It’s an interesting question. The Denmark index is only 25 stocks, concentrated a couple of sectors (health care and industrial shipping). I don’t really know, but my guess is that performance contributors here are a) globalization of trade and the massive increase in global health care expenditures would have been tailwinds to the index and b) massive global companies in a smaller economy tend to benefit from monopoly dynamics.
I do agree that it’s pretty funny when a SOCIALIST Scandi country obliterates the US on any metric, sending Americans into the fetal position.
I’m 61 and semi-retired. I’ll probably start collecting SSD in 1-2 years and work up to the 20K max allowed. Ninety percent of my “short term” is cash from the sale of my condo two years ago and currently earning 5+% in a Vanguard money market.
Have you considered there’s just something special and exceptional about Denmark’s business climate and its people that the market can never fully appreciate and thus we should expect Denmark to perpetually outperform the rest of the world?
This but unironically? (As long as you’re talking about broadly diversified portfolios)
I mean, I think the sarcastic comment could be equally used to argue against investing in unprofitable small cap stocks: No need to do due diligence to protect yourself against fraudbankruptcy everybody, it’s all priced in!
and I’d agree even more strongly.
I don’t want to act like I have strong convictions that international will outperform the US over the next decade (although that is what I would bet if I had to take a side). But I think the (very strong) default position is that, for sufficiently liquid securities that can be publicly traded without restriction, probably everything that I can identify is priced in. So there’s very little reason for me to over- or under-weight various sectors/countries based on my limited knowledge.***
***This does not apply to Berkshire Hathaway, DoorDash, or Chipotle, where my beliefs are clearly more accurate than those of the market.
I also don’t want anyone to mistake my posts as a strong conviction about future actual returns of US and ex-US. I am just pointing out that if you are an investor that subscribes to the constellation of the accepted academic investing theory (MPT, EMH, etc), then these arguments for 100% US are terrible.
Hey man, good post. I was gonna address all your points individually, but it was getting too long and even I was getting bored with it.
With respect I think you and I have vastly different interpretations of the piece. It seems to me like a bit of a Warren Buffett puff piece written by a fanboy and (admitted, to his credit) BRK investor. But on reread, he isn’t actually making any arguments at all. He’s trying to explain why, in his view, “Mr. Buffett” blessed us with this simplistic portfolio that will lead to GAINZ like nothing we’ve ever seen before, folks. The points you hit him on in your post are essentially speculation when taken together, scroll back just a bit and you’ll see it:
One glaring absence from the portfolio is an international stock fund. In fact, the lack of direct international exposure is what distinguishes Warren Buffet’s portfolio from the Bogleheads’ 3-Fund Portfolio. Buffett doesn’t explain this aspect of the portfolio, but there are at least three plausible explanations.
I mean he’s just citing statistics here, particularly the third “point” where he checks the performance of Buffet vs. Boglehead. This is actually the first time it the piece that it’s even brought up…there’s nothing to circle back to. I’m not seeing that he’s run afoul of any rules of rhetoric? But he raises good points imo, and he’s not the only guy I’ve been told that by (not with receipts necessarily, but it’s out there).
I guess if anyone is making a “dumb argument,” it’s maybe me? Basically all I’ve got is “scoreboard.” With the usual caveats of course. And I realize that if you are in fact a boglehead, nothing I can say will change your mind based on my experience with other 'heads, so I ain’t even trying. Always do you
I think the main reason that Buffett suggests “an S&P 500 fund” is… simplicity. Both in that it’s simpler to just suggest one thing, and also that cheap, diversified international investing only got really easy in the past 15 years or so. Buffett has been giving this S&P 500 advice for longer.
But there is also an “American exceptionalism” dimension as well. He’s been doing his “never bet against 'murica” thing for a long time too.
Anyone have any thoughts on a theoretical maximum for how high NVDA can go? It’s already the yuugest company. It can’t go much higher, can it? My desire to avoid a massive tax hit has just kept me holding nearly all of it since my initial acquisition. I basically bought it on a whim before I realized investing in individual stonks was not the best strategy (ironically, buying NVDA kind of proved me wrong).
My main problem is that I have no idea when to sell. Every time I think about doing it, I just get bogged down in my donk-level analysis and put it off. And then it stonks even higher up. I did donate some this year and will continue to do that for the foreseeable future, but there is still a lot left.
I’m pretty sure the only way this ends I that I hold, it ultimately tanks, and I sell way off peak. There is an outside shot I just sell too early and it stonks even further out of control. Either way I will have a bit of a sad. I realize this is the most ridiculous of first world problems, but I figure someone here must own some NVDA and has better thoughts than I do about a strategy on when to sell. So, what are your plans, fellow NVDA owners?
Probably depends on whether it’s significant to you $/%-wise but I personally would not feel bad about selling a multi-bagger any time. Lock in a win and put it in an index fund or something
blessed us with this simplistic portfolio that will lead to GAINZ like nothing we’ve ever seen before, folks. The points you hit him on in your post are essentially speculation when taken together, scroll back just a bit and you’ll see it:
