Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

another argument for an EM ex-China fund

Mark Mobius, in a Fox News interview discussing in Fortune, claims that China doesn't want to let him move his money out of the country.
Mobius, founder of Mobius Capital Partners, has been a longtime booster of Chinese equities, yet revealed why he’d changed his mind ...

The investor revealed that he had funds trapped in an account with HSBC in Shanghai. “I can’t get my money out. The government is restricting the flow of money out of the country,” he said.

Mobius continued that the Chinese government was “putting all kinds of barriers” in his way. “They don’t say, ‘No, you can’t get your money out,’ but they say, ‘Give us all the records from 20 years of how you’ve made this money,’ and so forth. It’s crazy.”
We've written about both successful EM funds with low China exposure (2021) and funds that, by prospectus, exclude China (2023).

By coincidence, China's premier stepped down yesterday after 10 years in office. His departure was described as "marking a shift away from the skilled technocrats who have helped steer the world’s second-biggest economy in favor of officials known mainly for their unquestioned loyalty" to Xi (AP, 3/5/23).

Both of the Seafarer funds are China-light, about 9% weight against a peer average of 28%. My other EM fund, Grandeur Peak, is about 11% China.

For what caution it suggests,

David
«1

Comments

  • I looked at my EM funds RNWIX was 27 % China. That plus it relative performance put it on the chopping block.

    It is hard to screen for % China in most fund screeners, including MFO. M* premium screener lumps China into "other", although with a specific fund you can see % China.

    MFO will let you screen for funds with China as a top five holding but not exclude China or any other country.

    Can we put that into the suggestion box for an update?
  • I know most people will not be able to get past paywall but here is Bloomberg article about missing banker

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-06/missing-banker-reignites-fears-of-xi-in-china-s-tech-startups-venture-capital?srnd=premium&sref=OzMbRRMQ


    In the latest sign of trouble, Bao Fan, the tech industry’s star banker, disappeared, with his firm issuing a terse statement that he is cooperating in an unspecified investigation. The eerie vanishing may have more influence on the psyche of China’s corporate class than any encouraging words from state media.

    “It’s rule by fear: There is a feeling that Beijing can always come after you,” says Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist at Natixis. “Of course, the private sector will be much more cautious.”
  • edited March 2023
    There are several ex-China ETFs - EMXC, KEMX, MEMX.

    Mark Mobius story was all over Twitter over the weekend. Since then, there have been some denials of any new changes by the HSBC and Chinese state agencies. It is clear that something ticked off Mark Mobius greatly.

    I know this in the Indian context - there are repatriable and non-repatriable accounts. If one mixes money up, then as they say, "good luck with that".
  • edited March 2023
    It is challenging to eliminate all China exposure; Chinese stocks constitute large weighing in VEMAX (36%) and somewhat smaller % VTABX (9%).

    Unless one restricted themselves to developed market, some active managed funds still have smaller %.

    Reading David’s comments above is troubling - Mark Mobius is having difficulty divesting his money out.
  • @yogibearbull: I think the symbol is KEMX for the ex-China Krane Shares.
  • @BenWP, thanks, I fixed it.
  • in MFO Premium, once you choose Emerging Market Funds, you can choose Group > Country Info. All of the portfolio weights by country show up. You can sort in any order you wish.
  • Now you guys have me worried.

    At the start of 2022, I started my position in EM fund RNWOX, the Rondure New World fund. This fund, I believe, has been neck and neck with SFGIX for risk adjusted returns. In fact, if you put their trends on top of each other, there is little difference in return and volatility. At the time I was looking for an EM fund, the manager, Laura Geritz, spoke more positively about increasing positions in India more than China. China was about 20% of the fund when I bought, lower than the avg EM fund. Now, China has increased to about 27% as @sma3 states. I assume the change is based on stock value given this fund has a value tilt.

    I still think this is one of the better EM funds to own, low risk, above avg returns, a 5* fund. I don't plan any changes. I think if China starts to renege on financial obligations, they will destroy their own economy and disrupt all markets. So, I don't plan any changes... yet.

  • I appreciate everyone’s posts on this topic. I invested in DODEX back in January because I wanted EM exposure and as part of that China exposure. But there are so many geopolitical risks that I’m just not sure it’s worth the risk. I’m watching it closely but could pull the plug at any time. I do closely follow SIVLX and that fund is impressive in its long term performance. If EM is FINALLY going to outperform that seems like a good place to be… But seems like we’ve been waiting for years for that to happen
  • I think it is hard to believe that Xi will follow international banking and Finance standards and regulations after seeing what Putin has done to all of above and to accepted moral standards without much adverse consequences. The fact that Russia hasn't collapsed and Putin hasn't been assassinated must be encouraging to Xi. That may be why the new foreign minister ( previously China ambassador to US) came out with such a hard line speech yesterday.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/conflict-china-us-inevitable-new-foreign-minister-warns-rcna73705

    They are clearly upping the anti. Some predict Xi will invade Taiwan next year while US is preoccupied by election. He must be very encouraged to hear the right wing of the GOP try to stiff Ukraine.

