VGTSX
VANGUARD TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK INDEX FUND INVESTOR SHARES
Mentions (24Hr)
0.00% Today
Reddit Posts
Thoughts on US vs international total stock market funds in the coming years
"No more than 20% of one's stock portfolio should be allocated to foreign stocks? - Jack Bogle - Does this advice still ring true today?
Mentions
Fair enough. I've already pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with international in my comments. I do think there are better funds than vxus. My whole point was that people bring up the lost decade all the time, talking about qqq and spy. Yet VGTSX dropped a lot as well. You can go back and look at the returns from 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2008. Yet no one acts like they remember that it didn't do that great. I'm not talking about emerging markets either. I know it outperformed. US Value held up well too. I'm talking about the fund that everyone recommends people to invest in. The total international market. VGTSX is the mutual fund version of vxus.
Weren't you the one that brought up the 1950s. You are the one bringing up the past. I'm about 15% international myself. I don't own vxus. I have vymi and Shld. Shld etf is 45% international. And i think IDMO and IDVO both look interesting. I do not hate international. Get it through your head. Im not saying US will outperform every year. I never said the US outperformed every country. I was talking about stop fear mongering about the lost decade for US stocks when international was almost 2 decades lost. VGTSX international fund also fell during the dotcom. It was -15% in 2000, -20% in 2001, -15% in 2002, and -44% in 2007. But, people act like that didn't happen. Spy was -9% in 2000, -11% in 2001, -21% in 2002, and -36% in 2008.
Go to yahoo finance. Type in the ticker VGTSX. This is the ticker for total international market mutual fund which is equivalent to vxus. And you will see. I literally told you the price of the fund in 2007 and the current price. It was $21.89 on 10/1/2007. As of Friday 7/7/2025 it's 22.36. This is price return only. You can chart it with dividends plus inflation adjusted if you would like and see if it was still underwater.
Do you buy international stocks like vxus? Bc the mutual fund version of vxus (VGTSX) just reached its 2007 high in 2025. It peaked at $21.85 in 2007, and it's currently trading at $22.36. It's a very diverse index, and it took longer than qqq to recover. Yet no one brings this up. People encourage others to invest in it.
Everyone brings that up, but ignores the fact that VGTSX (total international mutual fund version of VXUS) was $21.89 in 2007 and just broke even this year in 2025. It's currently $22.36. Almost 20 years.
Emerging markets did particularly well, such as VEIEX at 9.82% per year. VGTSX, which exists today as VTIAX and VXUS, had an annual return of 2.7% per year. Even VWIGX, the longtime vanguard international growth fund, did 1.38% per year.
If you want to allocate the same way that a professional investment manager would, check out the holdings of a targeted mutual fund (like VTTHX) and invest accordingly. To save you some time, MSPMX = VTI, VGTSX = VXUS, VTBIX = BND, and VTILX = BNDX
I would put it across a few index funds. VOO is a good one. Also VGTSX/VXUS for international and VRNIX for large cap.
VGTSX. That's my only option in my 401k, besides a smaller percentage I keep in emerging markets.
I think it's a reasonable investment thesis, but it's still market timing. The underlying assumption you're making is that this information is not priced in and that you know better, so you can time your exit and entry to be better off than just holding. Fair enough, but I think it would be better to admit you're just timing the market. By the way, to offer a counter-example, the last "storm" that the US experienced (the sub-prime mortgage crisis) resulted in a much sharper drawdown for exUS than it did for US - https://totalrealreturns.com/s/VTI,VGTSX. It's entirely possible that your thesis is correct, but that exUS will suffer more than the US (in fact, that's already predicted to be the case for Canada and Mexico).
