An Argentina fan waits for the 2014 World Cup Group F soccer match between Argentina and Iran at the the Mineirao stadium in Belo Horizonte on June 21, 2014. (Photo: SERGIO PEREZ, REUTERS)

Sometimes columns strike a special chord with readers. In a recent investing column arguing that it makes little sense to invest in international funds, a reader commented, Dumbest article I have ever read.

In the vast realm of reader comments, this is fairly tame. (Note to @deathtowaggoner: That’s not physically possible.) And reaction was nowhere near as vehement as it was on another recent column on Argentinian bond s. (Note to @paymeArgentina: You’re really Paul Singer, and you’re not fooling anyone.)

But several other readers did point out, somewhat politely, that expanding globally does give you opportunities that are not in the United States. And this is true. And, for those who don’t want to figure out what percentage of U.S. stocks they should own vs. international ones, there are some very good global funds that deserve your attention.

The problem with international investing is twofold. First, it adds currency risk to the equation. When the dollar rises in value against other currencies, returns to U.S. investors fall. For example, the German stock market has soared 14.3% this year, according to MSCI. Translate that into U.S. dollars and the gain falls nearly in half, to 7.3%.

The German market’s return this year is still better than the Standard and Poor’s 500, which has gained about 2.3% this year. And currency can boost overseas returns when the dollar falls in value. But the currency effect is a risk that U.S. stocks don’t have, and U.S. stocks are quite risky enough for most people.

And international stocks have lagged U.S. stocks for the past five, 10 and 20 years. The S&P 500 has gained 518% the past 20 years, vs. 201% for the Europe, Australasia and Far East index (EAFE). But past performance doesn’t predict future returns, as our friends at the Securities and Exchange Commission like to remind us.

International stock fans say that the U.S. stock market is in the seventh year of a bull market and that prices, relative to earnings, are high. The S&P 500’s PE is 18.8 times its past 12 months’ earnings, which is high, by historical standards. (The PE ratio is price divided by earnings; lower is cheaper.)

On the other hand, international stocks have also, by and large, been in a multi-year bull market, and their PE ratios are even higher than the U.S. market. Germany’s PE is 19.3, for example, and France’s is 32.

But there are convincing counterarguments to the last two points. (Note to @BowerickWowbagger3412: Yours wasn’t one of them). Dan Wiener, editor of The Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors. points out that international funds have had plenty of long periods when they outperformed domestic ones – Like Jan. 85 to Dec. 88, he writes. Four years long when the EAFE returned 330% vs. the S&P doing just 165%. Or ,closer to today, look at Jan ’02 to Apr. ’08 when the EAFE did 127% and the S&P did 37%. That was more than six years which is about as long as … oh, yeah—today!

And Jim Hamel, manager of Artisan Global Opportunities (ticker: ARTRX), points out that international PEs are low because the P in the equation has moved up sharply, but the E hasn’t moved as quickly. And that’s to be expected in markets like Europe, which is moving out of an extremely sluggish period. We would have been saying the same thing about the U.S. market in 2010 and 2011, he says.

That said, it’s not like you can find terribly neglected markets these days, unless you’re willing to wade into the Russian market. (Motto: If you can predict what Vladimir Putin will do, you’ll do great!) We’re in the upper 1/3 of valuations, not the lower 1/3, Hamel says. Not excessively priced, but not excessively cheap, either.

The one bright spot is that global stocks don’t have much competition from anywhere else. If you look at the alternatives, you’ll earn zero from cash and less than 2% from bonds, says Bill Nygren, co-manager of Oakmark Global Select (OAKWX). Global equities are more attractive than cash or bonds.

Both Nygren and Hamel tend to focus on individual stocks, rather than broad economic trends or sectors. But both say there are plenty of opportunities inside and outside the U.S. Nygren, for example, thinks Google is an unappreciated U.S. stock. It’s priced like it will be an average company after 2016, Nygren says. But it’s hard to imagine Google not out-growing the S&P 500 in 2016, given the tailwinds of online advertising.

Outside the U.S. there’s Diego, a world leader in spirit sales and a tremendous presence in the emerging markets – but without the uncertainties of being headquartered in an emerging market. He also likes Richemont, a French high-end jewelry company.

Hamel likes Terrafina, a Mexican industrial real estate investment trust. As companies begin to return to North American manufacturing, a lot of factories will be put back to work in Mexico, and Terrafina is one way to play that. Another favorite: Burberry, the British luxury clothing maker. Easing monetary policy in Europe stimulates a lot of discretionary spending there, Hamel says.

Both the Oakmark and Artisan funds are no-load, which means you can buy them without commission. And, like all global funds, they decide the split between U.S. and foreign stocks for you, which is easier than rebalancing your portfolio every so often.

Artisan has gained an average 16.6% the past five years; Oakmark is up 14.26% a year. The S&P 500 has averaged 16.32% a year, while EAFE has gained 5.03% a year.

You can live a long and happy investment life without sending your money abroad. (Note to @listenupsheeple: We know that because we’re watching you). But if you do, a global fund might be the best way to do it.