Emerging-markets stock ETFs offer exposure to higher-growth markets, but they also can be volatile. Here is a look at the pros and cons of these investments.
5 min
For some investors seeking to diversify their portfolios, emerging markets are looking increasingly attractive.
There are 169 emerging-markets stock ETFs available to fund investors, with total assets of about $296 billion, according to fund researcher Morningstar Direct.
Some analysts and financial advisers say there is a lot to like about this sector right now. What is the argument for putting money into these exchange-traded funds? And what’s the argument for getting out, or not starting at all? Here’s a look at the pros and cons.
One factor driving interest in emerging-markets ETFs is that emerging economies are growing faster than advanced economies, and that isn’t forecast to change soon. The International Monetary Fund forecasts real GDP growth of only 1.4% in advanced economies in 2024 due to inflation, monetary policy and other factors. In contrast, the IMF projects real GDP growth of 4.1% for emerging and developing economies, helped by countries such as India, which is expected to grow at a rate of 6.3%.
“The biggest reason to invest in emerging-markets ETFs today is to gain exposure to high-growth markets with burgeoning middle-class consumers such as China, India, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea and Vietnam,” says Aniket Ullal, senior vice president and head of ETF data and analytics at CFRA Research. He says emerging markets are home to more than 4.3 billion people, and they account for about half of global GDP.
Another attraction is that valuations on emerging-markets stocks are low. While the price-to-earnings ratio of the S&P 500 was 22.4 based on trailing 12-month reported earnings as of July 31, the P/E ratio of the MSCI Emerging Markets—which includes the stock of most liquid large- and midcap companies in 25 emerging-market countries—was 14.13.
“This is a smart contrarian play for investors who want to diversify their portfolios geographically,” says Gabriel Shahin, president of Falcon Wealth Planning, an investment adviser in Los Angeles. “There is a fire sale going on in emerging-market stocks, and this is one of the smartest plays in equity investing right now.”
Some see these investments as a hedge, considering this year’s U.S. stock rally—dominated by a small number of large-cap technology companies—could end at any time.
Emerging-markets ETFs come in many varieties, so investors can choose those that align with their macroeconomic outlook and financial goals.
While some of these funds invest in a broad basket of emerging-market countries that span the globe such as the $72.1 billion iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG), others invest in geographic regions such as Asia or Latin America or are country-specific.
The $64.2 million Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA), for example, invests in large-cap and midcap companies in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico. It has returned more than 19% year-to-date through Aug. 29 and 15.6% over the past year. The $175.8 million Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) invests in midcap and large-cap Taiwanese companies. It has a year-to-date return of 14.7% and a one-year-return of 8.2% as of Aug. 29.
For investors concerned about the economic slowdown in China, there are emerging-markets ETFs that exclude Chinese equities such as the $5.16 billion iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex-China (EMXC). Its top holdings are Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Samsung Electronics and Reliance Industries.
Some emerging-markets ETFs target small- or large-cap stocks. One is the $34.2 million VanEck Brazil Small-Cap ETF (BRF), which is up about 32% year-to-date and 11.4% over one year as of Aug. 29. Others focus on industry sectors such as technology and e-commerce.
While most emerging-markets equity ETFs track indexes, an increasing number of newer funds are actively managed. Of the 11 emerging-markets ETFs that have launched this year, eight are actively managed, including Global X Brazil Active ETF (BRAZ), a $2.61 million fund that invests in Brazilian companies such as Petrobras, a multinational petroleum company, and Vale, the world’s largest iron-ore producer.
There are even emerging-markets ETFs that pay dividends, such as the $243.5 million SPDR S&P Emerging Market Dividend ETF (EDIV), which is up 28.2% year-to-date through Aug. 29 and has a dividend yield of 3.78%.
According to Morningstar Direct, the top-performing emerging market ETFs this year through Aug. 29 are VanEck Brazil Small-Cap, SPDR S&P Emerging Market Dividend and iShares MSCI Brazil Small-Cap (EWZS), which is up 24.1% so far this year and 5.7% over one year.