“The winners today will always be the winners in the future”? > professors in the late eighties preached about making foreign 10 to 15% of an efficient portfolio. Much has changed since I got my degree in 1991. The current global market is ~ 65% US, 35% ex-US Not for nothing, but what were the largest US companies in 1991? And today? > You don’t need foreign funds for foreign exposure. Apple, Google, Amazon... etc are all US companies operating worldwide. US companies operating internationally ≠ international exposure. https://www.dimensional.com/ie-en/insights/global-diversification-still-requires-international-securities https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/fidelity-2016/five-myths-of-international-investing/1046/ https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/articles/making-case-international-equity-allocations.html > The third world is not catching up. 1. I never said it was. Owning the market proportionally is the point I’m making. 2. And it never can? > Look at the companies you get in a foreign large-cap fund. Who cares? Ex-US is 35% of the global marketplace. For your arguments to hold water the US would become 99% of the global marketplace in time. > The best and the brightest come to the USA. If you are the top software engineer in the E.U. and you want to make it big, you head to Silicon Valley. 1. Now? Yes. In the future? No one knows. 2. You’re surely well aware that many people get educated in the US and then return home. > The US dollar is strong and gaining on Euros. Again, now vs future > China’s stock market lacks robust regulation to protect shareholders. Most Russian stocks went to zero after the Ukraine invasion. These are risks not present in the S&P 500. I don’t disagree, but again I don’t care: I’m not advocating for ex-US, I’m advocating for proportional ownership of the market, just like in the US. > The default investment choice of so many investors is S&P 500 (go check AUM for VOO), that there is a tailwind behind S&P that will continue. 1. That’s pretty silly logic. People were doing the same thing before big market crashes or changes in segment performance. 2. 401ks now overwhelmingly use globally diversified TDFs as the QDIA. > The maxim of adding foreign and reversion to a mean that ignores all of the above is wrong and outdated. All of your above takes bad assumptions as fact > Foreign will continue to lag. Where did you get your crystal ball from? > The free throw analogy fails. It doesn’t. > If you went to Vegas and watched a roulette while land on black 20 times in a row would you conclude the chance of the next roll landing on red is 50/50 or would you conclude the machine is rigged, broken or otherwise messed up. Thanks, that’s not the analogy I made “Surely the patriots dominance will always continue” or “the chiefs won the last two super bowls, including beating the eagles, they’re definitely going to win this third one!” Take your pick. You clearly understand what I’m saying, > Foreign did not just lose for a year or two. It did not lose by a small amount. It got consistently crushed For 15 years, absolutely! What about before then? And again, what does the last 15 years have anything to do with the next 15? > because the companies the a foreign stock fund holds are weaker companies growing slower than the underlying companies in the S&P 500. And that can never change? > If the S&P 500 fund has Michael Jordan throwing free throws, and VGTSX has one-armed Ivan throwing free throws, I am betting on S&P. What did you do in the 2000? Seriously. And as much as I hate to side with an Ivan at the moment, this analogy is not accurate so it’s useless. A better one would be “the NBA is mostly American players, therefore I’m going to bet that the MVP will always be an American player, despite the fact that there are a growing number of foreign countries are growing their game. And while there’s still a probability that most MVPs will be American, it’s objectively stupid to say that foreign players will *never* be MVP or that foreign countries won’t grow their market share of NBA players relative to American players”
I guess we can agree to disagree. When I was in business school getting a finance degree in the late eighties the professors in the late eighties preached about making foreign 10 to 15% of an efficient portfolio. Much has changed since I got my degree in 1991. 1. You don't need foreign funds for foreign exposure. Apple, Google, Amazon... etc are all US companies operating worldwide. 2. The third world is not catching up. The conventional wisdom was if 80% of Americans drive cars and only 10% of folks in Africa drive cars, invest in companies that do business in the third world that is bound to catch up. That did not materialize. 3. Look at the companies you get in a foreign large-cap fund. Toyota, Nestle, Roche, Shell, HSBC, with the exception to Taiwan Semiconductor... the MegaCap foreign stocks are not setting the world on fire. 4. The best and the brightest come to the USA. If you are the top software engineer in the E.U. and you want to make it big, you head to Silicon Valley. 5. The US dollar is strong and gaining on Euros. 6. China's stock market lacks robust regulation to protect shareholders. Most Russian stocks went to zero after the Ukraine invasion. These are risks not present in the S&P 500. 7. The default investment choice of so many investors is S&P 500 (go check AUM for VOO), that there is a tailwind behind S&P that will continue. A company joins the S&P 500 and its stock climbs because every S&P index fund now buys it. The maxim of adding foreign and reversion to a mean that ignores all of the above is wrong and outdated. Foreign will continue to lag. The free throw analogy fails. If you went to Vegas and watched a roulette while land on black 20 times in a row would you conclude the chance of the next roll landing on red is 50/50 or would you conclude the machine is rigged, broken or otherwise messed up. Foreign did not just lose for a year or two. It did not lose by a small amount. It got consistently crushed because the companies the a foreign stock fund holds are weaker companies growing slower than the underlying companies in the S&P 500. If the S&P 500 fund has Michael Jordan throwing free throws, and VGTSX has one-armed Ivan throwing free throws, I am betting on S&P.