    If this does happen, it will not just be Chinese funds that will crater; all risk assets will crash. TSM will be wiped out, as all of their factories will be rubble.

    Somehow I doubt that would make INTC shoot upward. The implications for the world economy would be very very negative; far worse than Covid and far far worse than Ukaine. After an invasion, what other country, especially in Asia, would ever want to do business with China again?

    These global implications are why I think it is unlikely China will invade, but they are likely to do almost everything else they think they can get away with. Canceling US ADRs and refusing to allow US funds to be re-patriated would be easy.

  • And on that cheery note I think I’ll go jump out of my window
  • edited March 2023
    There is always risk. The question is are you being rewarded enough for taking it? Unlike Russia, China's economy is so intertwined with ours, it is virtually impossible to avoid completely, even if you want to. Here's one example: https://investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china-buys-us-treasury-bonds.asp
    China has steadily accumulated U.S. Treasury securities over the last few decades. In August 2022, the Asian nation owned $971.8 billion in Treasurys, roughly 13% of the U.S. national debt. U.S. debt to China comes mainly in the form of U.S. Treasury securities (bonds issued by the federal government).
    To me, the idea, pushed by some politicians here, that we can just de-couple from China completely, without dire consequences, is absurd.
  • MikeW said:

    And on that cheery note I think I’ll go jump out of my window

    Make sure the net is placed firmly above US soil.
  • One of the reasons they are upping the rhetoric is the moves by Biden Administration to crack down on leaking trade secrets, semi conductors, and attempts to "deChinaize" supply chain. The rhetoric provides a distraction and they probably hope they can use threats of invasion etc as bargaining chips to undo some of the "move away from China supply chain" legislation.

    For all it's remarkable growth, China is still heavily indebted and needs large investments and a humming economy to keep people working and not rioting because their family finances are falling apart
  • "deChinaize" supply chain. They provided the virus & also the test kits. I have a few kits from different suppliers , both from China !
    Feeling better, Derf
  • Situation with China is intertwined on multiple level and it may not be completely separated. Other vehicles ex-China are viable even with some trade off on growth. But what is growth when you cannot get your return on your money from that country. IMHO, developed markets still present reasonable opportunities.
  • edited March 2023
    Which EM nations have stable democratic governments and stable currencies?
  • @hank Check out FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF
    https://freedometfs.com/frdm/
  • edited March 2023
    Thanks @rsorden

    Here’s what I came up with for FRDM (top 10 countries by investment)

    Taiwan 22.14%
    Chile 18.87%
    South Korea 18.12%
    Poland 13.40%
    South Africa 5.89%
    Brazil 5.54%
    Malaysia 4.92%
    Indonesia 4.88%
    Mexico 3.46%
    Philippines 2.31%

    Source

    For comparison, the same source lists 27% of DODEX invested in China - which I understand is a source of consternation for many. I’d say it depends on the size and role of an EM fund in your portfolio. My EM exposure is very small - a “long-shot” consisting of 1-2% of total holdings. So if my EM fund held 27% China, it wouldn’t constitute a very large commitment.

    Great topic. Thanks for all the insights.
  • edited March 2023
    To me calling Poland and the Philippines "free" is laughable after the Kaczyński regime in Poland and the Duterte and Marcos Jr. ones in the Philippines. These are authoritarians, too. I would also say Poland has a heightened Russia-invasion risk.
  • Aside from "practical " considerations, ie how much of a hit would I really take, there are the moral ones.

    While many people eschew using "moral values" in investments, as everyone has different ethical values, there is a case to make that many moral issues have legitimate and well founded investment implications.

    In China's case, the recent destruction of Hong Kong democracy and what little dissent there was in the Communist party are immoral and contrary to US democratic ideals.
    They are also contrary to solid "rule of law" principles that capitalism requires. If a company or owner can loose all of the profits and assets of a company because of the whim of one man, there is little reason to commit capital to that country.

    I don't see how the Communist party control over markets and capital flows will be beneficial for China in even the short run.
  • Agreed, but I don't see how Kaczyński and Poland being Holocaust deniers can be good for ethical principles either: https://washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/01/polands-senate-passes-holocaust-complicity-bill-despite-concerns-from-u-s-israel/ Nor did I care for Duterte's violent homophobic sexist antics or Marcos Jr.'s being born into and benefitting from being a member of one of the most corrupt families on earth. But there are degrees of authoritarianism here.
  • edited March 2023
    sma3 said:

    ”Aside from ‘practical’ considerations, ie how much of a hit would I really take, there are the moral ones. While many people eschew using ‘moral values’ in investments, as everyone has different ethical values, there is a case to make that many moral issues have legitimate and well founded investment implications.”

