Contents
Introduction
As an alternative to investing in a foreign total market fund, it is possible to "slice and dice" by holding separate regional funds: Emerging Markets plus either a Developed Markets fund or separate Pacific Rim and European funds.
Characteristics of Slice And Dice
The primary advantage of a total market fund is simplicity: a single fund whose market weights are maintained automatically. A secondary benefit for a Vanguard investor is the potential inclusion of Canadian stocks, which represent about 5% of the FTSE All-World ex-US product.
Possible advantages/disadvantages of slicing and dicing internationally:
Expense Ratio Comparison
|
Fund
|
ETF[1]
|
Investor
|
Admiral
|
Purchase Fee
(Mutual Fund)
|
Redemption Fee [2]
(Mutual Fund)
|
|
FTSE-All
|
0.25%
|
0.40%
|
n/a
|
0.25%
|
2.00%, 2 months
|
|
TM International
|
0.12%
|
0.15%
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
1.00%, 5 years
|
|
Europe
|
0.12%
|
0.22%
|
0.12%
|
n/a
|
2.00%, 2 months
|
|
Pacifc
|
0.12%
|
0.22%
|
0.12%
|
n/a
|
2.00%, 2 months
|
|
Emerging
|
0.25%
|
0.37%
|
0.25%
|
0.50%
|
0.50%, permanent
|
[1] ETF shares are subject to commission, spread, and discount/premium costs upon purchase and sale
[2] The purchase and redemption fees are paid into the fund. The redemption fee is charged only on shares held for less than the indicated holding period (permanent for Emerging Markets Index).
The relative cost advantage of using ETF or investor/admiral shares is dependent on many factors, including size and frequency of the investment, expected holding period, the level of commission and trading costs, and realized return. To determine the relative costs between an ETF/mutual fund decision, one can use the Vanguard Cost Comparison calculator
Taxes
The Total International Stock Index Fund does not qualify for the foreign tax credit, whereas the separate Europe, Pacific and EM funds do. However, with availability of the new FTSE All-World ex-US Fund, which does qualify for the credit, there is no longer an advantage here for S&D. Furthermore, the FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund appears to have a slight edge in generating qualified dividends, which are subject to a maximum 15% tax rate. From Qualified dividend income—2007 year-end figures:
- Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund Investor Shares: 87.23%
- Vanguard European Stock Index Fund Investor Shares: 82.29%
- Vanguard Pacific Stock Index Fund Investor Shares: 60.58%
- Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Investor Shares: 59.93%
- Vangurd Tax-Managed International Fund: 100%
Diversification of Currencies
According to Rick Ferri in All About Asset Allocation, having fixed allocations between Europe, Pacific, and EM diversifies currencies better than one fund.
Possible Rebalancing Bonus
Also according to Rick Ferri, rebalancing of those currencies "could provide a diversification benefit, as it has in the past". William Bernstein suggests a rebalancing bonus may be obtainable with Emerging Markets (see Links). Note that rebalancing in a taxable account may lead to payment of capital gains taxes.
Overweighting Pacific or Emerging Markets
Historically Europe has been more correlated with the U.S. market than Pacific and Emerging Markets, so the investor may want to overweight Pacific or EM. The current market weight is approximately 55% Europe, 24% Pacific and 21% EM.
Avoiding Regional Bubbles
Total market funds will change as the underlying market weights change. With Japan as an example, maintaining a fixed weight to Japan/Pacific in the 80's might have avoided an overallocation to Japan. More recently, Emerging Markets has increased to 21% of the world market in 2008 [1] from about 4% in 1998 [2].
Sources
[1] according to composition of Vanguard Total International Market fund, April 2008
[2] John Bogle, Common Sense on Mutual Funds, 1999
Links
Current International Market Weights (Standard and Poor's)
Real Equity Returns in Key Markets over Selected Periods (from Dimson, Marsh, and Staunton)
William Bernstein - Rebalancing Individual National Markets
FTSE vs. S&D - Tax Implications (forum topic)
Comments (4)
mikenz said
at 6:35 am on Apr 21, 2008
This needs to be reviewed for accuracy and readability. Good links though!
blbarnitz said
at 2:41 pm on Apr 21, 2008
A couple of points:
1. We should change the emphasis in this page from Advantages of slice and dice to Comparisons of slice and dice;
2. On the cost front we should examine it from both open end mutual fund and ETF perspectives. Laying out the costs, expense ratios, purchase and redemption fees, associated with investor and admiral share programs vs. expense ratio and mention of commission and spread costs to ETFs with a link to the Vanguard Mutual Fund-ETF cost calculator.
mikenz said
at 5:49 am on Apr 22, 2008
Agreed. I didn't want to encourage S&D, as many of the "advantages" are obsolete or debatable, but I couldn't think of clear advantages of the single fund other than simplicity.
Probably should warn about overweighting regions unless you understand what you're doing.
Also seems contradictory to say you could overweight Pacific or EM, then later say you could fix allocations to avoid getting overweighted allocation to one region!
blbarnitz said
at 6:56 am on Apr 22, 2008
I added the chart, with footnotes explaining the added expenses, along with the Vanguard calculator.I left the conclusions area blank I also made the headings and opening description a tad more neutral.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.