You deleted the comment I was replying to. So, here goes for anyone else that might read it You are somehow fucking up the test. $10000 invested in SPY on Jan 1 2000, add 200 monthly. Here are the numbers. End of 2000: Principal- 10000+2400=12400. Balance $11259 End of 2001 : Principal- 12400+2400= 14800, Balance $12272 End of 2002: Principal - 12400+2400= 17200, Balance $11806 End of 2003 : Principal - 17200+2400=19600, Balance $17928 End of 2004: Princiapal - 19200+2400= 21600, Balance $22428. So, you do end up with your balance back by 04 during one of the worst run of equities. Now, if you are chucking everything into sp500, you are doing it wrong in the first place. If you had diversified and had like a 80/20 stock bond split. And Then had your stocks diversified between large, small and medium caps, and then between US and international. You would have come out way ahead. The current run has everyone going full large caps. But small caps beat large caps by a great amount in 2000s and they may do so in future again. If you need the money in short to medium term, you can't YOLO on one index and call it a day. Backtest with something like VITPX ,VGTSX, VBTLX 50, 30,20 split or whatever you are ok with. These start from end of 2001 though. Maybe someone else can give you tickers that go all the way back to 2000
I've read it, I still take some issue with him: >However, the world is changing and at some point a world fund will be the best choice It has plenty of times in the past. As soon as it became cheap and easy enough, going global should have been viewed as the best choice. VGTSX dates back to 1996. >and that is simply because the US is so dominant on the world economic stage He's bringing economy into it, even though the economy and stock market aren’t the same thing, they may even be negatively correlated in some ways: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2012.00385.x >and for the US slice, while also growing, to simply become a smaller percentage.” Of global market cap weight, the US peaked in the 1960s/early 1970s, dropped to less than 30%, then climbed to the 62% or so it is at now. https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6067373#p6067373
VT tracks the FTSE Global All Cap index. The Schwab fund VGTSX tracks the FTSE Global All Cap ex US index - [https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/summary/vgtsx](https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/summary/vgtsx) - so you could use that fund and a US fund of your choice. Can you explain why you wouldn't just use VT if you want to track the FTSE Global All Cap index? VT is an ETF so you can invest in that fund at any broker.
Woah, VXUS looks pretty volatile, and only up like 16% from 13 years ago, definitely not keeping up with inflation. The Mutual Fund version VGTSX is only up 34% over 24 years, with a lot of volatility. It seems like a heavy bet against a US-centric economy, but historically doesn't seem like the best.
hey there, it's great that you're looking to make some changes to your investment. i'd suggest looking into Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) or Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX) to diversify your portfolio. also, consider speaking with a financial advisor to help outline a solid retirement plan. best of luck!
>With that in mind OP, I’d go 95% VTI and 5% VGTSX Thanks a ton! Those are really good arguments. With all you explained, it makes me wonder if they could classify the strong international markets into an ETF of some kind and exclude all the markets that are bringing them down. Do you know if there's anything like that out there? But see, when I start thinking this way, I feel like it's more of a gamble since it goes against the whole "You can't really outsmart the market" type of thing.
