As investment advisers and legal fiduciaries, we are always motivated to keep clients well-informed. At review meetings, that means shining a light on which aspects of their portfolio are performing best and which ones are not. Owning a diversified mix of investments means you are usually disappointed in something, and lately that "something" has been international equities.
As a category, non-U. S. stocks have significantly underperformed their American counterparts for the past decade.
As of April 30, the S&P 500 averaged 15.3% annually over the past 10 years. Compounded, that results in cumulative returns of 316%! Over the same 10-year period, a mix of 80% non-U. S. developed economies and 20% emerging markets gained only 7.8% per year on average with cumulative returns of 111%.
That's roughly one-third the total return of U.S. large-cap stocks. It's a gargantuan performance gap that has led many investors to wonder why they should bother owning international stocks at all. One reason is that exposure to foreign economies provides a measure of diversification.
There's the usual disclaimer that past performance is no indication of future results. If you review the annual performance of various asset classes, you will see that emerging markets have been either the best performer or the worst performer nine times in the last 16 calendar years (5 times at the top, 4 times at the bottom).
In other words, especially bad years do not reduce the likelihood of especially profitable ones.
You may be less diversified than you think
Most importantly, however, we view this as an opportunity to hold a magnifying glass to the international slice of your portfolio to better understand what exactly you own and how you can improve. Your international investments are probably not as diversified as you may assume.
Most investors get their international exposure through a broad-based index or mutual fund. If you do, how much of your international exposure is to developed economies vs. emerging markets?