Wikinvest Wire

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Emerging Market Catch All

There are something like four posts in the last couple of days at IndexUniverse about emerging market ETF flows including this very thorough article that had all sorts of data (it was ten pages long).

There is all sorts of ground to cover with this article. The first point is that of moderation. A reader left a comment to this interview about an advisor currently allocated 50-60% in emerging markets on the way to 70% (per the article). I should have something up at theStreet.com later today with more detail on this but right or wrong 50-60% is not moderate.

Over the weekend the WealthTrack program ran a couple of old interviews with Peter Bernstein (recently passed away) and one of the points he made was that some risks are simply too big to take. Too big is obviously in the eye of the beholder but the next time emerging markets drop 25% in a month out of the blue, and there will be a next time and then a time after that, a portfolio that heavily exposed will get crushed.

Emerging markets is a crucially important asset class, it has made a huge difference in results in this decade and may be more important next decade but in the context of working with a financial plan, targeting 7-8% annualized growth and assuming you are saving properly how much extra volatility do you think you need to take on in order for your plan to work? Then what is the risk you do the wrong thing because your allocation pukes down lickity split one month? I think people want to own an amount such that they do not panic out of anything after a big drop.



If you like broad based funds you probably get most of what you need (even if not an ideal exposure) from something like iShares Emerging Market (EEM). If from there you want to add a little octane you already know you can add a small position in a specialty fund of some sort to capture some outperformance. There are plenty of funds like that to choose from.

The next point is a response to the following quote addressing a possible reason for increased flows into EM ETFs;
a genuine pattern illustrating a general shift in the market from active to passively managed money in emerging markets.


From the beginning of this site I have been writing about using passively managed products in actively managed accounts. If you look at all the commentary about ETFs (both print and TV) it is obvious that this is becoming more popular. Two paragraphs above this one I give an example of this. Here is a more specific example. Someone has EEM as their core exposure, they believe emerging is going to take off for some reason so they add something like GlobalX Colombia 20 ETF (GXG). If the market is in fact going up then adding volatility becomes a good idea (the work is in selecting the right vehicle). Since GXG's inception in February EEM is up 40% and GXG is up 60%. This is not surprising, the time was right for emerging markets generally and there have been no coups or recession inducing natural disasters so that the Colombia ETF would outperform is not surprising.

To be clear, I think you need a fundamental basis for buying anything and I have no plans to buy GXG. After such a move, someone who fancies themselves as being an active trader might want to take the GXG off and go back to the core exposure.

This flows into the final point. If people really are gobbling up emerging market ETFs then I view that as a flashing yellow light. As I just mentioned EEM is up 40% in five months and now we are seeing people buying a lot? Taking a cue from Hussman I might think risks of a pullback outweigh the chance of more big moves higher for a while.

I included the chart above because I thought it was interesting but don't have a lot to say about it.

16 comments:

Stephen Drone said...

Is it me, or does that graph leave out the definition of the biggest piece of the pie?

Roger Nusbaum said...

i take it to mean broad based funds like EEM and VWO

Stephen Drone said...

Oh I see. I interpreted it as geographic allocation of emerging market assets, when it's emerging market "investor assets"

Anonymous said...

Roger,

You are right, but you expect rational behavior from humans which makes you wrong. We will continue to see a rally for a while before we see any pull back.

Matthew said...

@ 7:36, I don't think Roger made any call about if the market was likely to continue to pile into emerging markets or not. If the market does the wrong thing, it doesn't make you wrong per se - but you might have to wait a while until you are right ;)

Anonymous said...

It is a good thing that the Chinese and Indians do not think their economies and markets are too risky to invest in.

I agree that 60% in anything seems risky. But I think about the history of Japan, Tiawan and S. Korea and think India and China are next.

With perfect hindsight - was 10% or 15% invested in the USA 100 years ago the right amount?

Anonymous said...

Roger,

"flashing yellow light"

You are right or wrong about this and only time will tell, but it sounds like you are trying to get things Right.

You always criticize me for trying to get things correct, which is your prerogative since I'm posting on your blog.

The S&P is at 975 and the 200 dma is at 870 as I write this. We are hitting new highs in this bull market (I know you'll say it is a rally but how does either one of us know for sure today?)

Your methodology has been to get more invested as the market gets higher and your tone today and other days seems cautious. I can not say that I blame you as there are certainly issues galore to point to.

After all that what is your criteria for distinguishing between a rally and a new bull market? Lord knows everyone I know could use help with that one. How do you deal with calling a new bull?