Berkshire has approximately 4.9% of the portfolio invested in international stocks. I gotta lower my recommendation 0.1%. https://www.cnbc.com/berkshire-hathaway-portfolio/ You can choose a random time period as much as you like too try to fit your position, but overall the US has and will continue to outperform international markets. If you invest in Denmark / South Africa / Australia markets as your only international markets then you might meet the US returns I guess… but then your exposing yourself to more risk in those smaller markets in comparison to the larger more diversified US markets. But most of the international etfs suggested here are diversified across many countries not just those 3… and that’s the reason they underperform and will continue to underperform the US market. VTI (US) vs VT(world) over the last 10 years. VTI - 214% return VT - 137% return While diversifying is great, you have to take into consideration the opportunity loss you take on with over diversifying as well. In this case trying to diversify outside of the US equated to 76% underperformance. Will US underperform vs international in the next 10 years… maybe? Will the US underperform international by 76%? No. So you have 2 of the greatest investors in recent history saying stay US (Bogle/Buffet). You have data from the last 10 years showing US heavily outperforming. For the international argument? You have someone trying to explain away why the US outperforms so much. And you have someone advocating for international diversification but only in 3 relatively small countries? With that in mind OP, I’d go 95% VTI and 5% VGTSX
>"No more than 20% of one's stock portfolio should be allocated to foreign stocks? - Jack Bogle - Does this advice still ring true today? I'm not sure it ever did. I've listened to his interviews and his reasoning, but found it lacking and much of it easily countered (with better backed sources, several of which I can supply if desired). >I know a lot of people invest in VT (Total World) and similar funds and I looked up VT, which is currently only 60% US stocks. VT follows the global market cap weight. It is the market. I consider it the most neutral and possibly the best default position. People say you can't beat the market, and if true, then VT is the logical choice (the market does not magically stop at the US borders). >Do you think a lot has changed since Mr. Bogle said these things or do you disagree? The drop in cost of ex-US funds and ease of using them may make the case for going so light (20% or less) even more out of date in my mind. >if one is to make a 100% equity portfolio, which allocation do you think is best bet for the next 20-30 years? Option 1. **This one.** VT: Buy the market. This is the market. Option 2. Not this one. VGTSX is retired, it is VTIAX now. This option is saying you know more than the market, that US is still undervalued. Option 3: Not this one. VOO doesn't even have the best expected returns within the US (factor investing theory favors small and value, VOO doesn't touch small). Option 4: Not this one. See both 2 & 3 for reasoning.
I’m looking to pull my assets from a wealth management company. 60% is in brokerage. 40% is in tax deferred - traditional and rollover Ira. Few questions: - can I back door Roth ~400k or is there a limit? - what are good tools to use for self managing? - I’m probably just going to do 60pct VOO. 30pct BND. 10pct VGTSX. Thoughts? My timeline is 12 years. I will add the IRA max. My 401k is separate. Thanks!
Again source? From 1996-2022 SPY (US) delivered a CAGR of 8.44%. In the same period VGTSX (International) delivered a CAGR of 4.45%.
There’s no need to assume. You can see the total returns here: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=2001&firstMonth=1&endYear=2023&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VTSMX&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=VGTSX&allocation2_2=100 While US has returned more since 2001, the difference is nowhere near as large as 259% for VTI and 12% for VXUS
CAGR is just under 4% for VGTSX since 1996 and 4% for VXUS since inception in 2011. Garbage. Ill take growth and dividends over a depreciating/flat asset with dividends.
Not all return comes from the price. [There's a thing called dividends](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2022&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VGTSX&allocation1_1=100&allocation1_3=40&symbol2=VTSMX&allocation2_2=100&allocation2_3=60).