    Morally speaking, South Africa is a curious choice. Human rights concerns might also deter investments in mining funds, many with holdings there.

    ”South Africa failed to take meaningful measures to improve protection of social and economic rights, which has been undermined by widespread unemployment, inequality, poverty, the government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and corruption. The authorities struggled to ensure law enforcement responded effectively to some of the worst riots and looting in the country since the end of apartheid. The violent riots triggered by the imprisonment of former President Jacob Zuma for contempt of court claimed more than 330 lives … Other human rights concerns include violence against women, failure to ensure justice and accountability for past xenophobic violence, and violence against environmental activists.

    The government’s Covid-19 aid programs, including food parcels during national lockdown, overlooked people with disabilities, refugees and asylum seekers, and many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Among countries that collect gender-based violence (GBV) statistics, South Africa has one of the highest rates of GBV in the world.

    The killing of environmental rights activist, Mama Fikile Ntshangase, in her house in KwaZulu-Natal province, on October 22, 2020, highlighted the plight of rights defenders in mining-affected communities across the country. Activists have experienced threats, physical attacks, and damage to their property because of their activism—which police failed to investigate”

    Source

  • The arguments we discussed in the two essays I linked to allow that "less intertwined with China" might not be the managers' goal. In at least some cases, it's simply a desire to avoid the level of uncertainty - hence unpredictable risk - involved in investing in a country where party politics trump corporate managers' decision-making. (Not looking at DeSantis as I write that.)

    To Lewis's point that "free countries" aren't necessarily free countries, yep. The world is complex and confounding. The Freedom 100 ETF relies on a third party who created an algorithm that incorporates 80 quantifiable metrics related to personal and economic freedom. I haven't examined the system (yet, might if we profile the fund but I'm still trying to figure out whether the manager is crazy or sane), but I could easily imagine that factors which aren't consistently quantifiable (Putin, e.g.) aren't accounted for. The questions might be (1) is the direction right - is freer, better? and (2) is the central tendency of the list right - are these countries, on whole and on average, meaningfully freer than most of their peers?

    Back to grading.
  • I agree there are serious issues with many emerging market countries. A lot of them are stuck with authoritarian corruption that does not improve the investment climate.

    China, given it's size and recent aggressiveness will probably have a greater impact on investment outcomes than South Africa for example.
  • edited March 2023
    sma3 said:

    I agree there are serious issues with many emerging market countries. A lot of them are stuck with authoritarian corruption that does not improve the investment climate.

    China, given it's size and recent aggressiveness will probably have a greater impact on investment outcomes than South Africa for example.

    @sma3 I agree. Not sure, however, that the “aggressiveness” has been only recent. Been apparent for a while. Here’s a 2 year old State Department Bulletin titled CHINA'S MILITARY AGGRESSION IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION. (Caps taken from document)

  • Thank you for the State Department’s document. The classified version would be quite scary. This also explains why Buffet exited the entire TSM position quickly since he bought it in fall last year; a risk he does not want to assume.

    On a side note, China has been studying the Ukraine war as what they can use to counter the West when they cross that path.
    https://reuters.com/world/studying-ukraine-war-chinas-military-minds-fret-over-us-missiles-starlink-2023-03-08/
  • edited March 2023
    The problem with the word "freedom" when applied to nation states is the word is overused and ambiguous enough to have lost a distinct meaning or perhaps any meaning because of constant propaganda regarding it. Wall Street tends to define "freedom" as property rights, the word thus having specific libertarian and right-wing undertones. Generalizing I admit, I've concluded the differences between left-wing and right-wing definitions of freedom to be: The right believes in the freedom TO want and the left believes in the freedom FROM want. From a left-wing perspective, if people can't get enough food, decent wages, working conditions and healthcare, they are not free. They will sacrifice the freedom to accumulate as much wealth as possible without taxation for a public taxpayer-funded safety net that lets them worry less if they fall on hard times. From a right-wing perspective if people can't want, desire or buy anything, own it and profit from it as much as possible, they are not free. Ownership, of course, includes guns, vital natural resources like water, and if you went back in time far enough, people. It also includes zero taxation except for the protection of individual property via police and military. I am, as I said, generalizing. There are many nuances, and as David said, it's complex.

    I have to admit that whenever I see the word "freedom" in the name of a product or an advertising campaign, I generally tune out as I immediately see it as marketing speak and a kind of soulless propaganda, exploiting our own fuzzy ambiguous definition and sentimental attachment to a word that should be sacred but isn't anymore.
  • I notice that SIVLX has 9.88% exposure to China, but also 19.81% to Hong Kong. To what extent would exposure to Hong Kong be considered exposure to China?
Sign In or Register to comment.