FREE NEWSLETTER

Time for a Change

Adam M. Grossman

THE INVESTMENT consulting firm Callan publishes its periodic table of investment returns each year. It shows the results of key asset classes on a year-by-year basis. Each asset class is color-coded and ranked from best to worst. This makes it easy to see not just annual performance, but also relative results.

The periodic table is valuable because it illustrates that there’s rarely a consistent pattern to relative returns from one year to the next. On more than one occasion, in fact, the best investment one year has turned out to be the worst the following year. That is precisely Callan’s point. All investments—stocks, bonds, international markets—are unpredictable, but each is unpredictable in its own way.

The lesson for investors: Because of that unpredictability—and because investment cycles can be long—a key ingredient for success is to settle on a sensible asset allocation and then stick with it for the long haul. Following that approach, I make changes to the lineup of investments I recommend only infrequently. But now is one of those times.

I have never felt entirely comfortable with emerging markets—countries like China, Russia, India and Brazil—because their political, economic and legal systems are less well developed than that of the U.S. That makes them inherently more risky. But their economies typically grow faster than the U.S., and that makes them attractive. To balance these considerations, I’ve always included emerging markets stocks in the portfolios I manage, but only at a modest level—usually 5% of the stock allocation.

For a long time, that seemed reasonable. Yes, China and Russia were run by autocrats. But those were just two of the countries in the main emerging markets indexes. Many other countries—such as India—are democracies. Thus, for a lot of years, I was comfortable with diversified emerging markets index funds that included Russia and China because they also included many other countries. Unfortunately, though, things have changed. Five factors are of most concern:

1. Index change. Back in 2019, I talked about a change to the most prominent emerging markets index—the one managed by MSCI. According to The Wall Street Journal, MSCI had come under “heavy pressure” from Chinese authorities to increase the number of Chinese stocks in its emerging markets index. MSCI ended up making that change.

For China, this was a boon. But for investors holding funds that tracked this index, the result was a sizable increase in exposure to Chinese stocks. Today, those stocks dominate the MSCI index, with a roughly 30% allocation. This figure had been even higher—around 40%—a few years ago. It’s dropped only because the value of China’s market has fallen, for reasons explained below.

I should note that MSCI wasn’t alone. FTSE, another major index provider and the one that Vanguard Group uses for its emerging markets fund, made a similar move. These changes were problematic for investors because the increased allocations to China meant a decrease in portfolio diversification.

2. Common prosperity initiative. Beginning in late 2020, China’s leadership—in a set of inexplicable moves—began punishing many of its own companies. First, it blocked a planned public offering by Ant Group. This was widely viewed as a punitive measure against Jack Ma, Ant’s largest shareholder, because he had made comments critical of the government. Shortly thereafter, Ma disappeared from public view for several months.

From there, China’s leadership took aim at a variety of other companies and industries. It forced a set of tutoring firms to become nonprofits. The government levied a set of seemingly arbitrary fines against companies like Alibaba and Tencent, two of the largest companies not only in China, but also in the entire emerging markets index. This was under the umbrella of a renewed “common prosperity” initiative. Ironically, the result was to erase about $1 trillion of value from China’s stock market.

3. Cyberattacks. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” From our perspective here in the U.S., I suppose it’s the Chinese government’s prerogative to make policies as it sees fit, even if they seem unjust, inexplicable and financially damaging. Unfortunately, though, President Xi Jinping seems to be extending his campaign of bullying beyond China’s borders.

According to the U.S. government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), China’s government regularly perpetrates cyberattacks against the U.S. Targets include both our government and private companies. In addition, according to CISA, “China is conducting operations worldwide to steal intellectual property and sensitive data from critical infrastructure organizations, including organizations involved in healthcare, pharmaceutical, and research sectors….”

4. Russia’s war in Ukraine. Most recently, the Chinese government’s response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine has been unsettling. At best, it’s been mealy mouthed. Unlike every decent regime in the world, China has failed to condemn Russia and indeed has reaffirmed its relationship. This is a problem for a few reasons. First, it’s simply abhorrent to remain silent about the human rights abuses Russia has perpetrated. It calls into question China’s judgment and decency. That may not sound like a financial argument, but I believe it is. If you’re investing in any entity that doesn’t subscribe to shared principles, it raises the risk level of that investment.

Our Free Newsletter

A further financial consideration: Since China regularly rattles its saber in Taiwan’s direction, there’s the risk that it could experience economic isolation—similar to Russia today—if it were to become aggressive. When the value of Russian stocks was zeroed out of the emerging markets indexes this spring, the financial impact for investors was minimal because it only accounted for 3% of the index, much less than China’s 30%. If China were to be excluded in the same way, the impact on major emerging markets funds would be significant.

5. Overall posture. I’ve focused so far on a set of specific concerns about China. Unfortunately, though, the problem is larger than that. Each year, the CIA publishes its Annual Threat Assessment. It’s telling that just four countries have dedicated sections in this report. One is China. The others are Iran, North Korea and Russia. That’s the company China keeps.

This is how the Annual Threat Assessment summarizes the Chinese government’s posture today: “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will continue its whole-of-government efforts to spread China’s influence, undercut that of the United States, drive wedges between Washington and its allies and partners, and foster new international norms that favor the authoritarian Chinese system.”

To be sure, we can’t expect all governments around the world to adopt our democratic ways. But it’s important to make a distinction between countries that happen to be different and those that are actively trying to undermine the U.S. On this score, according to the evidence, China is simply up to no good. Since it accounts for a hefty 30% of major emerging markets indexes, it’s time for a change.

