2006 Global Returns
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 | 08:53 AM
Via MarketBeat, here are Global Returns for 2006:
| Index |
Change |
| China |
107.02% |
| Russia |
51.01% |
| India |
49.11% |
| Brazil |
39.50% |
| Mexico |
37.62% |
| Hong Kong |
34.45% |
| Germany |
32.59% |
| France |
30.95% |
| U.K. |
26.52% |
| Australia |
25.73% |
| South Africa |
18.17% |
| Taiwan |
14.54% |
| USA |
13.86% |
| Japan |
5.17% |
| Israel |
-6.36% |
| Turkey |
-10.54% |
<>
David Gaffen observes that "the past 12 months presented a good time to buy a passport for your portfolio:
"As good as the returns were in the U.S., they didn't hold a candle to emerging markets and overseas returns. The table at right showed the strength of overseas markets, from BRICs to France to U.K.
The big inflows had some strategists (not us!) thinking investors moved
into the emerging markets at exactly the wrong time: World equity
funds had inflows of $104.61 billion in 2005, compared with $31.19
billion for domestic equity funds (ICI).
The 1st four months of 2006 were the biggest for domestic inflows -- at least
$18.32 billion per.
Since then, a curious stat developed:
a majority of fund managers polled by Merrill Lynch
believe global stocks will be higher in a year’s time, and the greatest
number thinks that if one market is overvalued, it’s the U.S. market.
Are emerging markets maturing? Or is this merely a testament to the global glut of liquidity?
<>
Source:
2006 Revisited: Spanning the Globe
David Gaffen
WSJ Marketbeat, December 29, 2006, 4:36 pm
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2006/12/29/2006-revisited-spanning-the-globe/
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 | 08:53 AM | Permalink
| Comments (36)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d8350dbc0369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 2006 Global Returns:
Comments
Well, judging by the top 4, it looks like it simply reflects a flow of funds into BRIC strategies. Clearly some of this is reflective of the same excess liquidity that has driven bond yields so low.
Last year was the first year since 2002, however, that China outperformed the US market (A-share index versus S&P 500.)
china usa
2006 1.307377049 0.136217949
2005 -0.082706767 0.030553262
2004 -0.152326322 0.090009001
2003 0.105708245 0.263936291
2002 -0.17114486 -0.234320557
And as the unfortunate holders of Turkish equities discovered, if you ever do have a legitimate crisis, it takes a bit longer than three months to bounce back!
Posted by: Macro Man | Jan 3, 2007 9:37:21 AM
Bubble. Have you actually looked at a chart for Russia or China over the last three months? Looks like a moon shot.
Posted by: BDG123 | Jan 3, 2007 10:22:03 AM
You say "(not us!)" and in reviewing the article, the "(not us!)" doesn't appear. I take that to mean that YOU, or Ritholtz Capital, thought that emerging markets made a good play at some point in 2006.
Did you ever express that position in your blog, sir?
If so, please direct your readers to a post or link where you DID express that opinion.
If not, why are you now crowing "(not us!)" - it's unverifiable.
What is your current opinion of the tradeability of the foreign markets? I can read MarketBeat via MarketBeat, it would be nice if you could add value to the conversation.
FWIW - at the moment I'm bullish on China and Mexico, the Wifeykins has the ETFs in her IRA (with trailing stop loss orders), but I am not trading the ETFs in my account. I have one China stock that I am long (and wrote about) and two others on the watchlist. I have no opinion or position on other foreign markets.
~~~
BR: That's not me speaking, its the quote from Marketbeat -- the indents didn't show up due to the table --
I'll try to fix it now . . .
~~~~
OK, thats fixed
Posted by: Bill a.k.a. NO DooDahs! | Jan 3, 2007 10:26:14 AM
The thing with Russia is that the bubble is five years old. The RTE$ index, which is what most foreigners play, was up 81% in 2001, 38% in 2002, 58% in 2003, paused for breath with 8% in 2004, then 83% in 2005 and 71% in 2006. The index has gone from 143 at the end of 2000 to 1921 at the end of last week.
Posted by: Macro Man | Jan 3, 2007 10:30:49 AM
<Insert obligatory post trashing Barry>
Barry,
I am a long time reader of the site. I read your site hourly. I read it aloud to my 6 month old baby so that he may glean your wisdom. I even purchased software so that the site could be read to me in my sleep.
