VANGUARD GENERAL

[Anonymous No.408364]

I guess I shouldn't feel bad that my 401(k) is all allocated into the S&P500 and Index Bond Fund each with an expense ratio of 0.08 and 0.13 respectively. The rest of the fund options I have are all 0.5-3% (plan to max going forward)

My Roth IRA is basically all in a Vanguard Total Stock Index Admiral (VTSAX) (~11k).

I have a taxable account consisting of Vanguard Total International - it's doing quite poor.

I just feel like I'm "missing out" by not tilting my portfolio I guess, seeing as my whole portfolio is basically US domestic stock. What do you guys think?
I was thinking of making changes perhaps getting rid of my VTSAX and replacing it with like one of the following:
a) Vanguard Extended Market Index (small, mid cap)
b) Vanguard Small Cap Index
c) Vanguard Mid Cap Index
d) Vanguard Emerging Markets Index
e) Vanguard REIT Index

[Anonymous No.408365]

All the expense funds 0.5-3% are the fun mid cap, small cap, global, emerging markets, utilities, health sector, etc.

Just to clarify, I plan on maxing my 401(k) going forward

[Anonymous No.408371]

>>408364

VTSAX isn't a S&P fund, it's a total market fund (Roughly 75% S&P and 25% VEXMX, I believe), so you have full-cap equity exposure. Your portfolio is perfectly fine as it stand, though I'd suggest you may wish to add in a small amount of other assets for diversification. Perhaps 60% VTSAX, 20% int'l developed, 10% REIT, and 10% emerging as your equities, and then a total bond fund as your bond exposure? Just a suggestion.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.408399]

Use the "Portfolio Watch" tool on the website to get an accurate analysis of your sector allocations across all your accounts. The tool will identify sectors that are over or under represented.

[Anonymous No.408432]

>>408371
Oh, I guess that would make purchasing the Extended Market (VEXMX) a little redundant then.

Now I'm reading all these things about small caps being overvalued and I'm not too keen to get in on that.

The thing is I'm like 23

By year's end (2014)

Should have
ROTH IRA $11000 + earnings = VTSAX
401k $10000 or so = 80% S&P500 + 20% BOND INDEX (companys one that maps Barclays Aggregate Bond Index)
TAXABLE = $7000-10,000 VTIAX (international)

like is that okay or too overweight in domestic US?

[Anonymous No.408436]

>>408399
I would need a lot of $ before even considering Vanguard REIT, and Vanguard specific ones like Health right?

I will give that a look, I'm hardly on the Vanguard website to be honest.

[Anonymous No.408438]

>only buying Vangaurd ETFs

Why? I have ETFs from multiple management companies.

[Anonymous No.408444]

Also you have no bonds. You are in no way recession proof.

>selling at the dip
>but if you just hold, you'll make your money back

Or you could invest in bonds and commodity ETFs as well to greatly limit your cumulative losses through a recession.

[Anonymous No.408450]

>>408444
By year's end, I will have
20% of $10,000-$12,000 in bonds, so $2000

out of total accounts
Taxable $8,000 + 401k $10,000 + Roth IRA $11,000

$2000 bond / $29,000 total = 6.89%

That's not too bad right?

I know a lot of people are just 100% stocks, and like 70-80% of it being small cap/mid cap/international, etc.

I guess at the same time there are articles out there that the 100% stock yield does not necessarily yield more in a prolonged period (40 years) vs. an asset allocation of 80:20 (stocks: bonds).

Then if you think about it further, the S&P is like 500 stocks...and mutual funds in general can be hundreds if not thousands of stocks, bonds, etc. within them

[Anonymous No.408460]

>>408364

How and where do I learn what you know?

>first post on /biz/

[Anonymous No.408476]

>>408450
My portfolio looks like the following.

>Bonds
50% TLT iShares Barclay 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (12.91% YTD)

>Sectors
10% VDE Vanguard Energy Index ETF (22.71% YTD)
10% VHT Vanguard Health Care Index ETF (11.20% YTD)
5% XPH SPDR S&P Pharma ETF (16.05% YTD)
5% VFH Vanguard Financials Index ETF (3.98% YTD)
5% XLK SPDR Technology Select ETF (8.90% YTD
5% XLI SPDR Industrial Select ETF (3.46% YTD)

>Other
5% IAU iShares Gold Trust (11.04% YTD)
5% SLV iShares Silver Trust (9.94% YTD)

[Anonymous No.408477]

>>408476

My ETF portfolio*

ETFs are only about 55% of my whole portfolio.