Roger Nusbaum said...

i have criticized you.... i can't reply with any context since I'm not sure who are (not a shot but there really can be no ongoing thread referred to in my reply).

i didn't think of it as trying to be right so much as weigh risks versus reward here in a manner influenced by Hussman but I can't really refute what you say either.

references to bulls and bears is more about economy of words. if the market keeps going up then my net long position gets bigger and bigger this is a fact but i am lagging the move as I said would be the case with no meaningful changes. at some point there needs to be an easing in as I have done a little over the last few motnhs or so. I am more long than I was in the middle of winter.

Anonymous said...

You have agreed with me, disagreed with me, simply had a different point of view... That's normal

But It seems like your posts have been cautious. Apparently you are sticking to your discipline.

I continue to try to get this right. Personally I think this bull market will pull everybody back in slowly and last longer than you think. I'd still like to hear how you define the difference between a rally and a bull market though.

Matthew said...

What are people's thoughts on the fundamentally weighted products for emerging markets? Something like PXH or one of the Wisdom Tree offerings might be able to lean away from single country/region bubbles right?

RW said...

WRT flashing yellow light: Yes; I sold some emerging market (and US small cap) positions today; the gains since March have been excellent, no point in being greedy.

I lived through the 70's as an ordinary wage earner, beginning investing in the 80's, and there were some very tough economic and market conditions then and since but, until this past decade, I had only heard stories or read about periods of net job destruction, literally the stuff of the Great Depression. If we are to come out of this in any sustainable way IMO then consumption must either rise to capacity or capacity must fall but, right now, there are only sovereign wealth funds accumulated by some surplus countries and a couple deficit countries like the US with the juice and political will to prime the pump.

Once that is gone I do not see any evidence that anyone can do more because there are virtually no countries that will have enough people willing and able to consume and, as long as the global economy depends upon consumption as a growth driver (as it currently does), deflation is the fat tail and the probable direction remains down.

Obviously I could be wrong: This entire period has been something of an education -- school is always expensive it seems -- but if a substantial market advance grows out of this rally without a significant retracement first I would consider it unusual and if that advance proves to be a sustainable bull globally I will unquestionably chalk it up as 'one for the books,' contemplating my opportunity costs most ruefully all the while (boo-hoo*).

*No weeping now, the shorts on WCI Communities and New Century alone could keep my IV stocked with single malt for the next decade.

Mike C said...

I continue to try to get this right. Personally I think this bull market will pull everybody back in slowly and last longer than you think. I'd still like to hear how you define the difference between a rally and a bull market though.

Why so much emphasis on "getting it right"?

Roger referenced Hussman. It might serve you well to read this, ponder it, and internalize it:

http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc090720.htm

""If an investor consistently takes positions based on forecasts, and changes those positions only when the market proves those forecasts wrong, that investor's life will predictably be dominated by hope, uncertainty, disappointment, reaction and frustration. If an investor constantly takes positions by responding to opportunities and conditions as they develop, with equanimity to what will happen next, making a habit of purchasing favorable value or early strength, and a similar habit of selling overvalue and early weakness, that investor's life will most probably be dominated by a sense of peace and control."

Who cares about a technical definition distinguishing a "bear market rally" and a "cyclical bull market"? The real question is does your investment discipline/process have you getting more long, less long, or staying the same.

Stephen Drone said...

I definitely like the idea behind fundamentally weighted products, and I own some PXH.

That said, an article in the last couple of months on Index Universe found that fundamental indexes MIGHT outperform in the long run under the right circumstances, but that they also fall faster and harder, and perhaps recover more slowly, in a bear market.

Anonymous said...

RW, I agree with you. You are being very smart in taking positions off the table. I have seen some of your post and you were predicting a melt up when every one was predicting a melt down. My numbers forcast another breakdown but further out. Still these numbers are improving further into 4 years from now. However what out a year from now.
Roger has created a great blog for us to compare notes.
Best
Jeff from Milan, Italy

Anonymous said...

Jeff,

It's called rebalancing. Indeed, it is smart.

winslow said...

As I've stated before.....
the market runs in a cyclical pattern.....however, there is no academic way to know where we are in the cycle unless you are an outside observer (this is possible is physics but not in economics)(also in physics, any observer will affect the results).

We make educated guesses about the market, sometimes we are right, sometimes not. Saying the market is going up from here, or down from here, is ridiculous.

Proud Member Of