A higher-for-longer interest rate environment has been priced into emerging market (EM) stocks. As a result, we have been witnessing a textbook script on stock performance in a rising rate environment: EM risk assets have underperformed, EM currencies have sold off, earnings expectations have come down, and interest expense has been rising, with value/quality equities outperforming. However, this should be expected and the fact that we have (mostly) crossed the river without significant stress indicates that we may be getting closer to an entry point. Other asset classes (such as US equities) have defied gravity for too long and relative positioning (developed markets versus emerging markets) has become fairly extreme.
Our review of emerging market equities begins with a single word: skew. Skew refers to the measure of asymmetry in the distribution of market returns. In a ‘normal distribution,’ skew is zero. What a nice and neat world it would be if market returns exhibited normal distributions! While we recognize that ‘normal’ doesn’t often exist in the “real” world, it most certainly does not happen in emerging market equities. As investors, we are thankful that this is the case for this dynamic drives active alpha generation. A return distribution that shows ‘fat tails’ is a blessing for it increases the opportunity set for investment managers to add value. However, negative skew (more common jargon), or where outliers on the downside outweigh the upside, is not a blessing. While a large right tail of the distribution suggests that managers who have real skill can generate meaningful excess returns in emerging markets, one must be careful. (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Downside vs. Upside Risk in Emerging Markets
The graph above shows the annualized 5-year returns of all the stocks in the MSCI Emerging Market index. The index exhibits significant “down-side skew” — that is, the winners are outweighed by the losers by approximately 2.5–1 (in the second chart above one can see this skew is even worse in emerging market small caps). Again, for skilled investment managers, there are plenty of stocks that can generate strong alpha (more so that one could find in developed markets). However, like in most avenues of life, there are no freebies. The cost here is that if one takes concentrated positions and does not bring skill (or more charitably, gets unlucky), the impact of falling into the left side of the distribution can be quite painful (when one has high single-stocks portfolio positions). If we recall our algebra, if one has a 50% draw down in a specific position, one will need to a 100% gain to get back to where you were. Math is just so unfair like that. And the portfolio implication will be felt — at best — by total portfolio volatility and at even worse, by index underperformance — and quite likely both.
Harry Markowitz was reported to have said that “Diversification is the only free lunch in finance.” This is true in most cases, yet when dealing with downside risks, it really is the best way to preserve your capital. It is almost inevitable that any active manager can make a mistake, whether he or she follows a fundamental or quantitative approach. However, quantitative managers generally understand this is their portfolio construction and often will hold several hundred positions. They know that their signals are less powerful at the single security level, but robust at the portfolio level. Therefore, quantitative managers prefer to limit the amount of idiosyncratic risks. We prefer to keep our risk diversified to the broad underlying themes — whether it be value, quality, or the like — that generate portfolio alpha. We focus more on the broad forest, less on the single tree.
Figure 2: Bad Luck or Bad Skill?
If a manager is running a portfolio at a tracking error of 3%, for example, we can run a scenario to see how many “bad stocks” it will take to reach their tracking error limit. The concentrated manager, holding 40 names, can reach this limit with three poorly performing stocks — assuming all else is constant. One can imagine the concentrated manager hitting this limit with some degree of frequency when there is a whiff of sector volatility or simply bad news. For the diversified manager, that number rises to 37 — making it less a case of pure idiosyncratic risk versus style/factor positioning. The question of bad luck versus bad skill does begin to blend, but if a manager has a 3% excess return target, wouldn’t one simply prefer to take that with greater diversification? This should provide a better information ratio. In this, the math is really fair.
The stylized example above is useful, to a point. The next question one should ask is how this affects managers more broadly. We can think about this as such: firstly, what is the relationship between active share and portfolio (relative) drawdowns. Intuitively, one might think there is a linear relationship here, but as Figure 3 shows, this is not the case. The last five years have been ‘peculiar’ with pandemic, war, and rising geopolitical tensions. However, it is likely we will continue to see heightened risk in the years ahead. In short, this active share/ drawdown relationship could remain unpredictable.
Figure 3: Max Drawdown over 5-Year Period
The wise words from a long-ago mentor ring as true as ever in today’s markets: “Concentrated portfolios work — until they don’t” And for emerging markets, it is not enough simply to be diversified. Identifying names to avoid is as critically important as selecting names to hold in a portfolio. In the long run, one often wins by not losing.
