In a review of recent academic research into the currency carry trade, Larry Swedroe explores some of the fundamental and theoretically motivated sources of risk that drive its returns and help explain the premium.

Our recommendation on asset location is to prefer holding tax-inefficient assets in tax-advantaged accounts. In our view, the expected return of an asset is close to irrelevant when determining where to locate it. This guidance applies to Roth as well as to traditional IRAs. For many, this can seem counterintuitive, given that much of what investors find in the financial media generally discusses locating the highest-expected-return asset classes in the Roth account. This article is broken into two sections. First, we will discuss how a security’s expected return and risk characteristics can change based on where the asset is located. Second, we will walk through a Roth-versus-taxable-account asset location decision using after-tax asset allocation.

It’s truly an amazing paradox. According to the Thomson Reuters Lipper second-quarter 2018 snapshot of U.S. mutual funds and exchange-traded products, active funds of all kinds, including money market funds, manage about $16.4 trillion. That’s more than 2 1/2 times the $6 trillion managed by passive funds and ETFs. That’s also despite the overwhelming evidence that active management is a loser’s game (one that’s possible to win, but with odds of doing so that are so poor, the winning strategy is not to play).

Emerging market equities have substantially underperformed the S&P 500 Index in 2018, with the S&P 500 up 6.5 percent and emerging markets down 4.4 percent through July. As I detailed in a recent post on international developed market equities, remaining committed to a globally diversified portfolio can be challenging during extended periods of underperformance relative to the U.S. market. In this post, we’ll look specifically at emerging markets by examining five lessons from long-run and current market data that reinforce some of the reasons investors should remain committed to emerging markets equity investing.

Investment strategies targeting environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues and concerns have exploded in popularity. The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance recently estimated that $22.9 trillion worldwide is managed under the auspices of “responsible investment strategies,” a 25% increase just since 2014, and which now represents roughly 26% of all assets under professional management.

There is no shortage of receptacles clamoring for your money each day. No matter how much money you have or make, it could never keep up with all the seemingly urgent invitations to part with it. Separating true financial priorities from flash impulses is an increasing challenge, even when you’re trying to do the right thing with your moola — like saving for the future, insuring against catastrophic risks and otherwise improving your financial standing. And while every individual and household is in some way unique, the following list of financial priorities for your next available dollar is a reliable guide for most.

I’ve been getting lots of questions lately about the merits of owning Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) versus nominal bonds. With that in mind, today I’ll discuss how to determine which is the more appropriate strategy. To begin, we need to recognize there are two ways one can hold TIPS and nominal bonds: purchase the bonds individually or invest in mutual funds/ETFs. When investing through taxable accounts and IRAs, one can do either. However, in corporate retirement plans, such as a 401(k), one is limited to funds.

Earlier this week, I discussed why it’s so hard to be a disciplined investor, which generally is a prerequisite for being a successful one. Building on this theme, the “Factor Views” section of J.P. Morgan Asset Management’s third-quarter 2018 review provides another example of why successful investing is simple, but not easy.

In a June 1999 interview with Businessweek, Warren Buffett is quoted as saying, “Success in investing doesn’t correlate with IQ. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people in trouble investing.”

Since the financial crisis of 2008, U.S. equities have earned substantially higher returns than international equities. Ken French’s data shows that the U.S. equity market has earned annualized returns of 15.6 percent per year from 2009 through 2017, while international equities earned 9.9 percent. Such periods inevitably lead some investors to question whether international diversification makes sense. This skepticism is reinforced by the fact that U.S. equities have outperformed international equities over an even longer period. The S&P 500 Index has outperformed the MSCI EAFE Index — its international equity equivalent — since the MSCI EAFE’s inception back in 1970. It’s easy to understand why an investor would believe that such a long period of outperformance must surely mean that U.S. investors should avoid international equities. This is all without mention of the current global equity environment thus far in 2018, where the U.S. equity market has trounced the equity performance of the international developed and emerging markets year-to-date.