I still believe emerging markets are an important element for investors’ portfolios, providing exposure to faster-growing economies. But I no longer recommend the standard capitalization-weighted index approach employed by MSCI and FTSE, on which Vanguard, iShares and others base their emerging markets funds. Instead, I will begin shifting portfolios out of these China-heavy funds and into alternatives.

First among these alternatives is a fund called the Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (symbol: FRDM). Created by a native of China who knows firsthand the issues there, the Freedom 100 ETF has a unique makeup: It’s “freedom-weighted.” That is, countries are weighted in proportion to their adherence to democratic values and other important principles. For that reason, not surprisingly, China has a zero weight in this index. Russia, before it became uninvestable, also had a zero weight. This fund isn’t perfect. Its expense ratio is higher than a traditional index fund, and its holdings are a little top-heavy. Still, I view it as a fundamentally better investment because it doesn’t include China.

Because many investors share these same concerns about China, I expect to see more new funds introduced that offer emerging markets exposure without the China risk. The Freedom 100 ETF is first on my list, though, because I agree with the premise that demonstrably undemocratic regimes carry higher risk. Russia has proven this. Also, Freedom 100 now has a three-year track record—a common criteria for investing in a new fund.

Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam’s Daily Ideas email, follow him on Twitter @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.

Do you enjoy HumbleDollar? Please support our work with a donation. Want to receive daily email alerts about new articles? Click here. How about getting our newsletter? Sign up now.

Browse Articles

Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David
David
3 months ago

Quite hilariously typical “America good, China bad” rubbish. Where I may agree with points about limiting investments in unstable regimes and am certainly a fan of ethical investing/consuming, the idea that American funds are any less exploitative or corrupt than ones in China is laughable.

America IS the bad guy of the world, it’s actions far more destabilising and negative than China, it’s just here in the West we are intensely propagandised that the UK/USA are the knights in shining armour, instead of the corrupt, imperial powers that they actually are.

Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson
3 months ago

To a certain extent, I agree with your reasons for excluding China from portfolios but I also value simplicity. We have a two-fund stock portfolio, VTSAX and VTIAX. It’s weighted 75% VTSAX and 25% VTIAX.

VTIAX has an 8% allocation to China. This means for my entire stock portfolio, 2% total is allocated to Chinese shares. That amount doesn’t bother me and also allows me to keep my portfolio simple.

It comes down to personal preference of course. But in the past, when I’ve tried to construct a portfolio with “bits and pieces” like value, growth, small, large, emerging, developed, etc., the results are me changing my views throughout the years, adjusting my weightings according to the reason of the day.

Mark Royer
Mark Royer
3 months ago
Reply to  Brent Wilson

Another approach would be to go with VTSAX and VTMGX, the latter being the Vanguard Developed Markets Index. Its cost is 7 cents vs. 11 cents for VTIAX, and its ETF version, VEA, is even cheaper at 5 cents. China has only 0.29% of the portfolio and Russia is of course absent altogether.

Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson
3 months ago
Reply to  Mark Royer

Good point, rolling with VTMGX would cut my exposure to China and slightly reduce fees but would essentially zero out my exposure to emerging markets as a whole. I would still prefer some exposure to emerging, even if it means a little higher allocation to China.

I recognize the irony of believing in market weighting my developed/emerging allocation through VTIAX, while also underweighting VTIAX (25%) in my overall portfolio. I believe a “total world” market weighting would be closer to 40% international. But it works for me.

Jerry Pinkard
Jerry Pinkard
3 months ago

Zero is the right amount for these bad actors. I am not concerned about missing out on returns from these countries. I am much more concerned about not supporting them by investing in their companies. Why don’t more Americans feel this way?

Will
Will
3 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Pinkard

I think many do. And it is interesting to see who is agnostic and who is principled on this subject.

David Powell
David Powell
3 months ago

I prefer to limit but not zero exposure to China. Between the four Vanguard int’l funds I own, PRC holdings account for ~2% of my total portfolio and ROC ~1% out of a ~32% portfolio int’l total. Each of these funds has single-digit allocation to China (and zero to Russia), and so avoid the kind of concentration risk you’re concerned about.

Mik Cajon
Mik Cajon
3 months ago

Agree…I personally try to avoid companies involved with China.

Last edited 3 months ago by Mik Cajon
Nate Allen
Nate Allen
3 months ago

Another ETF to consider is EMXC, which is essentially just the emerging markets minus China. The expense ratio is half of FRDM (0.25% vs 0.49%) and the assets under management are much higher. (2.55B vs 198M) Also, your concern about top-heaviness might be somewhat mitigated since they are not limited to only 100 equities.

Last edited 3 months ago by Nate Allen
Adam Grossman
Adam Grossman
3 months ago
Reply to  Nate Allen

This is a nice idea and a fund I considered. Trouble is, it has a 22% allocation to Taiwan. Through no fault of their own, though, Taiwan is exposed to its own China-related risk. If it had less concentration, though, this would be a great fund.

Nate Allen
Nate Allen
3 months ago
Reply to  Adam Grossman

Thanks for the heads up, Adam. I suppose it would be hard to avoid all countries with absolutely any issues whatsoever unless one were to just buy emerging market country-specific ETFs like for India or whoever. (Although India has their own issues too.)

To your knowledge, do all of the emerging market ETFs have the same issue with Taiwan? (XCEM for instance)

polamalu2009
polamalu2009
3 months ago

Excellent information. Thanks Adam.

Free Newsletter

SHARE