[Anonymous No.408487]

>>408364
With 11k, your total stock index admiral is the best way to get broad exposure to the U.S. market and keep fees low.

If you want to have more control over asset allocation into large vs. small/mid cap funds, you'll have to go into the vanilla asset funds and pay the higher expense ratios. You'll have to crunch some numbers to see whether that would translate to an actual monetary gain.

And I don't think that you're too overweight in the U.S. considering that total international market funds aren't doing too hot lately, mostly because they have holdings in countries whose economies have poor near and mid term outlooks.

It's why I won't use Vanguard's vanilla retirement funds -- they put something like 30% of the fund into international stocks and bonds.

[Anonymous No.408499]

>>408364
you have to diversify, there are also index funds other than vanguard

[Anonymous No.408514]

Forgive the newbie question, but it's generally ill-advised to open up a Vanguard account for an IRA and an ETF portfolio while having your other equities through a different discount broker, correct?

The reason I ask is that I'm just starting to become financially independent and looking into investing, but I don't really have enough money to make the most out of Vanguard, and a discount broker would generally suit me better. Should I just put retirement money into my 401(k) for the time being until I'll have enough to jump completely into Vanguard?

[Anonymous No.408524]

>>408499
>you have to diversify
your bonds nigga.

[Anonymous No.408527]

>>408399

Random question.. K and E by chance? It'd be a small world indeed.

[Anonymous No.408541]

>>408527

Yeah, I think the consensus is that iHaz is ex-Kirkland. He hasn't confirmed anything, though.

[Anonymous No.408562]

If you have a Roth, and a 401k are you going to abandon the Roth if your company has matching I think that would be a good idea IF:

If you only feel safe using low-fee diversified index funds then why split up your assets in 2 accounts? (especially if you will miss out on the matching)

This seems like a bad idea especially if your employer does matching.

That said, if it were me, I would take on as much risk as i was able to in my Roth.

Meaning individual stock ownership. You are young, if you pick a few winners you could be looking at 500+% gains or more by retirement.

Lastly:
The basic limit on elective deferrals is $17,500 (in 2013 and 2014) or 100% of the employee’s compensation, whichever is less. The elective deferral limit for SIMPLE plans is 100% of compensation or $12,000 in 2013 and 2014.
http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-Contributions

For 2013 and 2014, the maximum you can contribute to all of your traditional and Roth IRAs is the smaller of:

$5,500 ($6,500 if you’re age 50 or older), or
your taxable compensation for the year.
http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits

You are young. Do not make a mistake and get raepd by the IRS.

[Anonymous No.408564]

>>408476
if I'm more buy and hold, do I even benefit from ETF's?

>>408460
I'm not sure if this was a troll post. But if not, just read here and have $ to invest.

>>408499
>>408524
lol'd (internally)

>>408541
I don't even know what that means

>>408487
Yeah that's my initial thinking. I bought into a Target retirement 2060 because I was clueless initially and only had a small amount of $. suppose I could've waited a year before exchanging them but I just got rid of it (not much all of $1770, gained $70 in a few months; initial investment $1700) and will have to pay taxes on a short term gain! but now i've consolidated my holdings in my taxable account

[Anonymous No.408569]

>>408562
I'm contribooting on a Roth basis in my 401(k). Getting that 5% employer match. Since I joined the company mid year, I'm going to defer 60% (won't max it this year) but to max it next year should be around 40% of my salary (hint: I don't make much)

Per Bogleheads forum, I've switched my investment options within my 401(k) to the only two low cost options:

bond index fund (uses Barclays aggregate): expense ratio is 0.13 and comprises 20% of 401k

and s&p500 expense ratio of 0.08

everything else is literally expense ratio of 0.5-3% which is just stupid. but i was previously in those because all those equity classes sounded so interesting!

well i have no capital invested yet so I figured to get a broad exposure to the US stock market via Vanguard Total Stock Index Admiral (VTSAX) - I don't even know if I can invest my Roth IRA into individual stock via Vanguard's platform (serious).

