Yes, a more global approach is technically more diversified, but you have to make sure the fund's holdings match the name on the tin (and that the expense ratio

Yes, a more global approach is technically more diversified, but you have to make sure the fund's holdings match the name on the tin (and that the expense ratio isn't too high). I wouldn't call it a free lunch though. Very much the opposite. You're investing in the global market portfolio in order to avoid a potentially costly lunch (i.e. fees, trading costs, not keeping up with the market return, etc... I've stretched this analogy too far, I know)