That is the fundamental difference in our investment style. I would suggest that if you are only 15% international then by default you are 85% US which to me is really the huge gamble. I try to map as close as possible to the entire market. Which for equities is about 68% US, 21% Europe and 11% Asia & Emerging markets. The only place I vary slightly from the equity map is I place about a 5% extra bet on small cap stocks. So a 5% tilt away from large cap. I do that both for US and International. Small cap stocks have outperformed Large cap stock in every 5 year window you measure. So a slight tilt improves overall performance by about 110 basis points. As for bonds I also try to map to the global mapping of that market, but that is a little more difficult so I am slightly over weighted to the US market and over weighted to short term and high yield corporate.

I set my IPS to the AA I have determined best for me, re-balance every time I have more then a 5% drift and stay the course using low cost index funds.

Keep in mind that whenever you invest in international stocks or funds, you bring currency exchange rates into play as well. You could gain 25% in your stock only to see it disappear if the countries currency drops against the dollar. There is an old saying: "When the US sneezes, the world catches a cold". Be cautious with overseas investments.

You surely do your homework and that's a good thing. Others here seem to prefer to "set it and forget it" and that works for them. I'll stick to my point: index funds to mirror the market (be it the Large Cap or Small Cap or Balanced or Whatever Market); individual funds to beat the market.

To the original posting's inquiry of Vanguard vs Fidelity, both are long-time highly professional, both will have answers to all your questions, and I bet your personal preferences will point you to the right path. And if it doesn't work for you the beauty of it all is you can change it. Kinda like living at The Villages....some of it is great for you, some of it is more great.

ETFs
 

The ETF fees are generally much lower than a mutual fund.

Again, there's a layering of fees upon fees. All the internal ETF fees, PLUS the internal fees of the mutual funds within the ETF, affect your final return.

Why do you say there are layers of internal fees. I know there are funds of funds that have fees like that. But I always think of ETFs as indexes. What am I missing?

I use both. No problem with either. I think Fidelity offers more tools on there site but Vanguard runs at a lower costs. Depends on what your needs are. I would consider splitting the funds if you do not have other accounts. If you have a problem with identify theft etc having two accounts instead of one might be of help while you sort out the problem with one account.

As always, I2ridehd, has a wealth, of excellent information on how to have a diversified portfolio and everything else concerning the villages.

With all of my retirement savings with Vanguard, for the last 30 years, they have always been great to deal with. For every dollar, I invest the railroad gives me an extra 40 cents to put with it. Vanguard also has very low fees, which will, also help your account grow.

ETFs
 

Nothing!

An ETF replicates an index. Therefore it purchases stocks and other instruments that make up the index. Therefore the fees/costs that they incur are minimal ie the buying and selling of stocks. They recoup thier costs and charge a feed to replicate an index. They are not managing what stocks to buy because they are following the index. Very cool and provides a very good service. I presume if you have a Vanguard account the cost to buy the ETF should be free. Is that true?

If you invest in S&P500 companies, you are already exposed to the international market. A lot of these companies get a significant part of their earnings and sales in other countries. Think Philip Morris, Apple, etc.

That does not solve why you invest in international markets. I agree the US market large cap has exposure do to the fact many of those companies have a global business. However the real reason to spread you equity exposure across the globe is to protect the impact of any single event causing losses. The international market also has companies that have US exposure. Think what happens when a 911 event hit the US, or the tsunami hit Japan, or any of 100 other financial impacts. I personally would like to be as diversified as possible. So having an exposure to all global markets at an amount equal to their % of the total market maintains the least exposure to any single market going down. Just as a split between stocks and bonds flattens the volatility of the markets, global balance does the same for your equity portfolio.

Just go to morningstar and back test each scenario for 10, 20, and 30 years and you will become a believer. Everyone who invests in the market needs to have an IPS, an AA that fits there willingness to accept risk, and a strategy to re-balance when required. Doing anything else is pure guess work and you will lose at some point.

Currency risk
 

When investing in international remember you are assuming currency risk. That is why a smaller portion of you portfolio (20% to 30% of equities) is usually recommended for international exposure.

That's what I thought. But BostonCelt said there's layer on layer of fees and I wonderd if he knew something I didn't.

I do have Vanguard but that's my excess and I feel I can leave it untouched for a long time. In that case I've used Vanguard Index funds to fully diversify. The Vanguard Admiral funds have about the lowest expenses available. For everything else I use Schwab ETFs. They're commission-free so it cost nothing to rebalance and the expenses are even lower than the Vanguard ETFs.

Vanguard Asset Management Services?
 

Any Bogleheads out there ever use Vanguard Asset Management Services? Essentially you hire a Vanguard Certified Financial Adviser to set up a diversified asset allocation plan based on goals, risk tolerance and the time frame as to when you will begin your drawdown.
The fee is $4500 a year or .7% of assets under management per year...which ever is higher. A minimum of $500,000 to be put under management is required to qualify.
My feelings are that yes, it is a relatively high fee, but, that fee coupled with the fact that you are buying Admiral Shares @ .21%, and together add up to .9%, as opposed to many funds that charge 1.2% right from the get go.
Another consideration is that good advise is well worth it's cost when you consider what a mistake might cost.
Any comments or experiences with VAMS?

A true booglehead would never pay for that service when it is so easy to do yourself. Vanguard will do a free plan for you if you have 500K with them and then you can follow that plan. Why pay them .7% of assets when you can everything they will do in about 1 hour a month. Fee's kill returns. Adding the .7% to the .2% brings you to .9%, almost 1% in fee's.

A lower cost alternative would be Rick Ferri who does it for .5% and he uses all Vanguard and DFA index funds which are all very low cost. And you need 500K with him as well. Rick Ferri He has written several books on passive investing, follows the boglehead principals, and runs his own investment management company, Portfolio Solutions.

Personally I would do it myself using my own vs Vanguards plan. I had Vanguard do a plan for me and it was fine, they do the plan for free, but I like others better. I basically use the lazytraders.com 6 fund slice and dice with me own AA. Cheaper, easier, and better back tested results then the Vanguard plan proved to be.