As we begin to look out to 2024, we see a relative value play in EM returning with higher rates. We think shorter duration assets are the best play, ideally ones without a strong cyclical exposure. Controversially, we are starting to add positions in China — but selectively. Our strategy is to avoid crowded trades, be careful on the quality dynamics, and do not try to catch any falling knives. The information technology (IT) and energy sectors in China look attractive at current valuations in the large cap space. The 2024 outlook for IT in Taiwan looks stellar across the capitalization spectrum, as do the consumer names in Korea. As always, stay diversified and keep looking for balance in your positions.
Figure 4: Current Positioning in the Larger Markets
For institutional/professional investors’ use only.
The whole or any part of this work may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without State Street Global Advisors’ express written consent.
The views expressed in this material are the views of Christopher Laine, Jay Siegrist, and Timothy Herlihy through October 25, 2023 and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This document contains certain statements that may be deemed forward looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
The information provided does not constitute investment advice and it should not be relied on as such. It should not be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell a security. It does not take into account any investor’s particular investment objectives, strategies, tax status or investment horizon. You should consult your tax and financial advisor.
All information is from State Street Global Advisors unless otherwise noted and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the current accuracy, reliability or completeness of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information and it should not be relied on as such.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
Investing involves risk including the risk of loss of principal.
Investing in foreign domiciled securities may involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuation in currency values, withholding taxes, from differences in generally accepted accounting principles or from economic or political instability in other nations.
Investments in emerging or developing markets may be more volatile and less liquid than investing in developed markets and may involve exposure to economic structures that are generally less diverse and mature and to political systems which have less stability than those of more developed countries.
Equity securities may fluctuate in value in response to the activities of individual companies and general market and economic conditions.
The trademarks and service marks referenced herein are the property of their respective owners. Third party data providers make no warranties or representations of any kind relating to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the data and have no liability for damages of any kind relating to the use of such data.
For EMEA Distribution: The information contained in this communication is not a research recommendation or ‘investment research’ and is classified as a ‘Marketing Communication’ in accordance with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (2014/65/EU) or applicable Swiss regulation. This means that this marketing communication (a) has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research (b) is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research.
This communication is directed at professional clients (this includes eligible counterparties as defined by the appropriate EU regulator) who are deemed both knowledgeable and experienced in matters relating to investments. The products and services to which this communication relates are only available to such persons and persons of any other description (including retail clients) should not rely on this communication.
Investments in small-sized companies may involve greater risks than in those of larger, better known companies.
Companies with large market capitalizations go in and out of favor based on market and economic conditions. Larger companies tend to be less volatile than companies with smaller market capitalizations. In exchange for this potentially lower risk, the value of the security may not rise as much as companies with smaller market capitalizations.
The strategy may emphasize a “growth” style of investing. The market values of growth stocks may be more volatile than other types of investments. The prices of growth stocks tend to reflect future expectations, and when those expectations change or are not met, share prices generally fall. The returns on “growth” securities may or may not move in tandem with the returns on other styles of investing or the overall stock market.
Bonds generally present less short-term risk and volatility than stocks, but contain interest rate risk (as interest rates raise, bond prices usually fall); issuer default risk; issuer credit risk; liquidity risk; and inflation risk. These effects are usually pronounced for longer-term securities. Any fixed income security sold or redeemed prior to maturity may be subject to a substantial gain or loss.
Actively managed funds do not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index. The Strategy is actively managed and may underperform its benchmarks. An investment in the strategy is not appropriate for all investors and is not intended to be a complete investment program. Investing in the strategy involves risks, including the risk that investors may receive little or no return on the investment or that investors may lose part or even all of the investment.
Diversification does not ensure a profit or guarantee against loss.
This document provides summary information regarding the Strategy. This document should be read in conjunction with the Strategy’s Disclosure Document, which is available from SSGA. The Strategy Disclosure Document contains important information about the Strategy, including a description of a number of risks.
©2023 State Street Corporation – All Rights Reserved
AdTrax code: 6069190.1.1.GBL.INST
Expiration Date: 31/10/2024