[Anonymous No.408572]

Also you have no bonds. You are in no way recession proof.

>implying bonds are recession proof
>implying this in a ZIRP market
yfw yields rise and your holdings lose half their value

mfw people say recession proof

[Anonymous No.408578]

I'm contribooting on a Roth basis in my 401(k).

>good to know
>ignore 99% of my post it is irrelevant now
>sadface.jpg

[Anonymous No.408585]

>>408572

>implying we aren't holding short-term treasuries that will lose 10% max when rates normalize

[Anonymous No.408596]

>>408564

No sir, it was not a troll post. I am extremely new to this, but I am willing to learn.

[Anonymous No.408597]

How short 2's 5's 7's?
>yfw that is a note not a bond
What is duration risk?
What is reinvestment risk?
What is inflation?

>"recession proof"
>"10% max"

[Anonymous No.408618]

>>408597

>what is duration risk
>what is reinvestment risk
>what is inflation

>what are FRN's
>what are TIPS

Seriously this isn't that hard.

[Anonymous No.408621]

>>408618
what do you mean it isn't that hard?

[Anonymous No.408629]

>>408618
The 10-year TIPS was yielding 0.32% on July 1 and it is trading right now at .22%, down 10 basis points.

http://tipswatch.com/

[Anonymous No.408640]

I live in the UK and make £75,000 a year cash. Obviously HMRC thinks I'm on a minimum wage. looking at investing my savings of 125,000 on the uk Vanguard and then adding to it about 2,000 a month... will HMRC rape me? how can I make this happen without being discovered?

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.408919]

>>408436
>I would need a lot of $ before even considering Vanguard REIT, and Vanguard specific ones like Health right?
Not a lot, at least not necessarily. If you feel you need exposure to these sectors, a starting investment of $3000 would be perfectly appropriate. Personally I'm a big fan of the Heath fund ... terrific performance and very nice income too. Put this is a tax advantaged account if extra income is undesirable.

>>408514
>it's generally ill-advised to open up a Vanguard account for an IRA and an ETF portfolio while having your other equities through a different discount broker, correct?
No, that's fine. I kept my brokerage account elsewhere for most of my investing life, even though most of my assets are at Vanguard. I only recently moved it to Vanguard since I discovered that I qualify for free trades. But as long as you aren't getting raped by your brokerage on fees, anywhere is fine.

>>408527
Not that it matters, but you're in the right tier.

>>408487
>And I don't think that you're too overweight in the U.S. considering that total international market funds aren't doing too hot lately
Some people would say this is a good reason to buy. It's a tough call because I agree that short and medium term prospects for a lot of the international markets do appear weak, as you suggested. Then again, this could be the bottom of the dip and the ideal time to pad your international holdings.

Personally, I'm a skeptic and have allowed my portfolio to organically underweight down to 20% international. I probably won't let it go down to 15%, though.

[Anonymous No.408947]

>>408919

>fan of the Health fund
>not Consumer Staples masterrace

iHaz confirmed for pleb.

[Anonymous No.409181]

No love for State Street or Fidelity...the fuck is up with biz?

[Anonymous No.409237]

>>408947
>Consumer Staples
minimum investment is $100,000; otherwise available as an ETF.

I guess my question is....would I even benefit from ETF's if I am mainly a buy and hold investor? (i.e. passive)

>Not a lot, at least not necessarily. If you feel you need exposure to these sectors, a starting investment of $3000 would be perfectly appropriate. Personally I'm a big fan of the Heath fund ... terrific performance and very nice income too. Put this is a tax advantaged account if extra income is undesirable
Not in particular to be honest, was just trying to fancy up the portfolio seeing as a large majority of it is in domestic, specifically large cap that's all. Maybe once I get richer (i.e. go back to school for further schooling/certifications)

>>408629
For bond exposure, would a bond index be sufficient? Or do I have to pay attention specifically to the maturity/duration of the bonds in the index? I just assumed they are broadly diversified enough as it is

Specifically:

Vanguard Total Bond Index
and
Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index

>>408618
I'm still not sure if I should get bond exposure. Even on the Bogleheads forums, there are a lot of 30-40 year olds who advocate 100% stock asset allocation because they plan on holding their portfolios for another 25-35 years anyway....