Share price currently down just over 4% since it's inception nearly 12 years ago. VXUS's older relative, VGTSX is only up a little more than 10% since it's inception over 22 years ago. No amount of "diversification" can convince me to invest in this endless garbage. Over practically any timeframe, dollar cost averaging into VOO or VTI or any of their mutual fund counterparts would have resulted you coming out far ahead of international. And Im not anti-foreign stocks. I have plenty. I think its ridiculous to include a global ex-us total market index that holds MASSIVE swaths of trash stocks. Ex-US definitely benefits from doing your own research and picking individual stocks or finding some rule based ETF that at least eliminates SOME of the garbage.
> we notice that there has never been a year in the past 25 years where the US is down but International markets are up There are periods of time where international outperforms though, like this [six year period.](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=2002&firstMonth=1&endYear=2007&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Bogleheads+Three+Funds&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VTSMX&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=VGTSX&allocation2_2=100) I think it's the better reason is: When international outperforms the US, it out performs by a little. When US outperforms international, it out performs by a LOT. So if you can weather the times when the US under performs, you are disproportionately rewarded when it out performs.
For me, it would take some material changes in International/Emerging Markets in order to consider them investable. For example, when we look at the [US vs International investing](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2022&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Bogleheads+Three+Funds&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VTSMX&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=VGTSX&allocation2_2=100), we notice that there has never been a year in the past 25 years where the US is down but International markets are up. That is, when the US has a bad year, so do international markets. When international markets have a bad year, the US sometimes has a good year. I would want to see a sustained trend of International markets going up while the US markets go down or stay flat. Personally, I don't think that it will happen any time soon with the DXY strength that we've seen recently.
Exactly. That's what I found when I looked at the [asset correlation](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/asset-correlations?s=y&symbols=VEIEX%2C+VGTSX%2C+VTSMX&timePeriod=4&tradingDays=60&months=36) between emerging market funds like VWO and VTI and VXUS. VWO is not as correlated as VXUS is to VTI (and therefore S&P 500). For true diversification, there's GLD.
I'll take a contrarian perspective here, as I noted in an earlier comment, where John Bogle, founder of Vanguard stated: >“Everyone tells me I’m wrong,” Mr. Bogle said. “In my book, ‘Bogle on Investing,’ I said, for a lot of reasons, you don’t need to own international stock.” His argument: International investing involves extra risk, ranging from currency risk and economic risk to societal instability risk. When looking at [this chart (dividends reinvested)](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2022&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&benchmark=VFINX&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Bogleheads+Three+Funds&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VGTSX&allocation1_1=100), International funds are tightly correlated with US market performance. There has yet to be a year where International is up but US is down, meaning that if the US is having a bad year in the market, odds are that international is also having a bad year. Investing internationally hasn't provided any shelter from drawdowns either, which indicates that you're not reducing risk by investing internationally. If anything, you're talking about a very minor perceived portfolio benefit that international investing may provide you, while still exposing you to risk. Personally, if given the choice of taking N% and putting it in something like Costco vs. investing it in an international index, I'd pick [Costco any day of the week](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2022&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Bogleheads+Three+Funds&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VGTSX&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=COST&allocation2_2=100). In addition to this, consider that the US Dollar is at a multi-decade high when compared to other global currencies. At the beginning of this year, you were able to get $1.14 USD per Euro. Presently, you're able to get $0.97, a 15% loss on funds compared to the US Dollar. With the amount of global instability that is currently occurring, I wouldn't expect this to shift any time soon (e.g. the energy crisis in the EU will likely persist for years). One of the commentators here mentioned PE ratios, but using PE ratios alone as your only/primary model for investments means that you're going to underperform the market. With the advent of technology and information that is available, things that are cheap are usually cheap for a reason (e.g. they carry more risk). The bottom line is that this comes down to your personal risk tolerance. If things start to materially shift and we start to see International outperform US indices over a multi-year period (e.g. International is up meaningfully while US is down), then I will re-evaluate my thesis.
