...and you'll figure out why I reduced US exposure and diversified more broadly.

My stock/bond mix is still 60/40.

Adrian
anenu@tampabay.rr.com

Originally posted in thread: 60328

Using the FundX newsletter rankings, one can see that international markets -- including merging markets, Europe, China, Australia, Malaysia, Latin America, etc., etc., have had a very, very long multi-year run.

I don't know if U.S. stocks are fairly priced, but I do know that U.S. Growth funds are starting to show up in the FundX rankings as of the last few months. This week, the FundX monthly upgrader portfolio actually sold an international fund, and replaced it with a U.S. Growth fund.

I think the time to sell international and buy US Growth funds may soon be upon us...

Petrocelli

Originally posted in thread: 60328

Another infomercial for a market timing newsletter. Dump International and buy US Growth. Listen to a bunch of guys who run a newsletter because they aren't any good at running real money.

All stock markets are fairly priced because all available information has been priced in. Unless you have information that the markets don't know, overweigh one country or asset class at your own risk - it's all a guess. Be prepared to deal the consequences if your guess is wrong.

Adrian
anenu@tampabay.rr.com

Originally posted in thread: 60328

I think you're a bit off on your Japan argument. You are saying that you should have a greater foreign equity allocation because their share of the total equity market is increasing relative to the U.S. Had you used that argument in the late 80's, you would have convinced yourself to add more into an extremely overvalued Japanese market just because it represented a bigger share of the global market.

What you call improved diversification sounds a lot like performance chasing (it's always rationalized, of course, even by Diehards). The global equity share of the U.S. relative to the world is completely irrelevant to what your allocation should be.

See Conv #60216 on why the "look at Japan in the 90's" diversification story is a red herring that is not necessary if you are a value investor.

Originally posted in thread: 60328

Hi Matt,

EM and International are growing faster economically speaking than the US - that's the reason to allocate 50/50, not due to performance chasing bubble like Japan or NASDAQ. Let's not forget that during the '90s, economic growth outside the US was tepid, but practically everyone was recommending only a sliver in International if anything. I'd say that they were performance chasing and the 1996-2000 US Large Growth bubble proved it. Both the Japan and US Large Growth bubbles were easy to spot because they had astronomical P/E's. I don't think that is the case with overseas stock markets today - check valuations for yourself.

Adrian
anenu@tampabay.rr.com

Originally posted in thread: 60328

High economic growth has not historically resulted in stronger equity returns (see research/commentary by Dimson, Staunton, & Marsh; Jeremy Siegel, Bill Bernstein). Are you saying it's different this time?

Originally posted in thread: 60328

"Both the Japan and US Large Growth bubbles were easy to spot because they had astronomical P/E's. I don't think that is the case with overseas stock markets today - check valuations for yourself."

The reason the astronomical PEs occurred was because the market cap kept increasing. When foreign gets to 70%, you will be 70% foreign and sitting on high PEs and the bubble you seem to think is so easy to spot.

What will you do then? Market time your way back to US and call it rebalancing?

I thought you were an advocate for changing AA, including the equity portion of your AA, only when major life changes dictate it?

So now it is alright for all of us to jump into higher levels of value stocks because their market cap has increased over the last 7 years?

I think you are being both a little inconsistent and using a lot of rationalization to try to pump up your returns.

best,

Bill

Originally posted in thread: 60328

just kidding :). But seriously, if the US dollar took a very steep decline, that is when I'd consider reducing my international allocation. Perhaps if it went well below the 90 level as seen on this fed chart, link . The 90 level is a minimum that goes back to 1970.

Les

Originally posted in thread: 60328

...45/55 to 50/50 US/International for a number of years. In the M* forums, I've been a heavy advocate of international investing for numerous years so it's not a recent phenomenon for me. Also, John Templeton has been an advocate for international stocks for the longest of time and even more so the past several years due to the more attractive valuations.

Global Fund managers I'm familar with from American Funds Capital World Growth & Income to Vanguard Global Equity are UNDERWEIGHT the US and have been for several years because the international market offers b