Do developed country equities have a higher return than emerging market equities, when measured in the latter currency?
Do developing country equities have a higher return and/or lower risk   than emerging market equities?  Generally in finance you get payed more for taking risk.  Riskier stocks over the long run return more than less risky bonds, for instance.  Developing market equity is expected to give less return over the long run as it is generally less risky than emerging market equity.  One way to see that is the amount you pay for one rupee/lira/dollar/euro worth of company earnings is fewer rupees/lira and more dollars/euros. when measured in the emerging market's currency?  This makes this question interesting.  Risky emerging currencies like the rupee tend to devalue over time against less risky currencies euro/dollars/yen like where most international investment ends up, but the results are rather wild.  Think how badly Brazil has done recently and how relatively well the rupee has been doing.   This adds to the returns (roughly based on interest rates) of foreign stocks from the point of view of a emerging market investor on average but has really wild variations. Do you have data for this over a long timeframe (decades), ideally for multiple countries? Not really, unfortunately.  Good data for emerging markets is a fairly new phenomenon and even where it does exist decades ago it would have been very hard to invest like we can now so it likely is not comparable. Does foreign equity pay more or less when measured in rupees (or other   emerging market currency)? Probably less on average (theoretically and empirically) all things included though the evidence is not strong, but there is a massive amount of risk in a portfolio that is 85% in a single emerging market currency.  Think about if you were a Brazilian and needed to retire now and 85% of your portfolio was in the Real.  International goods like gas would be really expensive and your local currency portfolio would seem paltry right now.  If you want to bet on emerging markets in the long run I would suggest that you at least spread the risk over many emerging markets and add a good chunk developed to the mix. As for investing goals, it's just to maximize my return in INR, or maximize my risk-adjusted return. That is up to you, but the goal I generally recommend is making sure you are comfortable in retirement.  This usually involves looking for returns are high in the long run, but not having a ton of risk in a single currency or a single market.  There are reasons to believe a little bias toward your homeland is good as fees tend to be lower on local investments and local investments tend to track closer to your retirement costs, but too much can be very dangerous even for countries with stronger currencies, say Greece. What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere.  For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot. "First of all, the answer to your question depends on your starting dates and ending dates. So developed markets returns are higher over one period, and emerging markets returns over other periods. So far, there does not appear to be a systematic tilt in favor of one or the other. The reasons are as you said. Emerging markets tend to have higher returns in nominal terms, but developed markets currency movements (sometimes) cancel this out. So watch out for periods of strong and weak developed markets (e.g. U.S) currencies. In ""strong"" currency periods (such as those of the past five years or so),  you want U.S. market exposure, and in ""weak"" currency periods, the larger nominal local returns will be fully reflected in dollar terms as well."
Some economist please ELI5 what I’m missing here. In the equities market, it is considered an economic benefit when exchanges settle trades in smaller increments. When we went from eighths to decimal, for example. How is that direction into smaller divisible units different from facilitating trade with pennies for economic goods? "Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in ""Europe"" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets." "Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs.  They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds.  You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds.  Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well.  You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds.  That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into ""established"" economies and a certain fraction into ""emerging"" ones.  I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little." If I understand what you're asking, I think you're looking at the relationship wrong.  Yes, when one currency has a higher interest rate relative to another, it's value should, theoretically, appreciate.  For example, if the USD interest rate is 10% and the EUR is 5%, the USD should appreciate in value against the EUR.  However, the parity relationship tells you the price at which an investor would be indifferent to the difference in interest rates.  So using the formula for interest rate parity:  (1+r(USD))/(1+r(EUR)) = F/S   and plugging in the interest rates from above and a spot rate of $1.5/EUR:  (1.1)/(1.05) = F/(1.5)  The 1 year forward rate would have to be $1.5714/EUR in order for the investor to be INDIFFERENT between holding USD or EUR.  All this assuming interest rate parity holds.  I'm not big on Econ but this is how I understood it when studying for the CFA exam the past few months.  So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. "There's no need for an index to have a currency as its purpose is not to act as an asset but rather to signal investors about the performance of a collection of stocks. An index can be price-weighted, meaning that its value equals the (arithmetic) average of the prices of each stock in the index. With no stock splits, the return on this index is the same as the return on a portfolio composed of one share of each stock. If there is a stock split, however instead of dividing by the number of stocks, as you normally would when taking the arithmetic average, you divide it by the number that will make the value of the index pre-stock-split (arithmetic average) equal to the value post stock split. Then use that dividing number for all periods until a new stock split occurs.  