Some advisers, however, say investors looking at emerging-markets equity funds should proceed with caution.
“Emerging-markets equity ETFs are more volatile than international ETFs that focus on stocks in advanced economies,” says Lan Anh Tran, a research analyst at Morningstar Direct. Over the past 10 years ended July 31, 2023, the standard deviation of the MSCI Emerging Market Index was 16.2% higher than the MSCI World Index—a proxy for global developed-market stocks, she notes. Standard deviation measures volatility, with a higher number representing more volatility.
That’s because any sudden geopolitical event (such as the war in Ukraine) or any economic shock (like soaring inflation or a global supply-chain disruption) can have a jarring effect on emerging-market economies that are dependent on commodity exports, tourism and the health of advanced economies, investment strategists say.
There also is the risk of government influence and regulation on emerging-markets stocks, says Tran. A government, for example, can decide to nationalise an industry at any time, or exercise control over an industry sector.
Currency movements are another risk factor to consider, says CFRA’s Ullal. “If the dollar strengthens against local currencies, your fund returns will erode,” he says.
“It’s important that investors understand this is a high-risk, high-reward investment before they dive into them,” says Andrew J. Feldman, the founder of A.J. Feldman Financial in Chicago. “These funds can be highly volatile due to a host of systemic risks in emerging-market countries, including economic risk, geopolitical risk, currency risk and liquidity risk.”
These challenges make some investors skittish about investing in emerging-markets ETFs, says Kevin Shuller, founder and chief investment officer of Cedar Peak Wealth Advisors in Denver. “They believe that companies domiciled in the U.S. do a lot of business in emerging markets, so if you own the S&P 500 or MSCI EAFE index you have all the exposure you need.”
“It’s a good counterargument,” he says, “but [it] doesn’t take into account that the party in the U.S. stock market may not go on forever.”
Many investment advisers instead suggest individual investors take a step-by-step approach when choosing an emerging-markets ETF and allocate 5% to 10% of their equity portfolio in such vehicles.
“Country selection matters most so check the fund’s geographic exposure,” says Perth Tolle, founder of Life + Liberty Indexes and the $625.4 million Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM), which invests in about 100 companies in 10 countries that aren’t autocracies but freer markets such as Chile, Poland, South Korea and Taiwan.
Also look at the methodologies and metrics the ETF uses when choosing stocks for its index or portfolio, as well as the fund fees. The average expense ratio for this ETF group is 0.51%, according to Morningstar Direct.
“A good way to assess a fund’s value is to look at its weighted average price to cash flow,” a measure of the price of a company’s stock relative to how much cash flow it generates, says Kevin Grogan, chief investment officer at Buckingham Wealth Partners in St. Louis. It gives a pulse reading on how cheap or expensive the emerging-markets stocks are in the fund.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
What a quarter-million dollars gets you in the western capital.
Alexandre de Betak and his wife are focusing on their most personal project yet.
Subsidised minivans, no income taxes: Countries have rolled out a range of benefits to encourage bigger families, with no luck
7 min
Imagine if having children came with more than $150,000 in cheap loans, a subsidised minivan and a lifetime exemption from income taxes.
Would people have more kids? The answer, it seems, is no.
These are among the benefits—along with cheap child care, extra vacation and free fertility treatments—that have been doled out to parents in different parts of Europe, a region at the forefront of the worldwide baby shortage. Europe’s overall population shrank during the pandemic and is on track to contract by about 40 million by 2050, according to United Nations statistics.
Birthrates have been falling across the developed world since the 1960s. But the decline hit Europe harder and faster than demographers expected—a foreshadowing of the sudden drop in the U.S. fertility rate in recent years.
Reversing the decline in birthrates has become a national priority among governments worldwide, including in China and Russia , where Vladimir Putin declared 2024 “the year of the family.” In the U.S., both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have pledged to rethink the U.S.’s family policies . Harris wants to offer a $6,000 baby bonus. Trump has floated free in vitro fertilisation and tax deductions for parents.