Why didn't you tell me to invest in China? I was sitting all in cash, because you told me. If I would have invested in China, my wife wouldn't have to walk the streets to pay our bills and my other children wouldn't have to be begging at street corners.
Love the site Barry.
<End obligatory post trashing Barry> ;-)
If you are going to do one of these posts, you might as well do them right!
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest | Jan 3, 2007 10:39:36 AM
Good lord, go away DooDahDay! You are becoming quite the bore. You have your own blog. Put your thoughts/ramblings/crazed mutterings there for chrissakes. Don't come into Barry's blog, pee on the rug and crow about how smart you are. Didn't your mother teach you anything?
Posted by: MarkM | Jan 3, 2007 10:51:47 AM
Of course the bubble is five years old. It is based on the commodity bubble/weak dollar which is five years old.
I didn't say bubbles weren't profitable. The Nasdaq bubble was five years old when it popped too.
I'm just saying it's a bubble.
Posted by: BDG123 | Jan 3, 2007 10:54:08 AM
I'm curious to know what these Indexes are composed of?
Are these actual Index funds that can be purchased through a financial provider?
I ask because i am having difficulty finding Index funds associated with foreign markets.
Posted by: pete | Jan 3, 2007 10:59:25 AM
Hey Bill, Have you ever been out of your bedroom?
Posted by: BDG123 | Jan 3, 2007 10:59:52 AM
Folks,
If you appreciate Barry's independent streak, then I do not see why you would want "Bill a.k.a. NO DooDahs!" to either "agree or shut up".
I'll continue reading Barry's blog. But, despite my respect for Barry's thinking (or perhaps because of it), my opinion is: "Bill a.k.a. NO DooDahs!" asks some reasonable questions in a not-too-impolite manner.
-wunsacon
Posted by: wunsacon | Jan 3, 2007 11:15:27 AM
Are emerging markets maturing? Or is this merely a testament to the global glut of liquidity?
How about some of both?
Emerging markets are clearly more 'mature' than a few years ago (maybe not so mature as to be fully 'stress tested' yet though - that will be the full test)... but regardless, the recent performance is liquidity driven (bubble).
Posted by: dryfly | Jan 3, 2007 11:15:29 AM
Pete, check out Vanguard. They have several foreign index funds, including an emerging markets index fund.
Posted by: jmunnie | Jan 3, 2007 11:22:49 AM
I checked some of the stats of the Templeton Russia Fund (ticker: TRF) on www.etfconnect.com. I expected it to be extremely heavily weighted in commodities/resources, but was surprised to see it is pretty well balanced among various industries and still put up a 60%+ return in 2006. As BDG123 pointed out, it was up about 30% in the last quarter of the year.
Anyway, does anyone have any insight why it trades at such a huge premium to NAV (currently around 38%)? I looked at a handful of other country specific ETFs and most trade closer to a 1% discount/premium to NAV.
Posted by: S | Jan 3, 2007 11:24:42 AM
This emerging market action is what most bears are missing. Flat world. Get used to it, change WITH it, profit with it, but DO NOT FIGHT IT!!!
Memo to Congress...Don't fight global trade!!!
Posted by: Fred | Jan 3, 2007 11:39:03 AM
Barry,
Any comments on today's soft landing numbers?
ISM > 50, employment higher than last month, prices paid fell hard, and new orders spiked.
Spinsters?
Posted by: Fred | Jan 3, 2007 11:46:12 AM
In so far as my limited understanding goes, I don't recall that Barry makes any specific comments about trades in this FREE blog. So, the confrontation in Bill's post came off as just that, confrontational.
Posted by: Leisa | Jan 3, 2007 11:48:34 AM
I thought we all agreed the world wasn't flat half a millenium ago. I guess there are those who never took science in school.
The world is NOT flat. In fact, there is significant proof the knowledge ecnomies are accelerating the gap against emerging markets. While China's economy attempts to solve overpopulation, feed its people, build roads and put people into a house with plumbing and electricity, the U.S., Japan and Europe are advancing the future of biotechnology, green technology, software, basic research and technology. I'm not going to type a book but even Friedman has since admitted he might be a little too bearish on the western world.
