Prin urmare, economiile emergente au un potential semnificativ mai ridicat de crestere a PIB-ului decat economiile dezvoltate. Cert este insa ca, in ciuda unui mediu economic mai favorabil acestora – tot companiile din economiile dezvoltate sunt cele care inregistreaza rate de crestere a profiturilor mai mari.
Concluzia? Pare a fi mai tentant sa cumperi mari companii din statele/economiile dezvoltate – care poate au operatiuni in economiile emergente …. decat sa cumperi actiunile companiilor locale – chiar daca ai putea spune ca acestea din urma, adica cele din economiile emergente, au capacitatea de a profita mai mult si mai bine de cresterea economica din zona/tara careia-i apartin.
Paradoxul este insa pe deplin explicabil prin faptul ca, pe de o parte activitatile companiilor locale din economiile emergente sunt “bruiate” de tot felul de piedici generate de chestiuni precum coruptia, cadrul legislativ neclar sau instabil, etc etc (cum ar fi spre exemplu cazul Rusiei!) …. dar si de faptul ca, cea mai mare parte a acestora (sau cel putin companiile care prin dimensiuni, intr-adevar conteaza!) sunt companii de stat sau detinute majoritar de stat – care au alte prioritati decat realizarea de profituri pentru actionari (cum ar fi spre exemplu cazul Chinei – unde prioritara pentru companiile de stat este crearea de locuri de munca!).
Intr-un astfel de context, probabil ca intre beneficiarele fluxurilor internationale de capital ar putea fi companiile care sunt la limitele pozitive ale celor doua coordonate! Altfel spus, companiile din economii aflate intr-un eventual proces de asimilare a unui cadru juridic, administrativ, politic, etc – similar cadrului existent in economiile dezvoltate …. DAR care intrunesc totodata caracteristica de “piata nesaturata” specifica economiilor emergente …
Intre acestea, cred ca am putea introduce statele/economiile aflate acum “la marginea” Uniunii Europene …. si deci, si Romania …
Mai jos cateva extrase din materialul original din Financial Times … :
– US groups produced earnings growth of 4.3 per cent last year, according to JPMorgan. Emerging market competitors managed 3.7 per cent.
– Many big companies that weigh heavy on market indices, notably in China, are state-controlled and have priorities other than profit, such as job creation.
– Compared with the MSCI Emerging Market index on 12, the trailing p/e ratio for India is 17 and for Russia just 5.5. Russia is not necessarily a screaming buy – the figure reflects a tough investment environment.
– In price/earnings terms, emerging market stocks now trade at a discount to the US, with the MSCI emerging markets index on a trailing ratio of 12, compared with 15 for the S&P 500.
By Stefan Wagstyl
While world equity markets have generally had a good run in the first quarter of 2013, there is one conspicuous laggard – emerging markets.
Developed market bourses are up 6.6 per cent on the three months but their emerging market cousins are down 3 per cent – and that is despite the sustained strength in emerging market bonds and money markets in emerging economies.
Admittedly, a few emerging market bourses have done well, with Thailand climbing 11 per cent in local currency terms and Dubai 17 per cent. But Japan easily beats them with a 20 per cent gain and the huge US stock market is up 9 per cent.
This is not what was supposed to happen – in the long term, emerging markets should see faster growth in economic output and in stock market capitalisation. So what is going on?
Economic growth is not the issue. The International Monetary Fund forecasts gross domestic product growth of 5.9 per cent for the emerging world and 1.9 per cent for the advanced. That is slower than before the 2008 crisis, but the emerging-developed gap is almost the same as before, at about 4 percentage points. So the great economic convergence remains in place.
Nor is there much change in overall difference in credit conditions between developed and emerging markets, according to Jonathan Anderson of Emerging Advisors Group, a research company.
Despite the huge market convulsions since 2007, credit growth has slowed at roughly equal rates; the expansion rate in emerging markets has stayed at about 10-12 percentage points higher than in the developed world, says Mr Anderson.
The same is true for interest rates – the main driver in the well-publicised drop in emerging market yields has been the well-publicised drop in developed market yields.
Also, international fund managers remain fairly positive about risk – for example putting cash into frontier market equities, which have broken away from emerging market stocks this year and kept pace with developed markets.
But there are clouds on the emerging markets horizon.
First, even though economic growth in emerging markets is good by developed market standards, it is not quite as good as expected. Barclays this week trimmed its 2013 global GDP growth forecast from 3.3 to 3.1 per cent, with a cut for emerging markets from 5.5 to 5.3 per cent.
Next, even though growth is slowing, policy makers in some countries, notably Brazil, have hinted at worries about inflation – and may have to raise rates. Michael Hood, institutional strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, writes: “Just as easy money continues to support developed market equities, emerging market equities may suffer already this year from policy changes in the other direction.”
Also, while developed market growth is slow, developed market companies have shown themselves better than emerging market rivals at generating cash and profits.
US groups produced earnings growth of 4.3 per cent last year, according to JPMorgan. Emerging market competitors managed 3.7 per cent. That is a modest difference but it contains a lot of disappointment – given the GDP growth differential, emerging market companies might be expected to be leading developed market competitors by a long way.
To be fair, some are. Groups such as Russian supermarket chain Magnit, Natura, the Brazilian toiletries group, and Naspers, the South African internet company, have recently delivered handsome profits and stock market returns. But many big companies that weigh heavy on market indices, notably in China, are state-controlled and have priorities other than profit, such as job creation.
In price/earnings terms, emerging market stocks now trade at a discount to the US, with the MSCI emerging markets index on a trailing ratio of 12, compared with 15 for the S&P 500.
Another challenge, particularly for Asian export-oriented companies, lies in the so-called currency wars. They have been hit hard by the sharp drop in the Japanese yen, which will boost Japan’s competitiveness at rivals’ expense. Not for nothing is Seoul again this week threatening capital controls to limit speculation in the South Korean currency.
So, after the correction, what is the outlook? Über-bears argue that the deep-rooted structural problems of emerging markets – notably the state’s over-strong role – will prove increasingly difficult in the next few years, with negative consequences for stocks. John Paul Smith, an equity strategist at Deutsche Bank, for example, forecasts a 10-15 per cent drop in emerging market equities this year, driven by deepening difficulties in China.
JPMorgan’s Mr Hood is more positive. He writes: “While EM equities can still rise more strongly than the S&P 500 . . . EM’s outperformance this year may fall short of what the business cycle swing would typically generate.”
Barclays points out that emerging market equities are no longer moving in lock-step with each other. Barclays says: “The fraction of the variance of EM equities that can be explained by a common driver has fallen from around 75 per cent in mid-2012 to less than 55 per cent currently.”
Valuations in emerging market equities vary widely. Compared with the MSCI Emerging Market index on 12, the trailing p/e ratio for India is 17 and for Russia just 5.5. Russia is not necessarily a screaming buy – the figure reflects a tough investment environment. But the wide range could encourage more careful selection of countries and companies. Or, as Barclays puts it, a hunt for “idiosyncratic factors”.