![[original_title]](https://rawnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/1726390001_40_International-Non-US-versus-US-Equities-The-Arguments-Page-140.png)
Talk about all normal (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and points, investing information, and concept.
-
Matter Creator
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:34 am
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
coastFIREdude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 1:09 pmCraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:59 pmcoastFIREdude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:49 pmCraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:34 pmBeensabu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:21 pmIt is doing that preliminary break up after which permitting drift in order that the allocation modifications over time in line with altering market capitalization with out you doing something.
The comparative change in value relies on that. Rebalancing (resetting again to authentic allocation when drift happens) relies on sustaining a constant danger profile over time.
Valuation modifications will ultimately result in rebalancing, as a result of danger issues.
Rebalancing is a type of neat ideas that has numerous different ideas baked into it, and also you needn’t know, perceive, or agree with them to be able to get the profit.
What are your ideas on updating the OP’s 20% Int’l class….
It presently says, “Valuations aren’t actionable”…. But this group makes use of modifications in valuations to take care of their static 20-80 break up….
This “inconsistency” could also be resulting in confusion, like above….
Right. When you do not imagine valuations are actionable, I do not know how one can preserve a goal allocation.
Sure, altering valuations is the market’s device for adjusting to altering danger.
So if somebody constantly rebalances again to some arbitrary static ratio like 20-80, they’re truly undoing the market’s adjustment to danger….
They’re “preventing the market” (shopping for and promoting based mostly on altering valuations)….
So it is very complicated for them to state that “Valuations aren’t actionable”
Once more, perhaps I am dumb, however do not valuations decide the composition of indexes within the first place? Aren’t indexes merely composites based mostly on relative valuations of various shares and bonds?
Columbo wasn’t dumb both….
So do you’ve gotten a proposal to replace the language within the OP…
As a rule, to be able to cut back my biases from affecting the record within the OP, I prefer to have another person suggest the language….After which let different’s weigh in earlier than doing an replace….
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:33 am
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
CraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 1:15 pmcoastFIREdude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 1:09 pmCraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:59 pmcoastFIREdude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:49 pmCraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:34 pmWhat are your ideas on updating the OP’s 20% Int’l class….
It presently says, “Valuations aren’t actionable”…. But this group makes use of modifications in valuations to take care of their static 20-80 break up….
This “inconsistency” could also be resulting in confusion, like above….
Right. When you do not imagine valuations are actionable, I do not know how one can preserve a goal allocation.
Sure, altering valuations is the market’s device for adjusting to altering danger.
So if somebody constantly rebalances again to some arbitrary static ratio like 20-80, they’re truly undoing the market’s adjustment to danger….
They’re “preventing the market” (shopping for and promoting based mostly on altering valuations)….
So it is very complicated for them to state that “Valuations aren’t actionable”
Once more, perhaps I am dumb, however do not valuations decide the composition of indexes within the first place? Aren’t indexes merely composites based mostly on relative valuations of various shares and bonds?
Columbo wasn’t dumb both….
So do you’ve gotten a proposal to replace the language within the OP…
As a rule, to be able to cut back my biases from affecting the record within the OP, I prefer to have another person suggest the language….After which let different’s weigh in earlier than doing an replace….
I suppose you must market weight your allocation based mostly on the present market weighting of world equities. If the US is 30% of world market cap, it ought to get 30% of your fairness investments. The identical guidelines can doubtless apply to bonds.
I am new to investing, that is simply my restricted understanding.
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
coastFIREdude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:48 pm
I can not even inform if you’re for or towards rebalancing.
Do I’ve to be for or towards?
When you do not rebalance, you might be letting the winners run and your portfolio turns into riskier than initially meant. Good whereas the winners are profitable.
When you do rebalance, you might be sustaining the chance stage initially meant and taking income. Good when the winners cease profitable.
That is simply how it’s. You resolve what you need, and you reside together with your determination.
