Country classification has gotten really interesting in the past couple of years with the rising interest in emerging and frontier markets. But that's probably just my inner unrepentant nerd talking.

Right now, in the wake of MSCI’s reclassification of Israel as a developed market, I’m working on a rundown of the country classifications of four major index providers: MSCI, Dow Jones, FTSE and Standard & Poor’s.

The evolution of emerging markets (and sometimes devolution of developed markets—see Greece, which could lose developed-market status in the FTSE indexes) is just particularly fascinating to me. Take some of the frontier/emerging markets that the index providers cover at the very bottom rungs of the investability ladder: Latvia? Slovakia? Trinidad & Tobago? Mauritius?

Frankly, I’m dying to know what the investment stories are behind these tiny, tiny markets. And while I believe frontier markets (like, say, Vietnam) offer some awesome investment opportunities, is anyone really itching to sink some funds into an obscure eastern European country that probably has a smaller population than the number of visitors to my local mall on the day after Christmas?

I realize there are different rules and methodologies that each of the index providers use, but it all seems rather mysterious. For example, Dow Jones—which generally uses the International Monetary Fund’s designations—classifies Slovenia as a developed market, while MSCI has it labeled as a frontier market. That’s quite a disparity.

A Widely Followed Decision

Lately, most of the focus has been on Israel and South Korea, though, and whether they will transition to developed-market status within the various classification systems. MSCI, of course, just promoted Israel to developed status last week, while keeping Korea in the emerging category.

Given that the majority of internationally invested funds are benchmarked to MSCI indexes (at least in the U.S.), this issue has been followed fairly closely by investors. At the end of March, Israel was the ninth-largest country in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, with a 4.0% weighting, and South Korea was the fourth-largest, with a 12.4% weighting.

And with the amount of money benchmarked to that index and the even greater amount benchmarked to the MSCI EAFE Index, which Israel now joins, that’s an awful lot of funds shifting around. South Korea is up for reconsideration in 2010 (as is Taiwan, another country straddling the emerging/developed divide).

But MSCI seems to be on the tail end of the trend: Dow Jones, S&P and FTSE all classify South Korea as a developed market, while only Dow Jones and FTSE put Israel into the developed bucket. S&P still has Israel as emerging. Of course, FTSE, S&P and Dow Jones have a lot fewer funds tracking or measured against their global indexes.

They can shift their country classifications with relative ease, as they deem appropriate, without a lot of reverberation. But if MSCI decides to promote a country to developed status, many, many billions of dollars are going to be moving around, with all sorts of economic consequences.

And not all of them will be positive: In Israel, there is concern that the country moving from relatively big-dog status in the emerging markets index to a minor position in the developed markets index will actually result in outflows from the local stock market.

(Read an article on the latest MSCI moves here. Also of interest might be a Bloomberg article on the subject here, and another article from an Israeli publication about a Deutsche Bank study on the potential negative impacts of the switch.)

Teva Pharmaceutical, Israel’s largest company, saw its price spike in June shortly before the official MSCI announcement, but there’s no telling what the longer-term effects will be. It will be interesting to see what happens with that, and even more interesting to compare the outcomes with what happens when South Korea—and its big stock, Samsung Electronics—is finally promoted to developed status.

Yeah, that was definitely the unrepentant nerd talking …