Don't confuse elevated commodities producing temporary profits and unsustainable wealth in emerging markets with economic brilliance or reform. Ditto with outsourcing to China. The vast majority of profits and exports in China are from western companies. Mostly American, but all western companies lead in process and technology innovation. The China movement is simply another innovation by western companies. It also has a side benefit of goodwill and opportunity in China. It isn't China taking over the world, it's American companies expanding their innovative strategies.
The world is NOT flat. Nor will it ever be. As manufacturing becomes more an more driven by automation as it has for a century, it will move back to the U.S. when the people intensiveness is reduced to a nonsignificant level, manufacturing will be located in the markets where the consumers exist for multi-nationals. At 20 man hours per car, that is why Honda and Toyota keep opening auto plants in the U.S. It's a trivial number comparatively.
The U.S. still manufactures 27% of all global output and that ain't gonna change.
Posted by: BDG123 | Jan 3, 2007 12:07:57 PM
Off topic: can someone tell me why the oil futures are always in contango ?
Here it is the beginning of January. We have plenty of oil. The February futures price just fell by over $2.50 a barrel. And yet the March and April spreads versus Feb are $1 and $2 a barrel ! Why ?
I say we are going to break below $50 a barrel in the spring and if there isn't some serious consumption or a disruption, we aren't going to see $60 anymore.
Its getting harder and harder to believe the world is running out of oil when OPEC has to cut more and more.
Posted by: someguy | Jan 3, 2007 12:32:44 PM
"The world is NOT flat. In fact, there is significant proof the knowledge ecnomies are accelerating the gap against emerging markets."
Rather than ranting incoherant "facts", like above, kindly provide a link that shows emerging economies are "accelerating the gap against emerging markets". The growth rates aren't even close.
If you're too narrow minded to "see" the huge emergence of new consumers from these regions, you should stick to T-bills.
Posted by: Fred | Jan 3, 2007 12:35:47 PM
Historically, when OPEC is cutting, prices are weak at best or tank at worst. The problem with cutting is also exacerbated by the cheaters. ie, OPEC members aren't very good at abiding by what they say. It's pretty hard to cut production when that is the major source of revenue for your economy. So, historically, many say they are cutting while they continue pumping at a frenetic pace. End result? Even more excess oil.
Oil is not a good long trade here unless we have a miraculous economic recovery in our grasp. The oil companies are incented to build inventories because they are able to profit paper money with the market in contango. That will likely add to the glut. The oil stocks are not performing well either sans the majors which are considered defensive or megacaps so they've disconnected with other energy stocks. Oil stocks lead oil prices. Oil execs were dumping massive share amounts pre the oil cratering in 2006.
If the Fed remains vigilant, oil ist kaput. Gotta run. Glad I could spam the board today. lol
Posted by: BDG123 | Jan 3, 2007 12:46:52 PM
Now why do I need to provide a link Fred? Because you think someone else is an expert on the topic and I am just bloviating? Now, for you to use the word rant, you've obviously been to my blog. Now, don't be coming over there any more. I'm just ranting.
Do a search on Barry's blog and you'll see a link I provided a loooong time ago. But, since I used to work in R&D, I suspect my opinion as is close to expert as anyone on this board. Because.......what is an expert anyway?
Posted by: BDG123 | Jan 3, 2007 12:53:04 PM
Let me get this straight (again)...are you suggesting the emerging economies are expanding LESS fast than mature economies?
"In fact, there is significant proof the knowledge ecnomies are accelerating the gap against emerging markets."
Posted by: Fred | Jan 3, 2007 1:04:25 PM
Fred, I have to leave for the day but where do you read the U.S is growing faster than emerging markets in that statement? KNOWLEDGE. We are expanding our technology gap and innovation gap.
Cheers
Posted by: BDG123 | Jan 3, 2007 1:08:15 PM
And here I thought my 12% blended annual returns were good.
Posted by: Richard | Jan 3, 2007 1:15:10 PM
Actually, Barry was very positive about EWM about 6 months ago. But then again, it was ONLY UP 30% SINCE THEN. As far what is going on today, I would like to know what the TERMS OF ENDEARMENT MEANS FOR THE US before I want to say yippee.
~~~
BR Actually, EWJ was rec'd on Power Lunch in 2004
If I can rip the video, I'll youtube it . . .
Posted by: Teddy | Jan 3, 2007 1:39:13 PM