“The one factor that makes life doable is everlasting, insupportable uncertainty; not figuring out what comes subsequent.” ~Ursula LeGuin
-
Matter Creator
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:34 am
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
Beensabu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:38 pmcoastFIREdude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:48 pm
I can not even inform if you’re for or towards rebalancing.Do I’ve to be for or towards?
When you do not rebalance, you might be letting the winners run and your portfolio turns into riskier than initially meant. Good whereas the winners are profitable.
When you do rebalance, you might be sustaining the chance stage initially meant and taking income. Good when the winners cease profitable.
That is simply how it’s. You resolve what you need, and you reside together with your determination.
You might be highlighting an necessary determination level
Ought to we simply let the market accommodate for altering danger with its altering valuation ranges…, after which float together with it…
Or ought to we over-ride the market by rebalancing (based mostly on altering valuations) again to an arbitrary ratio like 20-80….?
Importantly, this motion means we’re stepping in and disagreeing with the market.
So if we select to override the market, we have to delete the Argument within the OP for 20% Int’l that “valuations aren’t actionable”….
Let’s resolve how greatest to proceed….and replace the OP to replicate our determination….
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
coastFIREdude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 1:09 pmCraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:59 pmcoastFIREdude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:49 pmCraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:34 pmBeensabu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:21 pmIt is doing that preliminary break up after which permitting drift in order that the allocation modifications over time in line with altering market capitalization with out you doing something.
The comparative change in value relies on that. Rebalancing (resetting again to authentic allocation when drift happens) relies on sustaining a constant danger profile over time.
Valuation modifications will ultimately result in rebalancing, as a result of danger issues.
Rebalancing is a type of neat ideas that has numerous different ideas baked into it, and also you needn’t know, perceive, or agree with them to be able to get the profit.
What are your ideas on updating the OP’s 20% Int’l class….
It presently says, “Valuations aren’t actionable”…. But this group makes use of modifications in valuations to take care of their static 20-80 break up….
This “inconsistency” could also be resulting in confusion, like above….
Right. When you do not imagine valuations are actionable, I do not know how one can preserve a goal allocation.
Sure, altering valuations is the market’s device for adjusting to altering danger.
So if somebody constantly rebalances again to some arbitrary static ratio like 20-80, they’re truly undoing the market’s adjustment to danger….
They’re “preventing the market” (shopping for and promoting based mostly on altering valuations)….
So it is very complicated for them to state that “Valuations aren’t actionable”
Once more, perhaps I am dumb, however do not valuations decide the composition of indexes within the first place? Aren’t indexes merely composites based mostly on relative valuations of various shares and bonds?
No.
You could possibly hypothetically may have the very same relative market cap weightings between shares at a median PE of 15 as at a PE of 30.
Instance:
If all inventory costs fall by precisely 50%, the relative market cap weightings within the index will keep the identical, even when the PE will get minimize in half.
World shares, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital belongings at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
CraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 6:40 pmBeensabu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:38 pm
When you do not rebalance, you might be letting the winners run and your portfolio turns into riskier than initially meant. Good whereas the winners are profitable.When you do rebalance, you might be sustaining the chance stage initially meant and taking income. Good when the winners cease profitable.
That is simply how it’s. You resolve what you need, and you reside together with your determination.
You might be highlighting an necessary determination level
Ought to we simply let the market accommodate for altering danger with its altering valuation ranges…, after which float together with it…
Or ought to we over-ride the market by rebalancing (based mostly on altering valuations) again to an arbitrary ratio like 20-80….?
It is not an arbitrary ratio, identical to a inventory:bond AA is not an arbitrary ratio if it would not match the ratio of world inventory market capitalization to international bond market capitalization.
That is the chance profile that some folks have chosen for numerous causes that they’ve said beforehand on this thread.
Importantly, this motion means we’re stepping in and disagreeing with the market.
The market shouldn’t be some sort of all-knowing and omnipotent entity. It is simply the market.
CraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 6:40 pm
Let’s resolve how greatest to proceed….and replace the OP to replicate our determination….
As a substitute of specializing in valuations, perhaps make an try to concentrate on danger.
