is not the same for the German and US investor. Because of the "law of one price," long-term we expect the effect of currency fluctuations to average out, so long-term they will experience the same return. But the US investor will experience more uncertainty or risk than the German investor.

The German stock is riskier for the US investor than it is for the German investor.

This has nothing to do with the relative coolness of the two countries, because it is exactly the same the other way around. A US stock, the same stock, is riskier for the German investor than for the US investor.

The idea that ex-US stocks are riskier than US stocks for a US investor is almost a truism, and you will find it state explicitly in the prospectus of... well, any fund I've ever actually looked at. Vanguard also illustrates this by putting VTSAX, Total [US] stock, into risk category 4, but VTIAX, Total International Stock, into risk category 5.

The difference in risk isn't huge. If someone wants to claim it's negligible, I'll listen. But I can't accept any claim that it just isn't there.

There's a theorem that says that under a pack of assumptions the market portfolio, or the cap-weighted replica of the market portfolio, has the highest return-for-risk of any other portfolio made from the same stocks. However, one of the assumptions of that theorem is frictionless trading within a single market. There isn't any single "global stock market," there are eighteen with market caps over $1 trillion, and because of currency fluctuations, trading across them isn't frictionless.

So the statement that cap-weighting should be the default isn't true, and there is a justification other than flag-waving why investors rationally should give preference to stocks denominated in their home currency.

I don't know if Vanguard's choice of making 40% of stocks international is the result of careful research, or just spitballing in a meeting room. It went from 20% to 30% to 40%. But I suspect that "40% rather than cap-weighted" is defensible. It's interesting that so far Vanguard hasn't replaced separate holdings of Total [US] Stock and Total International with a single holding of Total World. It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually did, and it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.
Yeah, all this is why I personally set our portfolio at 60 US/40 ex-US, back at a time when that was mildly overweighting US. Vanguard had a framework, which I still basically believe in, which suggested what you are basically doing is trading off idiosyncratic country risk versus currency risk, both of which are usually assumed to be uncompensated forms of risk. And as a general proposition, SOME amount of home-currency-zone bias made sense (not just for US investors, but other investors as well). But typically only a modest amount as too much would up your idiosyncratic country risk more than it was reducing your currency risk.

I do think assets not in your home currency operate as a hedge against some forms of unexpected inflation in your home currency, which is a different topic entirely. Still, even if you think that is a plausible idea, you don't necessarily need to do it with stocks, or more precisely if you already have a decent allocation to stocks outside your home currency zone, you might think you have already done enough that way.

But anyway, yeah, a mild home country bias by US investors due to currency risk issues is not unreasonable. At least I hope not.

Now theoretically, I should really be upping my US percentage because I have pretty much lost my original home country bias. But, meh, too lazy for that.
z3r0c00l
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by z3r0c00l »

nisiprius wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:40 am
z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:48 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm It is proportional to world market capitalization. More than that or less than that would be a tilted equity portfolio. Therefore, I feel it is totally appropriate.
Correct, market weighting is the default. Anything else you have to explain through special knowledge of the future performance of stocks, which no one has.
I'm sorry, but this ignores the effect of currency fluctuations. Like everything else about US/international this is hotly debated. I will only argue my own side.

From the point of view of, say, a German investor buying stock priced in euros, there is some amount of uncertainty in the price of the stock in euros. You can measure this uncertainty how you like, but it represents a risk. Risk in itself is bad. For the same return, we would rather have less risk.

From the point of view of a US investor paying dollars for the stock, there are two layers of uncertainty. They don't know what the stock will be in euros, and on top of that they don't know how many dollars they will need to pay for a euro.
I specifically include currency in my diversification goals, holding international stocks helps protect me in the event of a weakening dollar. What you call risk is just another dimension of diversification for me. The dollar has been weakening lately and my international stock fund has done quite well as a result. Full disclosure, I plan to spend a non-zero amount of money in other countries during the rest of my life but that isn't the primary reason for my cosmopolitan investing. By spreading my investments out across currencies, I am neutral on which will do better and worse. Weakening dollar and inflation? Well I have I-bonds and international stocks. Strong dollar? Well I am buying international stocks 2x per month at a discount and will save money on vacations.

