Bogle on International Investing

Quick definition: Bogle advocated for international index fund exposure as essential portfolio diversification, though he emphasized that the largest allocation should remain in domestic equities for investors in developed economies like the United States.

John Bogle's relationship with international investing evolved throughout his career. In Vanguard's early decades, the firm's offerings were predominantly domestic. Yet as markets globalized and international indices became available, Bogle came to view geographic diversification as an important portfolio component—though not without important caveats about allocation and implementation.

Bogle's approach to international investing reflected his characteristic pragmatism. He rejected both extremes: the parochial view that investors should own only domestic securities, and the cosmopolitan view that international and domestic allocations should equal each other. Instead, Bogle developed a framework balancing the mathematical case for diversification against practical and behavioral considerations.

The Case for Geographic Diversification

Bogle's intellectual acceptance of international investing rested on the principle of diversification. Different geographic regions experience different economic cycles and face different growth drivers. An investor concentrating entirely on domestic equities accepts geographic risk that can be reduced through international holdings.

The 1980s and 1990s provided compelling examples. During the 1980s, Japan's markets outperformed American markets substantially. The 1990s witnessed the opposite, with American technology stocks delivering extraordinary returns while Japanese markets stagnated following the burst of their bubble. An investor entirely in domestic US stocks missed Japan's 1980s outperformance. An investor entirely in Japanese stocks suffered through the 1990s. A geographically diversified investor captured some of each region's strengths while limiting exposure to each region's weaknesses.

Bogle noted that developed international markets—Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and Canada—offered similar characteristics to US markets: strong rule of law, transparent accounting, and reasonable growth prospects. These markets didn't require speculative emerging-market allocations; they provided defensible diversification within developed economies.

Currency diversification added an additional benefit, though Bogle acknowledged this cut both directions. Foreign currency appreciation strengthened returns for international investors; currency depreciation reduced them. Over sufficiently long periods, currency movements tended to approximate inflation differentials between nations, but volatility around this trend was significant.

Bogle's Allocation Framework

Despite the intellectual case for international exposure, Bogle resisted prescribing heavy international allocations. His framework reflected both academic research and practical considerations.

For an American investor, Bogle suggested that international stocks might constitute 20-40% of the equity allocation, with the remainder in domestic stocks. This reflected several factors. First, the American economy and stock market represented the largest in the world, with substantial exposure to international economics through multinational corporations. A substantial international allocation would be appropriate for investors in smaller developed economies; for American investors, the case was weaker.

Second, home-country bias, while sometimes excessive, reflected valid practical considerations. An American investor had greater familiarity with American companies, better access to financial information about American firms, and could more effectively monitor American investments. While technology had reduced these advantages, they weren't eliminated entirely.

Third, behavioral considerations mattered. An investor deeply uncomfortable with international exposure and currency volatility risked abandoning the investment plan during inevitable periods of international underperformance. Bogle would rather see an investor maintain discipline with a 20% international allocation than abandon a 60% international allocation during periodic underperformance. The allocation an would sustain mattered more than the theoretically optimal allocation.

Implementation Through Index Funds

Bogle championed international exposure implemented through broad index funds rather than individual security selection. An investor selecting specific foreign companies faced the same obstacles as domestic stock pickers: information disadvantages, analytical challenges, and the statistical improbability of consistent outperformance.

International index funds overcame these obstacles by capturing entire markets. A developed international stock index or an emerging market index provided diversification across companies and regions. Bogle noted that implementing international exposure through index funds eliminated the additional complexity and cost that would arise from attempting to pick foreign securities or employ international active managers.

The rise of low-cost international index funds vindicated Bogle's approach. Investors could access developed international markets and emerging markets at expense ratios near 0.10% for both sectors combined. This made geographic diversification accessible even for modest portfolios.

The Emerging Markets Question

Bogle's most consistent caveat concerned emerging markets. While he acknowledged the tremendous growth potential in developing economies, he expressed concerns about accounting standards, corporate governance, political instability, and currency volatility. These factors argued for emerging-market exposure substantially smaller than developed-market exposure.

Bogle suggested that emerging markets might constitute perhaps 10-15% of an international allocation—representing roughly 2-6% of an overall equity allocation. This modest exposure provided some growth potential from developing economies without concentrating risk in securities with greater risks and less transparent information.

The 2000s validated some of Bogle's concerns while vindicating the diversification case. Emerging markets delivered extraordinary returns during the 2000s boom, but China's subsequent slowdown and various political instabilities reminded investors why developed-market caution remained appropriate. Yet investors with diversified emerging-market exposure captured some of the boom returns without concentrating risk.

Currency and Rebalancing Considerations

Bogle emphasized that international investing required attention to currency implications and disciplined rebalancing. When foreign currencies appreciated against the dollar, international returns benefited. When currencies depreciated, returns suffered. Over long periods, these effects roughly offset, but the volatility was real.

Rebalancing proved particularly important with international exposure. When American stocks outperformed significantly, the domestic allocation would grow disproportionately if not rebalanced. This meant selling American stocks after they'd outperformed and buying international stocks after they'd underperformed—precisely the discipline emotional investors resist. Yet this mechanical rebalancing generated returns that would be sacrificed by failing to rebalance.

Bogle noted that some investors hedged currency exposure through currency-forward contracts, but he generally counseled against this practice. Currency hedging added cost and complexity without clear benefits for long-term investors. The faith in diversification that motivated international exposure applied equally to currency diversification.

The Multinational Corporation Question

One aspect of Bogle's international view was less commonly discussed but important: American multinational corporations provided substantial international exposure within domestic equity holdings. A significant portion of S&P 500 corporate revenue derives from international operations.

This fact complicated the diversification case somewhat. An investor entirely in US stocks had more international economic exposure than the simple geographic breakdown suggested. This supported Bogle's framework of relatively modest international allocations—perhaps 20-30% of equity—since domestic holdings already captured meaningful international economics through multinational businesses.

Practical Implementation Today

By the time Bogle retired from Vanguard in 2000, international index funds had become mainstream. The framework he developed—modest developed-market exposure, smaller emerging-market exposure, implemented through low-cost index funds, with disciplined rebalancing—remained broadly sensible.

Modern implementations might suggest 20-30% of equity allocation to international markets for US investors, split roughly 75% developed markets and 25% emerging markets. This approach provided meaningful geographic diversification while keeping the portfolio concentrated in the largest, most stable market available to American investors.

How it flows

Next

Bonds served an entirely different portfolio role, which Bogle addressed thoroughly in his final years.