“The one factor that makes life doable is everlasting, insupportable uncertainty; not figuring out what comes subsequent.” ~Ursula LeGuin
-
Matter Creator
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:34 am
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
Beensabu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 7:43 pmCraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 6:40 pmBeensabu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 5:38 pm
When you do not rebalance, you might be letting the winners run and your portfolio turns into riskier than initially meant. Good whereas the winners are profitable.When you do rebalance, you might be sustaining the chance stage initially meant and taking income. Good when the winners cease profitable.
That is simply how it’s. You resolve what you need, and you reside together with your determination.
You might be highlighting an necessary determination level
Ought to we simply let the market accommodate for altering danger with its altering valuation ranges…, after which float together with it…
Or ought to we over-ride the market by rebalancing (based mostly on altering valuations) again to an arbitrary ratio like 20-80….?
It is not an arbitrary ratio, identical to a inventory:bond AA is not an arbitrary ratio if it would not match the ratio of world inventory market capitalization to international bond market capitalization.
That is the chance profile that some folks have chosen for numerous causes that they’ve said beforehand on this thread.
Importantly, this motion means we’re stepping in and disagreeing with the market.
The market shouldn’t be some sort of all-knowing and omnipotent entity. It is simply the market.
CraigTester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 6:40 pm
Let’s resolve how greatest to proceed….and replace the OP to replicate our determination….As a substitute of specializing in valuations, perhaps make an try to concentrate on danger.
Valuations and danger are intertwined.
When the market determines that danger has elevated or decreased, valuations regulate to compensate.
So if an investor reacts to those altering valuations by shopping for and promoting, he’s merely undoing every part the market simply did.
Why would an investor take such a step until they imagine that modifications in valuations are actionable, and the market is fallacious?
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
The danger is that valuations are usually not right.
When the market determines that danger has elevated or decreased, valuations regulate to compensate.
Valuation modifications not related to fundamentals are speculative.
So if an investor reacts to those altering valuations by shopping for and promoting, he’s merely undoing every part the market simply did.
The investor is managing the chance of some portion of fixing valuations being pushed by hypothesis.
Why would an investor take such a step until they imagine that modifications in valuations are actionable, and the market is fallacious?
Once more, the market shouldn’t be omniscient. It is simply folks (or algos) deciding what value they need to pay for numerous securities, with both their very own or another person’s cash.
Edit: It is nearly such as you’re coming at this as market cap weighting vs. strategic asset allocation. These aren’t mutually unique. The three-fund portfolio is strategic asset allocation that makes use of market cap weighted index funds…
“The one factor that makes life doable is everlasting, insupportable uncertainty; not figuring out what comes subsequent.” ~Ursula LeGuin
-
Matter Creator
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:34 am
Re: International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The “Arguments”)
Beensabu wrote: ↑Solar Sep 15, 2024 1:41 amThe danger is that valuations are usually not right.
When the market determines that danger has elevated or decreased, valuations regulate to compensate.
Valuation modifications not related to fundamentals are speculative.
So if an investor reacts to those altering valuations by shopping for and promoting, he’s merely undoing every part the market simply did.
The investor is managing the chance of some portion of fixing valuations being pushed by hypothesis.
Why would an investor take such a step until they imagine that modifications in valuations are actionable, and the market is fallacious?
Once more, the market shouldn’t be omniscient. It is simply folks (or algos) deciding what value they need to pay for numerous securities, with both their very own or another person’s cash.
Edit: It is nearly such as you’re coming at this as market cap weighting vs. strategic asset allocation. These aren’t mutually unique. The three-fund portfolio is strategic asset allocation that makes use of market cap weighted index funds…
If “valuations are actionable”, every part you retain repeating logically holds.
The disconnect comes when somebody is saying “valuations are NOT actionable”, but takes motion when valuations change.
You can’t maintain a set ratio like 80-20 US-Int’l, until you constantly take the motion of promoting the winner, and shopping for the loser, as valuations change.
Suppose it via, our OP must be corrected to accommodate for this logic inconsistency for 20% Int’l
