Yes, what you're pointing out has always caught me a bit funny too....This seems behaviorally weird to me.
I am by no means completely sold on the 50:50 VOO:VT portfolio and am looking for feedback. I do think it's materially different enough (80% US total market on US side vs 100%, 50% of global market cap on INT side vs 100%) while retaining access to the floating international allocation I like to be worth considering. That is despite the increased behavioral risk of even an extremely simple 50:50 two fund portfolio vs a single fund 100% VT portfolio.
Either one lets the US vs International allocation passively drift according to market weight.
Or one is opinionated about what they want the US vs International split to be (e.g. 80% US vs 20 International) and rebalances to that fixed allocation as needed.
This seems to be neither and I can't tell what the underlying philosophy is trying to be.
In order to maintain a 20-80 Int'l-US ratio for instance, one must engage in market timing based on (relative) valuations....
Yet the Arguments supporting 20% Int'l in the OP state a belief that "Valuations aren't actionable"....
By contrast, consider that Global Market Capper's stated Argument is that "Valuations may or may not matter, so don't tilt"....
But maintaining a Global Market Cap ratio requires no market timing or concern with change in relative valuations... One can just let the positions float and they will automatically stay at Global Market Cap....
Once again IMHO, logic always seems to lead to choosing Global Market Cap.... Unless someone has better information than the rest of the market...
Statistics: Posted by CraigTester — Thu Sep 12, 2024 9:46 pm