Should you diversify your bond investments across many foreign countries?
Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject.  On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk.  In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks.  Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions.  This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification.  US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally.  Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years.  The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk.  The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years.  So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once).   Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider   adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.
It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here.  A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments.  My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities.  Government bonds earn way too little.  The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity.  I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it.  My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people.  If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap.  If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc. "Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is ""Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods"", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated." "Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs.  They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds.  You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds.  Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well.  You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds.  That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into ""established"" economies and a certain fraction into ""emerging"" ones.  I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little." "Even though ""when the U.S. sneezes Canada catches a cold"", I would suggest considering a look at Canadian government bonds as both a currency hedge, and for the safety of principal — of course, in terms of CAD, not USD. We like to boast that Canada fared relatively better (PDF) during the economic crisis than many other advanced economies, and our government debt is often rated higher than U.S. government debt. That being said, as a Canadian, I am biased.  For what it's worth, here's the more general strategy: Recognize that you will be accepting some currency risk (in addition to the sovereign risks) in such an approach. Consistent with your ETF approach, there do exist a class of ""international treasury bond"" ETFs, holding short-term foreign government bonds, but their holdings won't necessarily match the criteria I laid out – although they'll have wider diversification than if you invested in specific countries separately." would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? This is primarily opinion based.  Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup There is no way to predict what will happen in such large events. For example if one keeps funds outside on UK in say Germany in Euro's. The UK may bring in a regulation and clamp down all funds held outside of UK as belonging to Government or tax these at 90% or anything absurd that negates the purpose of keeping funds outside. There are example of developing / under developed economics putting absurd capital controls. Whether UK will do or not is a speculation. If you are going to spend your live in a country, it is best to invest in country. As normal diversification, you can look at keep a small amount invested outside of country. Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing.  Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways: In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing.  Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks).  This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk.  Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other.  If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly.  You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund.  Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable.  You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post.  The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification.  The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot. The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies.  You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country.  If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification. It depends on how much diversification you think you need and what your mutual fund options are. For instance, picking an index fund already provides a fair amount of diversification, especially if you select a Total Market type of index (readily available from Fidelity and Vanguard, and many other fund families). Are you looking to balance domestic vs. international investments? You may want to add an international index fund to the mix. Feel that a particular sector has tremendous potential? Add a sector fund. This investment mix is up to you (or your investment advisor). However, depending on your Roth IRA mutual fund choices, some of these funds may have minimum investment requirement - $3k to open a fund's account, for instance. In that case, you'd have no choice but to put your entire investment into one fund, and wait for subsequent years where you'd be able to invest in other funds after providing additional contributions and/or reallocation any growth from your initial investment. One thing to look at is whether you have an option of putting some of your contributions into a money market account within the Roth IRA - you can then reallocate funds from that account into another fund after you can meet the minimum investment requirement. However, in my opinion, if you start out by investing in a solid, low-cost index fund from a reputable mutual fund company, you've already picked up most of the diversification you need - a single fund is enough. "Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in ""Europe"" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets." This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500.  So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country.  However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals.  By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk.  Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification.   Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment.  Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making.  For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible.   Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee. Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value. "This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods.  You can see the figures in the PDF.  These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time.  The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that ""under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time"". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here.  I read your question as asking ""is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio"".  There is some such data.  However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides.  You're unlikely to find data that ""proves"" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds.  For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing.  It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper.  The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk." Not to my knowledge. Often the specific location is diversified out of the fund because each major building company or real estate company attempts to diversify  risk by spreading it over multiple geographical locations. Also, buyers of these smaller portfolios will again diversify by creating a larger fund to sell to the general public. That being said, you can sometimes drill down to the specific assets held by a real estate fund. That takes a lot of work: You can also look for the issuer of the bond that the construction or real estate company issued to find out if it is region specific. Hope that helps. How is this not a breach of contract? Is it just because the corporate entity you're doing business with has gone out of business? Isn't the parent company still responsible?  It seems to me that if it's not, there are a lot of ways that an unethical person / company could game the system.