The most under-rated aspect of investing is simplicity. Investors feel obliged to pursue complex methods to predict the future of the economy, the markets and corporate earnings and they then develop elaborate trading systems to leverage “superior” insights. This is often driven by clients who demand large teams of highly paid experts involved in complex strategies in order to justify paying management fees. If a process is too simple and transparent, the client may conclude that the manager is dispensable .
This dilemma is heightened by the growing preponderance of passive indexing and “smart-beta” strategies, which offer market performance (“beta”) or the promise of factor-driven market outperformance (“alpha”) at ever-declining prices. These computer-driven quantitative strategies are the image of simplicity and transparency and can be manufactured cheaply.
These “passive “products increase the pressure on actively managed funds in two ways; first, they compress fees; second, they push managers to add skill and complexity which increases costs. This bad combination of lower fees and higher costs can only lead to a concentration of assets in those few active managers who can offer highly differentiated products.
These trends can be seen in the Year-end 2018 SPIVA Scorecard (Link, Link), which compares returns for U.S. mutual funds with their respective benchmarks. Here are some highlights from the report which concern emerging markets funds:
- The number of available funds is declining, from 233 in 2015 to 210 a year-end 2018.
- Larger funds perform better than smaller ones. This is seen in the higher returns on an asset-weighted basis than on an equal-weighted-by-fund basis. This advantage of larger funds over smaller funds is persistent over all time-periods and can be attributed to lower fees and higher skill.

- 2018 was a difficult year for active managers, with 78% of managers underperforming their indices. The data for the past 15 years is shown below. Beyond, a one year time-frame, around 90% of managers underperform their indices.

Rolling three-year returns have also deteriorated, as shown in the following graph. This deterioration is also seen for global and international funds.
- Finally, SPIVA identifies low persistency in results for EM managers. While 41% of EM funds outperformed their indices for the 2012-2015 3-year period, only 7.5% of these funds continued to outperform the next year (2016), 4.5% outperformed over the next two years (2016-2017) and zero outperformed for the next three years (2016-2018).
Conclusion
The sobering data from the SPIVA scorecard highlights the challenges of active managers. To be successful, increasingly, active managers will need to focus on market niches where they can deploy unique skills and expertise, and/or pursue strategies that provide returns that are uncorrelated to mainstream emerging market products. Some areas where active management may continue to be highly successful in “harvesting alpha” are the following:
- Deep value contrarian investing. This strategy is highly out-of-favor because of a long period of underperformance of the value factor. Consequently, though it requires skillful fundamental research, it is under-researched because most managers have abandoned this discipline. This is the case at a time when opportunities are plentiful in the Indian and Brazilian markets, and particularly in the China A-share market.
- Hedge Fund structures: Pure Alpha, shorting and trend following (CTA) strategies can provide returns uncorrelated to EM equities and valuable diversification.
- Long-only, mainstream EM investors with low cost structures, long-term horizons and the ability to pursue strategies with high “tracking error” (the degree of portfolio return uncorrelation with the benchmark). The problem is finding clients with long-term horizons and tolerance for “tracking error”. The vast majority of both investors and clients prefer strategies that “hug” the benchmark, which makes alpha creation a remote possibility.
Trade Wars
- Xi needs a trade deal (FT)
- The reemergence of a two-bloc world (FT)
- The deepening U.S. China crisis (Carnegie)
- European Commission report on China relations (EC)
- Should the U.S. run a trade surplus (Carnegie, Michael Pettis)
- Why the U.S. debt must continue to rise (Carnegie, Pettis)
- Turkey and India denied preferential U.S. trading status (FT)
India Watch
- India’s internet users are addicted to these apps from China (WSJ)
- How India conquered youtube (FT)
- Modi’s track record on the economy (The economist)
- Increasing Indian demand for copper (Gorozen)
- India’s growing share of oil imports (blog)
- India turns its back on Silicon Valey (Venture beat)
- India is right to resist cancerous U.S. tech monopolies (venture beat)
- 5 more years of Modi? (Lowy)
China Watch:
- Quality will drive China A- share returns (FT)
- Lessons from Li Keqiang’s report to Congress (SCMP)
- China breaks world box office record (SCMP)
- Why China supports North Korea (Lowy)
- China’s PM frets about the economy (The Economist)
- China has no choice (Alhambra)
- China’s economy is bottoming (SCMP)
China Technology
- China tech sector update (Seekingalpha)
- Bain sees speculative bubble in China tech (CNBC, ) (Bain)
- Huawei’s big AI ambitions (MIT Tech)
- China’s EV startup Xpeng (WIC)
- An interview with fintech Creditease CEO (Mcinsey)
Brazil Watch
- Brazil’s crucial pension reform (Washington Post)
- Brazil’s finance guru (FT)
EM Investor Watch
- AMLO’s first 100 days (Wilson Center)
- South Africa’s electricity sector woes (FT)
- OECD Report on Global Corporate Debt (OECD)
- Russia’s global ambitions in perspective (Carnegie)
- South Africa stagnates as confidence wanes (Bloomberg)
- Postcard from Malaysia (Foreign Policy Journal)
Tech Watch
- Trends in battery prices (BNEF)
- Germany is losing the battery war (Spiegel)
- Does automation in Michigan kill jobs in Mexico? (World Bank)
- Robots and farming (Realclear markets)
- American energy independence is here (AL Advisors)
- Solving the productivity puzzle (Mckinsey)
- Autonomous trucks are coming fast (Mckinsey)
Investing
- IEA World energy outlook (IEA)
- Ray Dalio’s view on the global economic cycle (Linkedin)
- Interview with Norbert Lou (Tao Value)
- Credit Suisse annual Investment Report (Credit Suisse)
- Who is on the other side? (Mauboussin)
- Factors and business cycles (Papers ssrn)
- 50 reasons not to invest for the long-term (Abnormal returns )







