> indicies that usually do not perform that well
MSCI EM has outperformed MSCI US since it's inception in 2001 if you look at total return.
MSCI EM has outperformed MSCI US since it's inception in 2001 if you look at total return.
There's also some other interesting aspects of emerging markets specifically: they never went more than 4.5 years before recovering from a crash to ath, whereas it took the SP500 12 years and EU 600 index 14 to recover from the 2000 one.
There’s a stronger argument to be made for small caps, but stock buybacks allow any company’s stock to effectively experience exponential growth even with flat earnings. IE there’s little long term difference between buying back 2% a stock every year and ~2% actual growth every year assuming you never hold the majority of shares. (as in 1/0.98 ~= 1.02)
Not sure what are you trying to say.
Plenty of companies listed on foreign exchanges make the majority of their money from the US market etc.
Nope. A more accurate description is saying you’re buying into a specific subset of a Market by buying shares of specific companies. Hand waving them as if they are the same thing doesn’t actually make them the same thing.
The MSCI EM, SP500, etc etc are simply a collection of public companies not the market of a given country. Which is why index funds all behave in fundamentally different ways than the actual markets we’re talking about.
Now if you do want more exposure to the upsides of a growing economy there are options, it’s just not a simple as buying an index fund.
This thread is about indexes and it started by a user stating that emerging markets indexes have been in line or outpaced global and even most of the advanced economies ones.
Your previous statement about why in general they would have an advantage was inaccurate. As you have seemingly realized.
I mean, we're talking about index funds, where you essentially are buying a market.
For one thing you’re only buying public companies, that in and of itself is a significant difference.