Plutux
지수·비용·복리Diversification9 분 분량초보자용

Home Bias: Why One Country Is Not the World

Home Bias: Why One Country Is Not the World — Investing 101 guide cover

핵심 요점

  • Almost every investor holds far more of their home market than its share of the world, and almost none of them decided to.
  • The spread between national markets over a century is enormous, and two of the sixteen went to zero. That is the risk being concentrated into.
  • Global diversification removes country risk, not market risk. Everything still falls together in a crisis — this buys a different protection than people expect.

참고 도서 Triumph of the Optimists Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton, 2002

Two percentages, and the gap between them

Your home market's share of the world, and its share of your portfolio. Most people have never looked up either.

A home market’s share of the world compared with its share of one portfolioIn the first bar the home market is a narrow slice of the world total. In the second it is most of the portfolio.The worldmarketYourportfolio8%everywhere else75%Illustrative. Go and check your own two numbers.
The pattern is near-universal and holds in every country studied. It is not a strategy; it is a default nobody chose.

The reasons for the tilt are real but weak: currency matching for future spending, tax wrappers that favour domestic holdings, and familiarity. The first two justify some home weighting. None of them justify the size of the gap that people typically carry.

What a century of national markets actually looks like

Triumph of the Optimists assembled consistent returns for sixteen countries from 1900 onwards, and its contribution was less the averages than the spread — and the honesty about the markets that most datasets quietly drop.

Long-run paths of several national stock marketsSeveral lines fan out from a common start, ending at very different heights. Two of them stop part-way across and drop to the axis.two markets went to zerothe world
Sixteen national markets from a common start. The dispersion is the point — and so are the two that stop, where holders lost everything rather than sat through a drawdown.

This is why the study matters more than its headline numbers. The familiar long-run equity figures come mostly from the United States, which was the twentieth century's best-performing large market. Using them as the expected outcome is selecting the winner and then treating its result as the average.

The ordinary version of the risk

One national market flat over twenty years while a world index risesTwo lines from the same start. One ends roughly where it began after twenty years; the other finishes well above it.the world indexone country20 years
The common case is not expropriation. It is a market that goes nowhere for twenty years while the rest of the world does not — and a domestic-only investor who has no way to know in advance which one they are in.

Twenty flat years is long enough to cover most of an accumulation phase. Japan's market peaked in 1989 and took decades to recover in nominal terms; anyone who held only Japanese equities through that period did everything right by the standard advice and got nothing for it.

The argument is not that any particular market is due for that. It is that you cannot identify which one in advance, and holding all of them removes the need to.

What global diversification does not do

Several national markets falling together during one global shockFive lines rise at different rates and then all turn down sharply at the same moment.one global shock
In a genuine global shock, national markets fall together. Spreading across countries removes the risk of holding the wrong one; it does not remove the risk of holding stocks.

What it does not remove

  • Equity risk itself
  • Drawdowns in a global crisis
  • The need for a bond allocation

What it removes

  • Betting on one government
  • A twenty-year domestic flat spell
  • Concentration you never chose

Being clear about this matters, because people who diversify globally expecting a smoother 2008 conclude it failed. It did not fail; it was insuring a different event. The tool for crisis drawdowns is the stock-bond mix, not the geography.

The currency question, briefly

  • Foreign stocks carry currency exposure, and over long horizons that exposure has historically added variation without adding much return.
  • Some of it is useful. If your home currency falls, foreign holdings rise in home terms — which is a hedge against the specific scenario a domestic-only portfolio is most exposed to.
  • Hedging costs money and complexity. For bonds, hedging to your home currency is usually worth it, because currency swings can be larger than the yield. For equities, the case is much weaker and the common answer is not to bother.

What to actually do

  1. Look up the two numbers. Your home market's share of world market capitalisation, and its share of your own equity holdings. Write both down.
  2. Decide the tilt deliberately, if you want one. Some home weighting is defensible for tax and future spending. Pick the figure on purpose and record the reason.
  3. Prefer one global fund to several regional ones. Regional funds require you to keep deciding the weights; a world fund reweights itself as markets change size.
  4. Do not fix this by adding an emerging-market satellite to a domestic core. That adds volatility to a portfolio that is still concentrated in one country.

이번 주에 해볼 것

  • Find your home market's share of world market capitalisation. It is one search.
  • Add up your equity holdings and work out what share of them is domestic.
  • Write down the tilt you want and the reason — tax, spending currency, or none.
  • Check whether your bond holdings are hedged to your own currency, and whether you knew.

자주 묻는 질문

What is home bias in investing?

It is the tendency to hold far more of your own country's stock market than its share of the world market would justify. It is observed in almost every country, and it is usually a default rather than a decision.

How much of my portfolio should be international?

The neutral answer is world market weights, which for most investors means the large majority sits outside their home country. Some home tilt is defensible for tax treatment and future spending currency; the point is to choose the number rather than inherit it.

Does global diversification protect me in a crash?

Not much. National markets fall together in a global shock. What it protects against is holding the one market that goes nowhere for twenty years, or the one whose holdings are wiped out entirely — both of which have happened.

Should I hedge the currency risk of foreign investments?

For bonds, hedging to your home currency is usually worth it, because currency movements can exceed the yield. For equities the case is weaker and the extra cost and complexity often are not justified, so many investors leave equity exposure unhedged.

Isn't the US market enough on its own?

It was the best-performing large market of the twentieth century, which is exactly why using its record as the expected outcome is a selection problem. Investors in several other large markets in 1900 would have made the same argument about their own.

Reading about a system is not having one.

Plutux is where you write your rules down, test them against real data, and keep the record your memory would otherwise rewrite. Join the waitlist for early access.

‘The index investor's whole job’은(는) 여기가 마지막 단계입니다.경로 전체 다시 보기

이어서 읽기

Plutux는 투자자문업자가 아닙니다. 시장 데이터와 AI가 생성한 분석은 정보 제공 및 교육 목적일 뿐 투자 자문이 아닙니다. 면책 조항

© Plutux Technology Limited 2026
Home Bias Explained: Global Diversification, Country Risk and the Survivorship Problem | Plutux