Growth in China, India and Brazil Might Not Mean Great Investment Returns

By Larry Swedroe | Nov 16, 2009 |

As you may know, one of my favorite hobbies is debunking the “conventional wisdom” of investing. Another piece of conventional wisdom I keep hearing is how investing in companies with high expected growth rates in earnings leads to high stock returns. Historically, this has simply not been the case.

From 1927 through 2008, value stocks (with relatively poor earnings) have outperformed growth stocks by an annual average of 5 percent a year. Investors make the same mistake when it comes to investing in countries.

One of the most frequent questions I get relates to the desire to capture the stunningly high growth of developing countries such as China, India and Brazil. A few months ago, I showed that there’s a negative correlation between country growth rates and stock returns. The post also provided the economic reasons why this is true.

As London School of Business professor Elroy Dimson notes: “People have hopelessly got the wrong end of the story.” Based on decades of data from 53 countries, Dimson found that economies with the highest growth produce the lowest stock returns. Stocks in countries with the highest economic growth have earned an annual average return of 6 percent, while those in the slowest-growing nations have gained an average of 12 percent.

Dimson notes that investors chasing returns in rapidly growing countries are “paying a price that reflects the growth that everybody can see.” The same can be said of investors chasing the returns of rapidly growing companies.

A second point lost on investors is that markets price risk, not growth. It’s the discount rate (reflecting risk) applied to expected earnings that determines the expected return, not the rate of growth.
Think of it this way: The benefits of technological change don’t necessarily go to the owners of capital. Those benefits can instead mean higher wages for workers and lower prices for consumers. The same is true of the benefits of rapid economic growth.

There certainly can be a role for emerging markets in equity portfolios. However, that role shouldn’t be based on expectations of high rates of economic growth. Instead, it should be based on their returns not being highly correlated with the returns of either U.S. stocks or the stocks of other developed nations — thus, providing the benefits of diversification.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    shivdesai

    11/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Growth in China, India and Brazil Might Not Mean Great Investment Returns

    Hi,

    I wanted to confirm about the concept you mentioned about discount rate. Isn't the return is dependent upon the future earning also along with the discount rate?
    And as per your statement, is it implied that the discount rate for the high growth economy would be higher than the low growth economy which will result in lower forecasted value of the asset and lower returns??

  •  
    2

    larry swedroe

    11/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Growth in China, India and Brazil Might Not Mean Great Investment Returns

    Shivdesai

    The expected growth rate of earnings is the numerator in the equation used to estimate value. The denominator is the discount rate which is equal to the risk free rate plus some premium, appropriate for the risk of the investment.

    So for example, growth stocks with strong outlook for future earnings and typically have stronger balance sheets than value stocks would be viewed as less risky investments. So value stocks have a higher risk premium added to them then do growth stocks. The discount rate applied is the cost of capital, and the flip side of the cost of capital is the expected return to the investor. High discount rates equal low prices and high expected returns and vice versa.

    The same is true of countries. Countries with faster growth of GNP would logically be considered safer places to do business (all else equal)--companies less likely to go bankrupt. So companies in the slower growing countries get higher discount rate applied to their earnings forecast. Higher discount rates equal higher expected returns, and vice versa

    The important thing for investors to understand is that you can only benefit from information that no one else knows. And obviously the market knows which countries are growing the fastest and which companies are growing the fastest. So a high rate of expected growth is already built into prices, as is a low rate. And thus you cannot exploit that information, in the sense that you can generate market beating returns.

    I hope that is helpful

  •  
    3

    shivdesai

    11/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Growth in China, India and Brazil Might Not Mean Great Investment Returns

    Hi,

    The assumption regarding cost of capital being lower in growth stock and higher in value stock is correct according to the CAPM theory.
    But in practice we see growth companies like VMW (BTM of 0.167) and FSLR (BTM of 0.22) have been very volatile which also reflects in the higher Cost of Equity (10.08% and 13.45% respectively) than the value companies like INTC (BTM of 0.34) with the cost of equity (apprx. 10.0%).

    More over growth companies will have higher franchise factor associated with its valuation, which tends to be more risky.

  •  
    4

    shivdesai

    11/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Growth in China, India and Brazil Might Not Mean Great Investment Returns

    Hi,

    One more update :

    In other words, economic growth is high, but stock valuations are even higher. In 2008, as U.S. stocks fell 37.6%, emerging markets crashed 53.3%, according to MSCI. At year end, emerging-markets stocks traded at a 38% discount to U.S. shares, as measured by the ratio of price to earnings. Now that both markets have bounced back, emerging markets are at only a 21% discount. And make no mistake: They should be much cheaper than U.S. stocks, because they are far riskier.

    The above paragraph is copied from the link you provided. It also mentioned that the emerging markets are far riskier than US, which should result in the higher cost of capital.

    Actually, since these markets are very risky, they are expected to experience more severe correction when there is a flight towards safety.

    Even though, growth companies will have lower cost than the value companies but the difference is not the major contributor to the return differentiation. It is the more optimistic earning estimates associated with growth companies that weigh heavily on the return.

  •  
    5

    larry swedroe

    11/18/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Growth in China, India and Brazil Might Not Mean Great Investment Returns

    Shivdesai

    Yes EM countries are more risky for many reasons. Just a couple that are very important

    a) less developed capital markets including banking systems
    b) more subject to flights of capital

    Now there is one important thing to keep in mind, most of the value premium comes from a small group of value stocks that "migrate" from value to growth (not the whole asset class outperforming) countries can also migrate from emerging to developed, and that can provide a large boost to returns (perception of reduction in risk as the countries migrate out of developing status)

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is principal and director of research for The Buckingham Family of Financial Services. He has authored or co-authored seven books, including The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You'll Ever Need.

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is a principal and the director of research for Buckingham Asset Management and BAM Advisor Services. He has also worked with Prudential Home Mortgage and Citicorp, totaling nearly 40 years of managing financial risks for major corporations and advising individuals on ways to do the same.

His opinions and comments expressed on this site are his own and may not accurately reflect those of the firm.

track your portfolio