See the main debate is this:

Be a prudent investor, invest in broad based index funds that give you exposure and diversification. Be patient with the long term buy and hold strategy.

But if that's the case. why not just dump and load your money on equity index and not care for bonds if you intend on riding out the wave until retirement especially seeing that I am in my 20's?

>>408578
At least you're being helpful!
I just need to make more money is what's up

[Anonymous No.409324]

Can a non-US citizen invest in Vanguard funds?

[Anonymous No.409439]

>>409237
No, it isn't bad for someone in his 20s to have only stocks. You're right that you have plenty of time to recover from a recession and to reap the long-term growth prospect of the market.

You just have to be comfortable with the fact that if a year like 2008 happens, it could take you 4-5 years to break even.

[Anonymous No.409442]

>>409439
Would it not be best to wait for that year to happen before buying stocks?

[Anonymous No.409594]

>>409442

Could be waiting a long time

Maybe the Federal Reserve's policies have finally ended boom and bust

What then

You could be waiting forever and gettin dem der 20% gainz for the next 5 years by which time your money wouldnt be worth wiping ur ass on

[Anonymous No.409616]

>>409442
How are you going to know when it is happening?
How far away are we from that point?
How much could you lose in compounding dividends during that waiting period?

[Anonymous No.409626]

>>409442

No. Stocks are expensive now, but they aren't so ridiculously overvalued you can expect negative returns over long time horizons. Get in now, otherwise you'll lose out holding cash at 0% instead of gaining the dividends and price appreciation. When it crashes, you can just buy more/contribute more from your regular pay.

[Anonymous No.409634]

>>409626
seconded

[Anonymous No.409772]

>>409442
Yes IF:

1) The crash dips the market below the gains between now and then.

2) You have a sizeable amount of cash to invest when the market does crash.

3) You can predict when that crash will happen.

What you're talking about is LSI, and it can be advantageous in many different scenarios. The problem is that you are probably not going to have a few hundred thousand dollars to invest when the dip occurs.

[Anonymous No.409787]

>>408596
If you make an acct with TD there are some decent educational tools on there. Starts out real basic for beginners.

[Anonymous No.409855]

>>409439
>You just have to be comfortable with the fact that if a year like 2008 happens, it could take you 4-5 years to break even.

Comfort is one thing, but you also need to make sure you don't wind up in a position you don't need to raid you portfolio and get forced to sell at the bottom. In 2008-09, a lot of people lost their jobs and raided their 401k's to pay their mortgages. Its the personal finance equivalent of a margin call.

[Anonymous No.409874]

>>409855
Sure, but the person asking the question didn't have a mortgage, and if the 401k is not a Roth then you are going to pay penalties and taxes out the ass for withdrawing early regardless of whether you hold a lot of stocks or a lot of bonds.

[Anonymous No.409903]

I'm just getting started with investing and I was looking at vanguard. I'm looking to save ~70% of my income so that I can hopefully retire in ~12 years.
Would VTSAX be a good first investment to get started? If not, how do I into investing?
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0585&FundIntExt=INT

[Anonymous No.409946]

>>409903

VTSAX is a fund that gets you cheap equity beta- in essence, it's the "US stock" portion of your portfolio, which should be composed of, oh, a half dozen different assets (US stocks/foreign stocks/safe bonds/HY bonds/cash/gold/REIT's/others?). The biggest decision you make, accounting for 110% of the average investor's performance, is what mix of these assets you pick (Another -10% comes from the fees from mutual funds and poor stock selection from people who buy individual stocks)

If you're looking for a good all-in-one fund, VGSTX is a nice all-in-one fund with domestic, international, quantitative, and index equity exposure, plus bonds and a hefty chunk of cash as well. It'll probably return 5+%/year in real terms for the foreseeable future, with some volatility, so it's a sensible choice for someone who knows nothing about investing. Invest now and educate yourself, the most valuable resource you have is time for your investment to compound right now.