Europe and other demographically challenged economies in Asia such as South Korea and Singapore have been pushing back against the demographic tide with lavish parental benefits for a generation. Yet falling fertility has persisted among nearly all age groups, incomes and education levels. Those who have many children often say they would have them even without the benefits. Those who don’t say the benefits don’t make enough of a difference.
Two European countries devote more resources to families than almost any other nation: Hungary and Norway. Despite their programs, they have fertility rates of 1.5 and 1.4 children for every woman, respectively—far below the replacement rate of 2.1, the level needed to keep the population steady. The U.S. fertility rate is 1.6.
Demographers suggest the reluctance to have kids is a fundamental cultural shift rather than a purely financial one.
“I used to say to myself, I’m too young. I have to finish my bachelor’s degree. I have to find a partner. Then suddenly I woke up and I was 28 years old, married, with a car and a house and a flexible job and there were no more excuses,” said Norwegian Nancy Lystad Herz. “Even though there are now no practical barriers, I realised that I don’t want children.”
Both Hungary and Norway spend more than 3% of GDP on their different approaches to promoting families—more than the amount they spend on their militaries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Hungary says in recent years its spending on policies for families has exceeded 5% of GDP. The U.S. spends around 1% of GDP on family support through child tax credits and programs aimed at low-income Americans.
Hungary’s subsidised housing loan program has helped almost 250,000 families buy or upgrade their homes, the government says. Orsolya Kocsis, a 28-year-old working in human resources, knows having kids would help her and her husband buy a larger house in Budapest, but it isn’t enough to change her mind about not wanting children.
“If we were to say we’ll have two kids, we could basically buy a new house tomorrow,” she said. “But morally, I would not feel right having brought a life into this world to buy a house.”
Promoting baby-making, known as pro natalism, is a key plank of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ’s broader populist agenda . Hungary’s biennial Budapest Demographic Summit has become a meeting ground for prominent conservative politicians and thinkers. Former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and JD Vance, Trump’s vice president pick, have lauded Orbán’s family policies.
Orbán portrays having children inside what he has called a “traditional” family model as a national duty, as well as an alternative to immigration for growing the population. The benefits for child-rearing in Hungary are mostly reserved for married, heterosexual, middle-class couples. Couples who divorce lose subsidised interest rates and in some cases have to pay back the support.
Hungary’s population, now less than 10 million, has been shrinking since the 1980s. The country is about the size of Indiana.
“Because there are so few of us, there’s always this fear that we are disappearing,” said Zsuzsanna Szelényi, program director at the CEU Democracy Institute and author of a book on Orbán.
Hungary’s fertility rate collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union and by 2010 was down to 1.25 children for every woman. Orbán, a father of five, and his Fidesz party swept back into power that year after being ousted in the early 2000s. He expanded the family support system over the next decade.
Hungary’s fertility rate rose to 1.6 children for every woman in 2021. Ivett Szalma, an associate professor at Corvinus University of Budapest, said that like in many other countries, women in Hungary who had delayed having children after the global financial crisis were finally catching up.
Then progress stalled. Hungary’s fertility rate has fallen for the past two years. Around 51,500 babies have been born there this year through August, a 10% drop compared with the same period last year. Many Hungarian women cite underfunded public health and education systems and difficulties balancing work and family as part of their hesitation to have more children.
Anna Nagy, a 35-year-old former lawyer, had her son in January 2021. She received a loan of about $27,300 that she didn’t have to start paying back until he turned 3. Nagy had left her job before getting pregnant but still received government-funded maternity payments, equal to 70% of her former salary, for the first two years and a smaller amount for a third year.
She used to think she wanted two or three kids, but now only wants one. She is frustrated at the implication that demographic challenges are her responsibility to solve. Economists point to increased immigration and a higher retirement age as other offsets to the financial strains on government budgets from a declining population.
