Benjamin Felix

It seems like it changes over time, which I guess you're kind of just describing.

It really comes back to that big question of how important is international diversification

I think it comes up a lot for US-focused investors and investors in the US who look at, well, look how diversified our industrial base is in the United States.

We don't need to diversify outside of the country.

And that's one of the main reasons that I've looked at this is, is a well-diversified market sufficient diversification relative to being diversified across countries?

I think I've landed on international diversification is still important, but it's not a super easy question to answer.

We've mentioned Dimensional briefly, but you've looked at longer term historical data than even Dimensional would have had when they started their business.

Can you talk about how pervasive the size and value effects have been in historical data around the world?

That kind of reminds me of Mark Carhart and Fama and French both have papers looking at active mutual fund performance through the lens of factor exposures.

Is that kind of the line of thinking that you're talking about?

Yeah, I mean,

Yeah, I alluded to that too.

We talked about the negative momentum exposure that equal weighting is always going to have, which is what you were just talking about.

I want to move on to the equity risk premium.

Can you talk about what history tells us about the size of the equity risk premium?

Historically, that's the risk premium.

How does that correspond to the real return on equities?

Mad Fientist Crazy.

So 3% or 4% equity risk premium.

Mad Fientist Wow, 3%.