[Anonymous No.409960]

Is throwing everything into VFIFX a somewhat non-retarded move? I hope to retire around 2035

[Anonymous No.410460]

I feel like if you have the money may as well buy multiple indexes

[Anonymous No.410515]

>>408499
Are you stupid or just misinformed? You don't need any other broker than vanguard, which company holds your fund is irrelevant, the only relevant measure is WHICH MARKETS you are exposed to.

I have two ETF:s (can't get a VG account in my country), VOO and VXUS. Total world coverage at minimal expenses, both ETF:s from vanguard.

[Anonymous No.410518]

>>410460
>buy multiple indexes
Meaning what? You're not supposed to double-expose yourself (buying funds/ETF:s that have investments in the same sector of the world).

Buying two funds, which both track large-cap US stocks, is a waste of money (as an example). You pay more management fees for having your money in what are essentially exactly the same stocks, only that they are tracked by two different indexes.

[Anonymous No.410565]

>>409772
> predict when the crash will happen

surely once it's happened the whole world will know? just a matter of playing the waiting game?

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.410610]

>>410565
>surely once it's happened the whole world will know? just a matter of playing the waiting game?
No, it's not that easy. According to the research, most investors will mis-time the dip and make a very suboptimal decision. Either they will (a) wrongly assume the drop is continuing and wait too long, or (b) wrongly assume the drop is done and buy too early. Sometimes they do both.

The reality is that predicting market bottoms is actually more difficult than predicting market tops, though both are a losing strategy.

[Anonymous No.410614]

>>410610
I see, so it really would be safest to invest somewhere between a boom and a bust?

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.410619]

>>410614
>I see, so it really would be safest to invest somewhere between a boom and a bust?
No, it's safest to invest whenever you have money to invest. Any type of prediction about where we are in a cycle is likely to be wrong. The tops, bottoms, and even middles are only obvious looking backwards with hindsight. No one can accurately see them in real time.

[Anonymous No.410624]

>>409946
So VGSTX is a fund with an international component while VTSAX is US only? What about the expense ratio, is that something that should affect my choice?

I'm also looking at these 'target retirement' funds. Are these funds I should consider or are they shit?

[Anonymous No.410630]

>>410619
sorry for the probably naive questions.

so investing whenever is okay, just important to not over invest or rely on dividends or anything like that?

Hypothetically speaking if I had funds equivalent to around $50.000 I could invest right away and learn as I go or would you suggest I bury my head in a book or two? (any recommendations? )

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.410661]

>>410630
Hypothetically speaking, you should invest money whenever you have money to invest. Statistically speaking, this is the strategy most likely to lead to gains consistent with your investment allocation.

Having said that, there are other considerations:

1. Do you have an adequate emergency fund set aside for 6-12 months of living expenses? If not, that takes priority over any investment.

2. Do not invest unless you are willing to hold for 5, 10, or better 20+ years without selling. Prudent investing is a long term game. If you have short term needs for the money, do not invest it.

3. Do not invest in anything unless you feel comfortable with your decision. Most bad investment decisions are based on the investor's emotions. If you're not mentally ready to ride out the ups and downs, you will inevitably make a suboptimal decision down the road.

4. I don't recommend any books. Books are written by people who want to sell books, not make you money. There's nothing useful in any book or magazine that I've ever read about investing that I couldn't have learned on my own. If you want to spend time learning, that's perfectly fine ... but save yourself some cash and study the basic investing guides at bogleheads.org.

>>410624
>So VGSTX is a fund with an international component while VTSAX is US only?
Yes, but if you could not figure this out for yourself you may not be ready to invest in anything. Until you can read a fund profile or prospectus and understand the fund's holdings and goals, you probably shouldn't buy it.

Target retirement funds are fine. They are simply funds of funds, so their quality is based on the funds that they hold. Most used to have fees higher than the average of their constituent funds, but that has changed in many cases (including at Vanguard).

[Anonymous No.410829]

>>410661

>4. I don't recommend any books. Books are written by people who want to sell books, not make you money. There's nothing useful in any book or magazine that I've ever read about investing that I couldn't have learned on my own. If you want to spend time learning, that's perfectly fine ... but save yourself some cash and study the basic investing guides at bogleheads.org.