I have seen thoughts about why one should concentrate on one country, one sector, one stock... But none of them strike me as more compelling than the simple concept of owning the entire market and letting the market sort out how much each stock is worth. If you can't tell me which country will have the best stock returns this year or this decade, then I have no possible way to decide how much of each market to hold except what trillions of "smart" dollars, or euros or pounds, have decided during the trading day. This is literally one of the underlying concepts of this forum, not that I would argue that means it is true from popularity alone, but it is so peculiar when people think indexing should suddenly stop at the US border.
70% Global Stocks / 30% Bonds
Topic Author
LISD
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:52 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by LISD »

OP here,

“It is proportional to Market Capitalization”

This makes sense. But when I looked at Wikipedia, the US actually represents 41% of the total world market capitalization. So, 59% Foreign, 41% US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... talization

So, if Vanguard were going by that data, the target date funds would be 59% invested in foreign instead of 41%. Maybe, like “Silence Dogood”, Vanguard is home biased? The entire industry is home biased?

Then, I thought I’d look at what countries VTTVX actually invests in. Morningstar has that information easily available. They actually invest only in 51 countries (out of 100), and it’s not strictly by market capitalization (fortunately). For example, Saudia Arabia (#8) and Russia (#21) aren’t on the list. I will have to find other ways to invest in Saudi Arabia and Russia, and Venezuela!

Does anyone want to invest in Bermuda? Their market cap is only $220 Million. Their share of the world pie is .0002%.

But if I look at only the top 7, the US has 56% of that, meaning 44% foreign. So, BINGO, close enough. It IS capitalization weighted but they filter out countries they don’t want to invest in (a lot of which are very small markets anyway. And a lot of these small markets have a high level of corruption probably - and are also difficult to invest in I would think).

History of Vanguard Target Retirement Funds

Thanks for that link ”Silence Dogood” – very interesting data. I plotted the % US stock, and % foreign stock for Vgd Target Date Funds vs time. The results were very surprising. Crazy changes up to 2012. The total amount of stock in this fund increased from 35% to 53% in 5 years (with a target date always 2 years in the future). In that same time, the %Foreign increased from 0 to 22% where it is now (from 0, to 11, to 16, to 22).

I'd put that plot in this post, but I can't figure out how people do that. Crud.

I wonder how Vanguard would rationalize this: Foreign investing became more practical and efficient, so they decided to increase the weighting by using the Market Capitalization philosophy? Or maybe they would just say they just got smarter?
Doctor Rhythm
Posts: 3034
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:55 am

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by Doctor Rhythm »

Vanguard’s target date funds are probably not the right choice for you. Alternatively, you can hold a US stock fund in conjunction with a TDF (yes, it breaks with the goal of a hands-off, all-in-one fund). I do that in my workplace accounts, where I use a global stock allocated TDF as an anchor and then hold other funds to achieve my desired (somewhat US-tilted) allocation.

I also don’t think a Wikipedia article covers the topic in adequate depth to draw sound conclusions about whether a fund’s global allocation is correct.
MnD
Posts: 5184
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:41 am

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by MnD »

LISD wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:09 pm OP here,

“It is proportional to Market Capitalization”

This makes sense. But when I looked at Wikipedia, the US actually represents 41% of the total world market capitalization. So, 59% Foreign, 41% US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... talization

So, if Vanguard were going by that data, the target date funds would be 59% invested in foreign instead of 41%. Maybe, like “Silence Dogood”, Vanguard is home biased? The entire industry is home biased?
That is incorrect. Recently the major all-country all cap indices are 59% US and 41% ex-US.
Here's a link to the by-country breakdown for the FTSE Global all-cap index.
Page 3 gives the country breakdowns and US is 58.98% as of Dec 31, 2022.
http://www.ftse.com/Analytics/FactSheet ... me=GEISLMS

