FREE NEWSLETTER
BENJAMIN GRAHAM, the father of investment analysis, made this observation: “The investor’s chief problem—even his worst enemy—is likely to be himself.”
Why? One reason is our intuition can sometimes lead us astray. Things that seem like they make sense, and seem like they ought to be true, often turn out not to be supported by the data.
Perhaps the best-known example is the divergence between growth and value stocks. Intuition suggests that growth stocks—companies like Apple and Amazon—would deliver better performance than their more pedestrian peers on the value side of the market. But it turns out that value stocks, including banks, insurers and industrial companies, have delivered better returns, on average, than their more popular peers. This isn’t the case in every time period, but it’s been true over the long term.
An analogous dynamic applies at the country level. Regions that are growing quickly, as measured by GDP growth, seem like they ought to be good investments. But according to the data, the opposite is true. This has been known for some time, but was recently confirmed in a new study by Derek Horstmeyer, a finance professor at George Mason University.
Horstmeyer looked at 34 markets from around the world and examined the relationship between investment returns and GDP growth. What he found was that the relationship was nearly inverse: “Out of the top seven fastest-growing countries over the past 10 years, only one had a positive annual rate of return in the stock market.”
China, the fastest growing country in the group, with 6.8% average annual GDP growth, saw its stock market fall by about 0.1% a year. Other emerging-markets countries delivered similarly poor returns. Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines—all with GDP growth rates more than double that of the U.S.—had negative stock market returns over 10 years.
Meanwhile, some of the slowest-growing countries in the world delivered very reasonable, positive returns. This includes Italy, France, Germany and Japan—countries where GDP has grown at an anemic rate of under 2% a year, and even under 1% in some cases.
Overall, the fastest growing quartile of countries delivered average stock market returns of just 0.1% over the past 10 years, while the slowest-growing quartile delivered market returns of 3.4% a year—entirely contrary to intuition.
As an individual investor, what can we learn from these results? I see five lessons.
1. Exchange rates. A key feature of this study is that the investment returns were measured in dollar terms. This was intentional, to simulate the real-world results that a U.S.-based investor would have received. These market returns, however, differed—sometimes significantly—from the returns that an investor would have received in each country’s local currency.
Because of currency fluctuations, in other words, a given country’s stock market might deliver positive returns in that country’s currency but negative returns after being converted to dollars. This is one of the key risks when investing in international stocks. Of course, currency shifts can go in the other direction and benefit investors. But this is hard to predict. It’s because of this added element of uncertainty that I suggest limiting exposure to international stocks.
2. Stories. In the past, I’ve referenced the book Narrative Economics by Robert Shiller. Stories often drive markets. That’s because stories are entertaining, they’re easy to remember and they often sound like they make sense. But they can also be completely wrong. Thus, in making financial decisions, it’s important to rely more on data than intuition—and to be especially wary of storytellers.
3. Data. Even when the data seem clear, things may not turn out as expected. Consider this seemingly clear fact pattern: Today, the U.S. market is trading at 22 times expected earnings, while emerging-markets countries are trading at just 12. Combine that with faster population growth and rapid industrialization, and it seems like emerging markets should be delivering above-average market returns.
But they haven’t. Why? Data, even when it’s reliable, can’t predict the future. There are simply too many variables at play.
4. Institutions. A few weeks back, I discussed the work of this year’s Nobel Prize winners in economics. Their key finding: Political and economic institutions are the most important drivers of countries’ economic success. Even countries that are doing well are apt to stumble if their governments are too autocratic.
This has been the case most notably in China, where—despite strong economic growth—the regime’s heavy-handed policies have damaged investment returns. The lesson: When investing in international markets, be sure to assess whether a given government is playing by the rules we know and expect—or whether it’s playing by its own rules.