Target Date Funds are designed to give you exposure to broad asset classes and average performance. They are not optimized to get you the most growth, nor are they designed to protect you from large drawdowns. The idea with them is that you can buy 1 fund to obtain a diversified portfolio. The whole international v. non-international is the subject of much debate. Many people still hold on to international because it aligns with their investment objectives, but there are plenty of other people that have been successful skipping international entirely. Most people have very strong perspectives on the subject (e.g. "you must have international in your portfolio/what if the US doesn't keep performing/etc." v. "my US companies are already international/international has been losing for the past 25 years/etc."). One data point that I've seen on this is that for the past 25 years, any time US equities are down, international is also down. There has yet to be an instance where US equities are down but international funds are up. If you believe that this outperformance can continue, then you'd lean more towards the camp of US equities v. international. If you're more risk averse, you'd likely lean towards having some international exposure (e.g. VGTSX). Arguing this topic usually comes down to personal opinions/outlook.
Simple answer is buy the whole market with solid mutual funds and ETF’s. VTI is a good suggestion as this is total US stock market. VGTSX is also good for international exposure. Add perhaps NAESX for small cap. Depending upon your age, you can add bond fund if want have a conservative basket. I would avoid individual stocks as too risky, however, if you enjoy stock picking I would limit this to 10-15%!of your portfolio. Lesson learned, move on, you’ll be fine.
you've pissed off the r/LETFs community also why the fuck do you keep calling them lefts? they're not lefts, they're letfs. you're wrong but I'm lazy and eating a cake at 6 am. hear what tatabusa and presumably others will say. Also, show me a time where VTI lost 49.99% in a day. that literally is not possible. what you're talking about in regards to volatility decay has nothing to do with leverage. And to add what Tatabusa said, here's a comparison between [simulated HFEA ](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=2000&firstMonth=1&endYear=2010&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=1&annualAdjustment=0500&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=2&rebalanceType=3&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=1&leverageRatio=200.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=3.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=true&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Bogleheads+Three+Funds&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VFINX&allocation1_1=55&symbol2=VUSTX&allocation2_1=45) and [Boglehead 3 fund portfolio ](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=2000&firstMonth=1&endYear=2010&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=1&annualAdjustment=0500&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=2&rebalanceType=3&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Bogleheads+Three+Funds&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VTSMX&allocation1_1=50&symbol2=VGTSX&allocation2_1=30&symbol3=VBMFX&allocation3_1=20) during "the lost decade" where you DCA into simulated HFEA and a 3 fund boglehead portfolio. I wouldn't call it "significantly outperformed", but it did outperform on a risk-adjusted basis it seems. Zoom out even further and from 1997 (farthest back that 3 fund portfolio can go on PV) to 2022, and HFEA just leaves that 3 fund portfolio in the dust.
Ok serious question here guys, is there a VIX equivalent for treasury bonds? There used to be a VXTNY but it closed last year. Need this for a hedge to a degen leveraged equity/bond port[here](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2021&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=true&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=100&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=6.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=3&absoluteDeviation=0.5&relativeDeviation=0.5&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&benchmark=VFINX&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=VGTSX&symbol2=VFINX&allocation2_1=275&allocation2_2=100&symbol3=VFISX&allocation3_1=1500&allocation3_2=750&symbol4=VFITX&allocation4_1=100&allocation4_2=50&symbol5=VUSTX&allocation5_1=150&allocation5_2=75&symbol6=CASHX&allocation6_1=-1925&allocation6_2=-875):
As some of the other posters have pointed out: no one really knows. For myself, I hold specific international names, but have no interest in an international fund. Looking at the data of VGTSX from 1996 onwards, there has never been a year where this fund was up but a domestic index like VFINX was down. If international is up, domestic equities are also up. If international is down, domestic equities may still be up. This has been the pattern for 25+ years now, and while this may change at some point, I’m of the opinion that it won’t be any time soon. Of course, some folks swear by international and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. A lot of it comes down to personal preference and understanding the trade-offs with any investment decision that you make. It sounds like you’re already on the right track though, as you are investing which should help to build a better future for yourself. Good luck!