An index can be value-weighted, meaning that its changes in value track the percentage changes in total market capitalization of the stocks in the index. Price weighted indexes ignore for ""firm size"" and percentage changes in price weighted indexes are not robust to stock-splits. Value weighted indexes take ""firm size"" into account and are robust to stock-splits. DJIA is price-weighted. S&P 500 is value-weighted." This doesn't really make sense, as the small cap indices have a similar rate of growth as the s&amp;p 500. The global scale has some relevance, but exports are included in GDP as well, so it's not the full story.  A better answer, as is noted in comments lower down, is that the S&amp;P does not **grow** at 6%. It *returns* 6% per year. The dividend yield of the s&amp;p is a bit over 2%. Dividends are not growth, they are simply income; they may also grow themselves, but rarely by 6% per year (in real terms). Additional income that's not paid out in dividends probably amounts to another 1-2%. Growth is the final 1-3%, which makes it roughly match GDP. It has got to do with inflation. So as prices of goods and services rise over the years you can work out what the inflation rate is over time. So by applying the inflation rate between 1990 to 2016 you can work out the equivalent value of $30B in 1990 would be in 2016. So in other words in 1990 you bought $30B worth of a box of goods and services, then in 2016 it would have cost you $55B to buy the same box of goods and services. You can play around with this US Inflation Calculator here, to see how much an amount of money back in history would be worth today if invested at the rate of inflation over those years.  So obviously, the aim in investing is to get a return higher than the rate of inflation, so that your investment funds grow in real terms and in the future you can buy more with your funds than you can buy with them today. I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are  maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also. "I looked at data from Sept 2010 to present: Standard deviation is what shows the spread shape of returns over time, and it meanS that about 2/3 of the time, AAPL return was within +/- 1.65 higher/lower than the daily average return which was .21 %. Not sure where to go with this except to suggest that in fact, AAPL is more volatile than the S&P and even another random tech company. With time, I'd probably come up with a list of stock more volatile. I know that when I look at a list of stocks I track on Yahoo, there are always a few that are just as volatile on a given day.  Excel makes the above analysis easy to do for a given stock, and it's actually an interesting exercise, at least for me. Disclaimer - the shape of stock returns is not a bell curve, and STdev is just a best fit.  Edit - given more time to tinker on excel, it would be interesting to see how the stock's volatility tracked over the years, did it increase or does it feel that way due to the high price? A $20 swing on a $600 stock is the same as a $2 swing on a $60 stock, yet ""up $20"" sounds huge." The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years.  The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk.  The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years.  So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once).   Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider   adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified. We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though. "Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic ""ADR conversion rate"" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price:  Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example):  The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls:  Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis.   Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss.  Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized." Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country.  These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries. Diversification is just one aspect in an investment portfolio. The other aspects in Investment are Risk Taking Ability, Liquidity, Local Regulations, Tax benefits, Ease & Convenience, Cost of carrying out transactions etc. Investing in other regions is prone FX risk and other risks depending on the region of investment. For example investing in Emerging markets there is a risk of Local Regulations being changed, additional tax being levied, or Political instability and host of such risks.  Investing in local markets give you better understanding of such changes and the risk associated is less plus the Ease of carrying out transactions is great, less expensive compared to cost of transactions in other markets. Diversification in Investment should also be looked upon how much you invest in; Equities Debt Bullion Real Estate   Once you have a sizeable amount of investment in Equities or Debt, it would then make more sense to diversify this portion more to include funds from other regions. Unless you are an Running your own business, it makes sense to invest in your line of business if that is performing well. The reason being that the benefit / returns from the equities is much greater than the salary rise / bonus. For example I am in Information Technology and yet invest in all leading IT companies because the returns from companies in these segments have been good. Cross-listing shouldn't be an issue, as the sole reason stocks would behave differently on different exchanges would be due to exchange rates (sure, noise and time differences, but weekly data should take care most of that). If you're using MSCI World index figures in USD, you either have to convert stocks denominated in other currencies to USD at their historical fx rates, or just save a lot of time and use data from stocks listed in the US, when available.