5. Diversification. While diversification might be the first rule in investing, there’s no rule dictating how diversification must be achieved. In building a stock portfolio, one school of thought is to mirror the global economy—an approach Jonathan advocated in his article yesterday. But if U.S. stocks account for 65% or so of global stock market value, should U.S. stocks really be just 65% of an investor’s stock portfolio? Yes, that’s one way to diversify, but it’s not the only way.
Indeed, Jack Bogle, founder of the Vanguard Group, saw no need to invest outside the U.S. With more than 4,000 public companies in the U.S., there’s a reasonable argument that this alone provides sufficient diversification. Meanwhile, others—myself included—believe there’s a benefit to having some international exposure, but only a modest amount. What’s most important to recognize is that no amount of math will yield the optimal answer. A balanced judgment is likely to provide as good an answer as any.
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 X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.
Want to receive our weekly newsletter? Sign up now. How about our daily alert about the site's latest posts? Join the list.
I find that international equity proponents typically don’t mention currency risk and the higher expenses associated with international investing. Not that they are bad, we will endless argue about how much international stock to hold. But in the interest of full disclosure…
I side with Jack, if for no other reason but to keep my finances a simple a possible. I also figure that if there is a no apparent definitive answer on a topic (endless discussions of the pros/cons) – then it is likely a wash as to what way to invest.
Mark, I always love your logic-based, no false sensationalization-styled articles.
I fight myself to include international equity exposure too often. Its a great reminder.
What if “ heavy handed policies” started happening here at some point? Just wondering what the next 4 years might bring.
Thanks for another excellent article Adam. Many have speculated about Buffett’s reasons for selling off stocks and adding to his already historically large cash position. And Graham, whom Buffett invites everyone to read, advocated holding between 25% and 75% in stocks, depending on whether equities were priced at very high or very low levels. I realize many wise folks, like Jonathan, suggest we adopt a sensible allocation strategy and stick with it.
To use a simple example, what would you think about a retired investor who holds a 60/40 portfolio today, downshifting to 50/50? And some day in the future if he finds stocks to be underpriced, moving back to 60/40? I think of this not as market timing, but reacting to the market.
There is an argument for market timing….just not short term market timing perhaps:
Yes, You Can Time the Market!Ben Stein, Phil DeMuth
Wiley, May 13, 2003 – Business & Economics – 208 pages
Economist, actor, author, and former quiz show host Ben Stein teamed up with investment psychologist Phil DeMuth to examine a century of stock market data and discovered a profound and original investment truth: Yes, you can time the market! In their instant investment classic Yes, You Can Time the Market!, Stein and DeMuth show investors simple, readily available measurements that tell them when it’s time to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, or cash. Written for the investor who wants to preserve capital and build wealth steadily, this book offers prudent, bedrock advice for anyone who can no longer afford to play games with their money.
HUH? “Reacting to the market” IS “market timing” by definition!!!
Maybe its semantics, but I think there are degrees of market timing. Dipping in and out of shares based on a prediction of where the price will be in a couple days seems high risk. On the other hand, if my risk tolerance led to an allocation chosen years ago and now the market is at historically high valuations, my risk tolerance may be a bit lower now, and trimming my stock allocation in response to market changes which already occurred seems less risky, at least to me. Or to put it differently, Jonathan and Adam, among others have suggested holding 5-7 years of future withdrawals in safe short term treasurys and cash. While I agree, if my risk tolerance is lower in the face of an overpriced market, expanding the number of years of safe assets seems prudent for me. To each his own.
This may also be semantics, but market-timing used to refer to going from all stocks to all cash or vice versa, while more modest changes — what you do — was called tactical asset allocation. Moreover, market timing was typically based on a market forecast, while your changes are a reaction to what the market has done.
In short, you may be sinning, but it doesn’t strike me as a huge sin.
Sounds fair to me, thanks.
You’re right, Adam, this information is not intuitive, at least not to me. Thinking of exchange rates, how would this influence a non-US investor, say, one living in Australia? The retirement account (super) funds are biased toward domestic Australian stocks. Should she follow this track, or the global market, or perhaps something in-between?