Underlying that, though, there's an issue:ajjulee wrote:Just because we didn't define it doesn't mean the 'idea' didn't exist. To say it's 'iffy business trying to backdate definitions and apply to them to times before the concept existed' is meaningless. Our history is replete with backdating many ideas/concepts after we figured them out. However, in this case, questioning the validity of the concept is understandable - whether EM add value or not to US investors.nisiprius wrote:Since the term "emerging markets" was not coined until the 1980s, and the first emerging markets index, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, was not created until 1998, saying that the United States was an "emerging market" in the 1800s is an exercise in spin. It's a very iffy business trying to backdate definitions and apply them to times before the concept existed. (It's no worse than talking about "the S&P 500 back to 1870" but I hate that, too.)NiceUnparticularMan wrote:...People who cite the long-term performance of U.S. stocks dating back to the 19th Century and then question why anyone would invest in emerging markets today seem to have rather self-contradictory views, since the U.S. is really the ultimate EM success story...
- the definition of "Emerging Markets" has changed over time, and so it's hard to make like-for-like comparisons
- the size of EM is so vastly different than what it was in the 80s, let alone say the 1960s - you could not have made the same meaningful investments in EM say 30 years ago, or 50
Some of today's "Frontier Markets" will become EM. Argentina or Brazil show you that the progress out of EM into Developed Markets is anything but linear, and indeed may never happen.