IU: What do those comparisons show?

Kang: Going back to 2005, returns were generally spectacular up through 2007 for emerging markets vs. developed markets. In the latter half of 2008, we saw greater volatility and bigger losses in emerging markets. As with any more volatile asset class, emerging markets offers the potential for greater long-term gains as a result. Clearly, some sectors performed better in relative terms during the periods when markets were going up versus others. The same is true in the bear market of 2008. That is the essence of the popularity of sector funds -- their selection during different stages of the market cycle.

IU: How correlated are emerging markets sectors to developed markets sectors?

Kang: That’s a tricky question. It depends on your timeframe. In statistical terms, there’s just not a lot of data. But you can draw some general conclusions. There are times, like in the bull market from 2005-2007, when many sectors in emerging markets and developed markets were highly correlated. Commodity stocks were highly correlated during the commodities boon regardless of location. On the other hand during the credit crisis, financials haven’t been as highly correlated because banks in the U.K, for example, have been exposed to more toxic assets than banks in places like China, Brazil and India.

IU: What do you see as the biggest benefits of breaking emerging markets into sectors?

Kang: A lot of investors managing their emerging markets exposures are doing so by allocating between countries. The question we asked at the very beginning of creating our ETFs is how much overlap there is between sectors and geography.

Let’s say you’re an American investor with heavy exposure to the S&P 500 index. Maybe you’ve tilted your portfolio a little to commodities through funds such as the SPDR Gold Shares (NYSE: GLD) and the iPath Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index ETN (NYSE: DJP). If you’ve got that portfolio, you look more like a Canadian or an Aussie – both of those countries are heavily influenced by movements in natural resources prices.

IU: In other words, broader-based ETFs don’t add a lot in those situations?

Kang: The inclusion of broad emerging market ETFs as well as many of the country specific ETFs to this kind of portfolio would not provide diversification as correlations would be surprisingly high. For true diversification, the inclusion of certain sectors would likely provide more optimal risk-return characteristics to the overall portfolio.

Furthermore, many investors who invest in emerging markets country ETFs do so based on a sector-type of rationale. For example, let’s say someone wants to invest in Russia. The question I would ask is: Do you want to invest in that country to be more richly compensated with some sort of political risk associated with that country? Or, are you investing in Russia to make an oil and gas bet? If that’s the case, do you want to put all your eggs in one basket – Russia. Or, would you prefer to invest in a basket focused on oil and gas but with companies from Russia, India, China, Brazil and several others?

IU: Those are the top countries in EEO, aren’t they?

Kang: Yes. Those four countries comprise roughly two-thirds of the fund. And with EMT, the top countries are: South Africa, Brazil, China and Russia. Those take up more than three-quarters of the fund.

1 | 2 |