Market cap is also more efficient for indexing. If US outperforms or vice-versa, the portfolio weighting shifts automatically due to pricing changes and the managers are not having to buy and sell to force the fund to adhere to a fixed percentage between US and ex-US.
70/30 AA for life, Global market cap equity. Rebalance if fixed income <25% or >35%. Weighted ER< .10%. 5% of annual portfolio balance SWR, Proportional (to AA) withdrawals.
tivattom
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:51 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by tivattom »

Imo Vanguard has gone off the rails with this and has been wrong for a long time. I sold all of my Target Retirement funds when they first started moving so heavily into international stocks. I have been right for a long time. Wonder if it will continue?
Silk McCue
Posts: 8912
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:11 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by Silk McCue »

tivattom wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:12 pm Imo Vanguard has gone off the rails with this and has been wrong for a long time. I sold all of my Target Retirement funds when they first started moving so heavily into international stocks. I have been right for a long time. Wonder if it will continue?
Of course they will continue. They haven’t gone off the rails and they aren’t some sort of outlier in the industry on this or with the way that individual investors setup their asset allocations with a handful of mutual funds or etfs.

Do as you wish but be careful about drinking your own Kool-Aid.

Cheers
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15014
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

if it makes you feel any better the number could go down. Or up. It changes over time and the beauty is nothing has to be done about it (not even rebalancing!).

Image

source: https://ritholtz.com/2018/02/global-assets-1900-2017/
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15014
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

LISD wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:31 pm Although Foreign adds diversification, it seems like it always follows US very closely, and usually doesn't do as well (the last few months being one exception). Is there a tool where I can look at the results of back-testing different %foreign allocations?

Thank You
what will backtesting tell you? You want to know what the future returns will be, not the past returns. Yes, I know you're using it as a guide, but past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I also think it depends on the time frame you look at. Some will show returns over the past 30 years and US did much better than international but if you go back further (I think nisiprius has shown a copy of a page from a book) that the returns for US vs international was very close, something like 9.6% US vs 9.5% international (CAGR).

thing is, the returns come at different times. And some of the benefits of this diversification comes from reblancing (just as it does for small cap value), in the sense that you get to buy that which has gone down/is cheaper and sell that which has gone up/is more expensive. You then are buying the country(ies) that haven't done well and selling those that have. With an all in one fund you don't have to worry about it because it's done automatically.

last year is a good example total international only lost -16.10% whereas US lost -19.51%. VT went down -18.01% (source: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion3_3=100)

2017 was the same. total international only made 27.45% whereas US made 21.21%. VT went made 24.49% (source: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion3_3=100)

Sure it can go the other way too. Look at 2013 (US made twice what total international did; 33% vs 15% roughly (source: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion3_3=100). But still. These cycles can take time to play out. You have to be patient as an investor:

Image

source: https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-man ... e-markets/
Last edited by arcticpineapplecorp. on Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15014
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Vgt Target 2025: 44% of Stk = Foreign?

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

LISD wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:31 pm In Bill Bernstien's The Intelligent Asset Allocator (book), his low-mid risk portfolio is 60/40 stock/bond, with 12% of the portfolio foreign stock.
sorry, one last thing. I haven't read the intelligent asset allocator in a long time (great book) but look at what Dr. Bernstein wrote (on page 2) even more recently (2014) in If You Can: How Millennials Can Get Rich Slowly (source: https://www.etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf)

Image

equal amounts. That's 33.3% in each. That means 33% "of the portfolio" (your words) in total international, not 12%.

And half of the equity (50%) in international. Not 41% like in total world stock index fund or a target date fund.

Sounds like the total global stock index fund (or target date fund) is even more conservative than Dr. Bernstein's recommendations and I don't see any problem with it. Especially because I don't know anything the global stock market hasn't already figured out.

(source: https://www.etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf)
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
Post Reply