- About Us
- My Account
The views expressed are those of the author at the time of writing. Other teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. The value of your investment may become worth more or less than at the time of original investment. While any third-party data used is considered reliable, its accuracy is not guaranteed. For professional, institutional, or accredited investors only.
As China’s role on the world stage continues to loom larger, many investors are contemplating whether to separate the country from the rest of their emerging markets (EM) equity allocation. Most arguments for such separation are based on China’s fast-growing weight in broad EM equity benchmarks, but it’s not necessarily that simple. Let’s take a closer look.
We believe the key decision point here should not be China’s dominance of the EM indices, but rather, the extent to which a stand-alone China equity allocation can be viewed as similar (or dissimilar) to an EM ex-China equity allocation. If they are, in effect, more or less the “same thing,” then the relative size of one to the other will likely make little to no practical difference. As we see it, this view on similarity (or lack thereof) depends primarily on the lens being applied.
With that in mind, we evaluated the degree of resemblance of the two equity allocations using two widely followed market benchmarks, the MSCI China Index and the MSCI EM ex-China Index, as proxies. Figure 1 highlights the results for the set of lenses we selected and applied. In summary, we found that the case for having separate China and EM ex-China allocations is:
From a practical portfolio standpoint, one challenge for investors who wish to have separate China and EM ex-China equity allocations is the small field of EM ex-China strategies available to choose from. While this could change going forward, currently investors are limited to either passive implementation or active strategies with relatively short track records.
We believe one potential solution to this problem is to pair a broad global EM (GEM) equity allocation with a satellite China allocation. This approach not only preserves the ability to access a vast universe of active GEM strategies (versus a small universe of EM ex-China strategies), but it also allows for a larger allocation to China equity than that implied by a GEM index. In fact, based on our research on the optimal size of a China allocation in client portfolios, we believe investors should consider a larger-than-benchmark exposure.
Why cash won’t cut it for long: The case for bonds
Global Investment and Multi-Asset Strategist Nanette Abuhoff Jacobson and Investment Strategy Analyst Patrick Wattiau explore the relative potential benefits of bonds versus cash.
Asia: A growth story with longer-term momentum
Is China’s recovery already running out of steam? Macro Strategist Santiago Millán assesses the outlook for China and Asia and sees longer-term momentum for growth.
Navigating the opportunities and challenges of the energy transition
Two of our climate- and energy-focused investment professionals discuss what the low-carbon transition may look like and how investors can think about the challenges and opportunities it represents.
Four mission-critical investment ideas for 2023 and beyond
Multi-Asset Strategist Nick Samouilhan and Investment Strategist Michelle Ng offer their latest perspectives on the 2023 outlook and some actionable takeaways for investors.