Investing - Theory, News & General • International (Non-US) versus US Equities (The "Arguments")

There's no contradiction between your comment and the proposed wording.

I don't see how there is no conflict when the wording says there is no theoretical basis.

The theoretical basis in question is relative to a certain set of assumptions over what kind of "efficiency" is being sought and also what the individual investor's objectives are. While some investors' objectives may fit within those assumptions, and may therefore accept and act on that theory, it's a bit of a leap to claim that investors with different and/or additional objectives (and quite reasonable ones) should simply get with it and fall in line. That's why it's not sensible to issue it as a blanket recommendation to all investors. It makes presumptions about the investor that are unconfirmed.

I thought I explained that already.

People can still choose what they want, but to claim there is no theoretical basis is just not factually correct.

Nobody said that there's no theoretical basis. There's a theoretical basis that's operative within the constraints of a certain ivory-tower set of assumptions about investor objectives. The real world is more diverse. Everyone has the right to set their own investment objectives, and there are reasonable objectives that fall outside ivory-tower assumptions.

The key word in the proposed text is "unambiguously".

That's basically what I was getting at (as "unambiguously" seems to imply "universally"). The simple truth of the matter is that nobody actually knows what everyone else should do. And some people keep forgetting that.

Everyone is going to do what they want anyway.

I would say that everyone is going to do (or should do) what's consistent with their own investment objectives anyway.

If as you say "Its a bet either way", why not just spread your bets to pick up the free lunch of diversity....?

OK, then add that as a bullet point for the applicable AA choice(s), because it's a reason. Elevating that reason to a concluding statement is basically saying "we're here to tell you which AA choice is better for you", which not only sounds arrogant, it contradicts the thread's explicit purpose statement.

But if we get agreement on following verbiage on top of the op, I think we can conclude the thread. Example.

There is no allocation decision that can be unambiguously recommended based on historical record, statistical or theoretical arguments. The following is a list of arguments that have been provided by forum users as supporting the different allocations

At least the final sentence is non-controversial. Maybe just use that.

Statistics: Posted by HanSolo — Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:41 am — Replies 5833 — Views 1261515

---