If I can make a slight comment on your point, I'd recommend against *buying* books, but encourage reading them from your local library. The bogleheads wiki is a fantastic resource, but I've gained a lot from books that the wiki doesn't quite offer.

I prefer reading print to reading on screens. I prefer the linear format the books take, building up to certain points and lessons. The books also use many colorful examples and stories that you don't get from a dry wiki.

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Books:_Recommendations_and_Reviews#Start-up_Books

I particularly enjoy:

>The Four Pillars of Investing
>Common Sense on Mutual Funds
>A Random Walk down Wall Street
>Irrational Exuberance

Is this all optional? Yes. But I enjoy reading them nonetheless.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.410837]

>>410829
I don't disagree with anything in your post, and I suppose I shouldn't discourage people from learning more in any format. Point well taken.

That being said, too many people think that investment books contain magic formulas and secret strategies that can make them boundless wealth. It really doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous No.410852]

>>410837

>too many people think that investment books contain magic formulas and secret strategies

Agreed, and many of the best books from authors I admire market themselves that way (including Bogle).

Not to mention all of the pitfalls you have to avoid when selecting which books to read. That bogleheads recommendation list should steer people in the right direction though.

Bernstein includes a neat little investing curriculum in "Four Pillars" consisting of:

>The Theory of Interest
>A Random Walk Down Wall Street
>Common Sense on Mutual Funds
>A Fool and His Money
>Once in Golconda
>Devil Take the Hindmost
>The Trouble with Prosperity
>Capital Ideas
>Winning the Loser's Game
>Global Investing by Brinson and Ibbotson
>Asset Allocation by Gibson

However, these aren't the most practical books for beginners--more like supplementary background reading about the dangers of the investment worlds, the history of crashes, etc.

[Anonymous No.410856]

Can I invest in Vanguard if I'm in Canada?

[Anonymous No.410892]

>>410852

>Once in Golconda

You are a gentleman and a scholar, Anon. What's your favorite Scotch?

[Anonymous No.410894]

If I am 25 and have <$100k should I 100% stocks currently 90-10 but not even sure if worth allocating 10% at all. I mean mutual funds in general so safe and I will be investing for 40+ years....thoughts ihaz??

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.411176]

>>410894
I can't honestly say that 100% stocks is "wrong" but I don't recommend it and here's why:

1. Some allocation to bonds will help reduce the volatility of your investments. Lower volatility will help you stay the course when bad years come around, as opposed to making emotional knee-jerk reactions (as studies show most investors are prone to do).

2. The income thrown off by bonds will supplement your overall performance in both good years and bad. Since you'll reinvesting the income, you'll essentially have a built-in DCA program without the volatility of dividend stocks.

3. If you legitimately need to raid your portfolio for life expenses -- emergency medical needs, purchasing a house, one-time investment opportunity, etc. -- you can liquidate your bond holdings with less risk and fewer tax consequences than liquidating stock. Your bond holdings essentially become your backup emergency fund.

Whether these reasons are important enough to give up 1% of annual performance is up to you.

[Anonymous No.411302]

>>411176
That's a really clever post. I guess some is never too bad.

Man I'm actually really pissed off about my VTIAX (International), it's yielded me $18 capital gains over like 3-4 months just fucking annoying - in my taxable account.

Sigh in my Roth IRA, I got $500+ capital gains (given I do have more invested $11000 vs. $7700 in the taxable international).

I don't know maybe people who strictly invests in S&P500 aren't so stupid after all.

I mean do the duration of bond funds even matter though, like short term, intermediate, long term? I'm inclined to think long term is garbage with inflation and most likely short-intermediate index bonds are the best

[Anonymous No.411318]

>>408572
Fucking this. If you don't know what happens to bond prices when interest rates rise or fall, (basically bonds do the opposite) then don't even bother with bonds.

[Anonymous No.411319]

>>411318
>>408572

This. There's no guaranteed way to make a profit in the stock market.

Just don't even bother with it. Get a job or something.

[Anonymous No.411342]

>>411302
All those funds are essentially hedges against each other. The economy is not quite a zero-sum game, but it would be difficult for the entire world economy, including U.S., to grow simultaneously.

Right now people with U.S. heavy stocks look good because the American economy is doing better than most of the world.