A couple of items in the news medium recently caught my attention, both relating to a favorite topic of mine: emerging markets. I have long argued (1,2)that most long-term investors are poorly served by the traditionalist advisors on the emerging market side, suggesting that portfolio weightings of 5%, or perhaps 10% are appropriate.China recently announced blow-out numbers, with second quarter GDP expoloding by 11.3%, compared to 10.3% in the first quarter, and an official government target of 8%. Here are some figures for the first half of 2006 for China, together with the goverment target (target is bracketed):
Real GDP growth: 10.3% (8% target)
Investment in fixed assets: 31.3% (18%)
Money supply growth: 17.4% (16%)
Trade: 23.0% (15%)
Inflation: 1.3% (less than 3%)
India too, grew at 9.3% for the first quarter, nearly tracking the dragon nation.
China is forecast to continue growing in the medium term in the 7-10% range, while India is forecast also for growth in the 6-9% range.
Finally, a recent report by Scotia Bank economists Warren Justin and Mary Webb indicated that, based on purchasing power parity, newly industrialized Asian nations now account for 30% of global GDP. Even accounting for trade in U.S. dollars, newly industrialized Asian nations account for 12% of global GDP.
And your advisor is telling you to put only 5% or 10% of your portfolio into emerging nations? And you say you're a long-term investor? Really? Then why are you underweighting your portfolio so badly??

JW
The Confused Capitalist