This is a high level of debt for a developing country like China, putting it at a level in line with many advanced economies. The concern is that the economy has become over-reliant on credit, of which much is mis-allocated to low-return activities. The risk is that at one point the debt could become an impediment to growth, leading to a “Japanification” of the economy, characterized by over-leveraged “zombie” companies.
In any case, the Chinese authorities are well aware of market concerns with the high-rate of debt-accumulation and they are trying to manage them. Since the huge stimulus implemented during 2009-10 in the wake of the global financial crisis, China has consistently slowed down credit growth, as shown below in the chart from Goldman Sachs.
Monetary authorities have sought to gradually slow credit growth, while at the same time using temporary stimulus to smoothen business cycles. The following chart, from Macro-ops, shows how monetary authorities have eased on two occasions since 2010 but then returned to the credit- tightening trend. In late-2018, the PBOC initiated a third easing phase which continues to today.
In addition to sharply reducing the rate of credit growth, the government has also redirected lending to households. As the BIS data shows in the first chart above, about half of credit growth has been funneled to households, mainly for mortgages. Since 2011, credit to households has risen from nearly zero to 58% of GDP. Credit for residential construction also makes up a large part of new loans. Adding these two items together, we see that a significant part of credit expansion has gone to support residential housing. The chart below shows the strong ties between Total Socal Lending — the Chinese term for total lending — and construction activity.
In essence, since the great stimulus period after the GFC the Chinese financial system has become increasingly tied to residential real estate. This is a natural development of the government’s efforts to transition the economy from dependence on infrastructure and exports to one that is driven by household consumption. While in the past the very high savings of the population had been channeled to state companies for nation-building investments, increasingly they are going to households in the form of mortgages and personal loans.
The current dilemma for monetary authorities is that, though the economy needs stimulus, the real estate market does not. In general, housing prices are relatively high at this time and are in no need of stimulus, as we see in the following chart. 