Justin said:
But I rarely see the pundits (the good ones and the bad ones) recommending a 50% international allocation.
Pundits, I dunno, but Less Antman claimed a while back that a 50/50 portfolio of US/international equities had never been down for more than 5 years in a row (he later had to stretch that to maybe 5.5 years). He claimed that he would retire on a 50/50 portfolio of US/International equities [stocks, for him, but promoted the idea to us mutual fund types, too.
http://www.simplyrich.com/board.htm
Paul Merriman also suggests a 50/50 US/int'l equities portfolio. I think he shows here how it would have [past tense
] helped:
http://www.fundadvice.com/articles/retirement/fine-tuning-your-asset-allocation.html
I am roughly 50/50 (international value, emerging markets and a play on China--see below) and it has been very good to me.
I share cool dood's bias against European companies for the same reasons.
Japan has been down so long it looks up to me, but it has been on the upswing for a while (I missed the turn). I am using Matthews Asian Growth and Income to make money on China's growth. [Wouldn't buy a Chinese company, though.] Total portfolio (if I have done my sums right): up 12%/annum over last 5 years, 26% for last 3 years, 30% for last 12 months and 11+% since Jan. Past 5 years, it would take a little work to calculate as the portfolio was fragmented with different providers. Almost all with Vanguard since (including their brokerage for Matthews).
I think I will continue with this breakdown for a while yet.
I am not a total market(s) fan. There are a lot of markets and some make better sense than others. I read Jim Rogers' 'round the world trip reports and make notes.
Ed
Revs 1&2: Fixing fat fingers' foul-ups.
Rev 3: misc updates.