The normal narrative for encouraging investors to look at emerging markets typically goes like this: The valuations are cheap, the demographics/rising incomes are supportive of growth, and they offer diversification. Perhaps this is more the marketing narrative. Kind of how, like for infrastructure strategies, they always talk about how many bridges need repairing. We are not refuting any of the above reasons, as they have been rather perennial for many, many years. And yet, for those who know us, we have been rather negative or at least cool on emerging markets for a long time. How long? Well, this negative view persisted for well over a decade. This is us giving ourselves a pat on the back since Emerging Markets (EM) have done roughly nothing for the past 12 years as Developed Markets (DM) have charged higher (chart).
So why are we turning more positive now after so long? First off, it is not all rosy, as there are some big headwinds as well as tailwinds. If everything were positive, EM would have already ripped higher. Investing is probabilities, with an eye on risk to both the upside and downside. Today, we feel there is a good tilt in favour of EM. But first, we will talk about the negatives.
Trade restrictions – For EM nations, exports make up a larger portion of their economies than developed markets, so any increase in tariffs or trade restrictions is negative. Given that China comprises a bit over 20% of the EM universe, the escalation of the China/US trade conflict is a clear risk. When the U.S. raised China tariffs from 3% to 12% during Trump’s presidency, trade gradually adjusted. Exports out of China bound for the U.S. fell from 21% to 14%. Other countries, such as Mexico, experienced increases in their economy.
We are not going to try to guess who wins the election or to what degree campaign boasting actually affects policy. However, the escalation of trade restrictions, or Trade War 2.0, if you prefer, is a risk for China and other EM nations.
Polarization – The world has become marginally more polarized over the past years. This has led to increased geopolitical conflicts, or geopolitics have led to increased polarization, which is a bit of a chicken-and-egg question. Regardless, this trend is away from globalization, which is not great for emerging markets.
China – When talking EM, you can’t ignore China. Now, China used to have about a 40% weighting in EM, but this has fallen to around 22% as their market has suffered and other EM countries, including Mexico, Brazil and India, have risen. China is very cheap for some clear reasons, including the trade war risk, the fact their index has a strong technology weighting, and, of course, the ongoing property crisis.
As we said, if everything were positive, there wouldn’t be much of an opportunity. The real question is whether these negatives are bigger than the positives, given the current entry point available. We think the positives are great, and the low entry point offers enough of a margin of safety. Here is the other side, and we are skipping over the standard demographics and diversification arguments.
Valuations – Yes, EM is almost always cheaper than DM, mainly because of greater earnings variability. A dollar of more cyclical earnings is simply worth less. Normally, this would not be a reason, in our opinion. However, the price-to-earnings spread between EM and DM is over 6 points, which is historically very high. Developed markets globally are trading at 18x while EM is around 12x. That kind of spread does have us talking about valuations as a reason to be more positive EM, or at the very least, less fearful of the negatives.
Economic momentum – Everyone knows the U.S. economy has been the more resilient over the past year or two, while other economies have suffered. Today, we are seeing a broadening of economic improvement, including EM. Broader growth and less risk of global recession is good news for both DM and EM, just more so for EM. Notably, global trade is improving. While it is still being influenced by pandemic-induced behavioural changes, rising trade and higher manufacturing activity favour EM. The chart below is global trade, and it is clearly turning up (black line). It hasn’t reached the key 4% growth pace but is moving in the right direction. When global trade is higher, EM tends to outperform DM.
We would add to this central bank activity. Broadly speaking, EM nations raised rates before DM in the past rate hiking cycle. And they have started to cut rates sooner. Again, a positive impact on EM.
Earnings growth – The relative performance of EM vs DM tracks very well with the relative earnings growth in EM vs DM. Whichever market grouping has better growth normally performs better. In fact, for much of the past decade, during which EM underperformed DM, earnings growth in EM was below that of DM. With forward earnings growth rising back close to parity, this is good news for EM vs DM that we do not believe has been reflected in the relative performance between the two.
While China used to be a much, much larger weight in EM, it is still the biggest single country weight, at just under 25%. The chart above outlines the current weights in one of the larger EM ETFs available. So, let’s talk China a little. The trade war risk is certainly real, with some of the risk mitigated by their gradual migration away from trade bound for the U.S. But the big risk is their real estate crisis. This has really been going on for about three years, and part of us wants to believe that after such a period, much of the bad news has become widely known. There is too much inventory, developers are going bankrupt, soft sales, etc. Often, the cure for a crisis is the passage of time. We’re not saying that ends a crisis, but markets will move on long before it's all over.
So, is it over from a broader market perspective? Economic data from China is always a bit questionable. When Evergrande first surfaced as posterchild for this crisis (like Lehman Brothers for the GFC), we started tracking developers’ share prices. Creating an equal-weighted index of real estate developers listed in China and Hong Kong. Our view was long before the data started to improve, this group of companies would start to recover. Call it our good news canary for China’s real estate crisis. We ignored the move higher in late 2022 as it was driven by some government intervention. And there have been many mini false dawns. Maybe the current uptick will fail again, yet we just don’t think there are many more shoes to drop that haven’t dropped in the past three years.
Final thoughts
Add all this up, and emerging markets aren’t filling us with jubilation. For the first time in many years, though, we are less fearful and believe the risk/return balance is tilted more toward return.
— Craig Basinger is the Chief Market Strategist at Purpose Investments
Get the latest market insights to your inbox every week.
Sources: Charts are sourced to Bloomberg L. P.
The content of this document is for informational purposes only and is not being provided in the context of an offering of any securities described herein, nor is it a recommendation or solicitation to buy, hold or sell any security. The information is not investment advice, nor is it tailored to the needs or circumstances of any investor. Information contained in this document is not, and under no circumstances is it to be construed as, an offering memorandum, prospectus, advertisement or public offering of securities. No securities commission or similar regulatory authority has reviewed this document, and any representation to the contrary is an offence. Information contained in this document is believed to be accurate and reliable; however, we cannot guarantee that it is complete or current at all times. The information provided is subject to change without notice.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with investment funds. Please read the prospectus before investing. If the securities are purchased or sold on a stock exchange, you may pay more or receive less than the current net asset value. Investment funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Certain statements in this document are forward-looking. Forward-looking statements (“FLS”) are statements that are predictive in nature, depend on or refer to future events or conditions, or that include words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “expect,” “anticipate,” intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “estimate” or other similar expressions. Statements that look forward in time or include anything other than historical information are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results, actions or events could differ materially from those set forth in the FLS. FLS are not guarantees of future performance and are, by their nature, based on numerous assumptions. Although the FLS contained in this document are based upon what Purpose Investments and the portfolio manager believe to be reasonable assumptions, Purpose Investments and the portfolio manager cannot assure that actual results will be consistent with these FLS. The reader is cautioned to consider the FLS carefully and not to place undue reliance on the FLS. Unless required by applicable law, it is not undertaken, and specifically disclaimed, that there is any intention or obligation to update or revise FLS, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.