“It’s not our duty as Hungarian women to keep the nation alive,” she said.
Hungary is especially generous to families who have several children, or who give birth at younger ages. Last year, the government announced it would restrict the loan program used by Nagy to women under 30. Families who pledge to have three or more children can get more than $150,000 in subsidised loans. Other benefits include a lifetime exemption from personal taxes for mothers with four or more kids, and up to seven extra annual vacation days for both parents.
Under another program that’s now expired, nearly 30,000 families used a subsidy to buy a minivan, the government said.
Critics of Hungary’s family policies say the money is wasted on people who would have had large families anyway. The government has also been criticised for excluding groups such as the minority Roma population and poorer Hungarians. Bank accounts, credit histories and a steady employment history are required for many of the incentives.
Orbán’s press office didn’t respond to requests for comment. Tünde Fűrész, head of a government-backed demographic research institute, disagreed that the policies are exclusionary and said the loans were used more heavily in economically depressed areas.
Government programs weren’t a determining factor for Eszter Gerencsér, 37, who said she and her husband always wanted a big family. They have four children, ages 3 to 10.
They received about $62,800 in low-interest loans through government programs and $35,500 in grants. They used the money to buy and renovate a house outside of Budapest. After she had her fourth child, the government forgave $11,000 of the debt. Her family receives a monthly payment of about $40 a month for each child.
Most Hungarian women stay home with their children until they turn 2, after which maternity payments are reduced. Publicly run nurseries are free for large families like hers. Gerencsér worked on and off between her pregnancies and returned full-time to work, in a civil-service job, earlier this year.
She still thinks Hungarian society is stacked against mothers and said she struggled to find a job because employers worried she would have to take lots of time off.
The country’s international reputation as family-friendly is “what you call good marketing,” she said.
Norway has been incentivising births for decades with generous parental leave and subsidised child care. New parents in Norway can share nearly a year of fully paid leave, or around 14 months at 80% pay. More than three months are reserved for fathers to encourage more equal caregiving. Mothers are entitled to take at least an hour at work to breast-feed or pump.
The government’s goal has never been explicitly to encourage people to have more children, but instead to make it easier for women to balance careers and children, said Trude Lappegard, a professor who researches demography at the University of Oslo. Norway doesn’t restrict benefits for unmarried parents or same-sex couples.
Its fertility rate of 1.4 children per woman has steadily fallen from nearly 2 in 2009. Unlike Hungary, Norway’s population is still growing for now, due mostly to immigration.
“It is difficult to say why the population is having fewer children,” Kjersti Toppe, the Norwegian Minister of Children and Families, said in an email. She said the government has increased monthly payments for parents and has formed a committee to investigate the baby bust and ways to reverse it.
More women in Norway are childless or have only one kid. The percentage of 45-year-old women with three or more children fell to 27.5% last year from 33% in 2010. Women are also waiting longer to have children—the average age at which women had their first child reached 30.3 last year. The global surge in housing costs and a longer timeline for getting established in careers likely plays a role, researchers say. Older first-time mothers can face obstacles: Women 35 and older are at higher risk of infertility and pregnancy complications.
Gina Ekholt, 39, said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child and allowed her to maintain her career as a senior adviser at the nonprofit Save the Children Norway. She had her daughter at age 34 after a round of state-subsidised IVF that cost about $1,600. She wanted to have more children but can’t because of fertility issues.
She receives a monthly stipend of about $160 a month, almost fully offsetting a $190 monthly nursery fee.
“On the economy side, it hasn’t made a bump. What’s been difficult for me is trying to have another kid,” she said. “The notion that we should have more kids, and you’re very selfish if you have only had one…those are the things that took a toll on me.”
Her friend Ewa Sapieżyńska, a 44-year-old Polish-Norwegian writer and social scientist with one son, has helped her see the upside of the one-child lifestyle. “For me, the decision is not about money. It’s about my life,” she said.
