But won’t this again be visible only in form of difference in returns ?
So we are again saying that due to taxes on dividends PLUS Allabolag Sverige will always beat LF Global ?
Well, that is actually not an unreasonable estimate. But the volatility will be higher. But the pure expected return should be marginaly higher
0.06% extra i avgift om man har 10%. Jag tycker det är värt det, men jag respekterar andra åsikter.
Tycker däremot, om man inte vill ha globala småbolag, att den andelen passar bättre hos LF Global eller Plus AllaBolag. Inte i svenska småbolag bara för att de gått som tåget tidigare.
Yes, it should yeild higher because of lower tax on dividends and also exposure to small companies and also share lending.
Absolut, man kan byta mot de istället. Men att vilja svenska småbolag behöver inte motiveras utifrån historisk avkastning utan bara på småbolagsfaktorn. Du får en högre vola och därmed så kan man motivera en högre förväntad avkastning.
Hmm…should’t taxes on dividends play only a small part of the difference in returns ?
In order for PLUS Allabolag Sverige to consistently beat LF Global - Swedish economy should consistenly overperform as compared to Global Economy. Isn’t that claim a bit of a stretch and claiming an "edge ?
This statement brings us back to the risk/return tradeoff. So what we are in effect saying is that by adding “home bias” we are ensuring greater returns. Surely no one can predict that will happen.
In order to take a informed decision - what we then need to know is how much extra risk does home bias add to my total portfolio as compared to a simple portfolio comprising of LF Global.
Frågan som ställdes var: Finns det någon anledning att ändra på basportföljen inför 2022? . Det är den frågan jag svarat på.
Some of the extra vola is offset since global stocks suffer from currency vola.
And it would of course be preferable if someone calculated the avg tax losses of a global index portfolio
Man kan ha olika underlag för sina beslut. Vad som är bra eller dåligt kan varken du eller någon annan säga. Betyget på beslutet visar sig ju så småningom när vi utvärderar vilken avkastning som beslutet resulterat i, eller hur?
No not really. There is a difference. If the companies you own via a fund return 7% in their currency, it is not always true that the returns in SEK is 7%.
Here you have a hidden assumption that is incorrect. We are not using home bias to get better returns!
Home bias is used to limit the drawdown in your local currency if the currency you live with increases in value in respect to other currencies.
That if the Swedish SEK increases in value a lot relative to other currencies we are relativly porer then other swedes with high economic exposure to Sweden and we cannot buy that much goods and Sevices in anymore with our investments. Since they have had a risk premium above their local currency rather then SEK.
3 gillningar
Hej
Feedback på denna:
70 LF Global indexnära
20 LF Sverige indexnära
10 sparkonto nischbank insättningsgaranti
Långsiktigt sparande 10+ år
MVH
1 gillning
Ja, billiga korta räntefonder få man lägga in då.
Hi…I agree to logic of what you are saying but when i apply it to practice, I still come to the same conclusion.
I would like you to apply your arguments to the portfolio i mentioned :
When I take into account the tax effect on returns, FX effect etc due to home bias - the only way for me to see this in my portfolio is if following statement is true.
At the end of 20 years:
1 000 SEK invested in LF Global + PLUS > 1 000 SEK invested only in LF Global
Since the only difference between the 2 portfolios is PLUS, it implies that PLUS would need to perform better than LF Global consistently for next 20 years !!!
The point about SEK increasing in value and me becoming relatively poorer at end of 20 years will only happen if I get less SEK from LF Global as compared to PLUS Allabolag.
And this also raises an another interesting point - Is home bias valid only if we think that Sweden will be stronger in future than it is now ? What if the reverse happens ? Will home bias result in lesser returns ?
Nej, betyget på beslutet skall göras på den information man hade när beslutet togs. Allt annat (nästan) är en efterklokhets-snedvridning (se Tänka snabbt och långsamt av Kahneman) 
Det är en bra Portfölj, klassisk 90/10 aktier/räntor.
Du missar tillväxtmarknader men det är ju valfritt 
1 gillning
Kan man verkligen utvärdera ett investeringsbeslut genom att titta på resultatet i efterhand?
Om jag köper en trisslott och vinner 1 miljon, tog jag ett bra eller dåligt beslut att köpa lotten?
3 gillningar
Jag känner mig inte helt klar i frågan men
Valutarisk innebär väl också valutachans?
Och minskad köpkraft gentemot sina grannar innebär väl också ökad köpkraft gentemot sina grannar i perioder?
Så var ligger bekymret?
1 gillning
Can you please stop making the assumption that home bias is something to do because we expect it to give better expected returns?
This is not the case. We use home bias to decrease the probability of the lowest percentials of outcomes in SEK. While still accepting that the median expected return will be somewhat lower.
This is not true:
You are adding assumptions here of a symetric return distribution in SEK. Where we as swedish investors value deviations above and below median expected return equaly. But we should not do that. The lower parts of the return distribution is way worse for us then the upper parts is better for us. In the currency SEK.
Which is exactly what happens if we have an increased value of the currency SEK compared to other currencies. It makes all imports relatively cheaper and export relatively more expensive. Which in turn make you worse of when selling companies based in other countries to a larger degree. This drawdown is worse for you then the positive value for equal gains in the oppsite case. Since your life is in SEK.
We cannot value upper parts and lower parts of the return distribution equally. Since we live in SEK we must take this into account.
3 gillningar
Att en förlust är ett större beskymmer än motsvarande storlek på vinst.
I seem to have irritated you unintentionally. I apologise for that.
I will also confess that most of what you have said is too technical for my current level of skill and knowledge. So I have no way to refute/agree with your arguments.
This in turn brings me to a realization that I have no business investing in something that i don’t fully understand. So for me the best way probably is to avoid adding home bias till I get a grip on the concept and understand the risks involved.
5 gillningar