Don’t Count Out World Allocation Strategies Just Yet
What history shows us.
A punitive decade for the world allocation Morningstar Category exasperated investors and contributed to outflows, mergers, and liquidations over that period, but as Joni Mitchell once sang, “I’ve looked at life from both sides now, from win and lose and still somehow, it’s life’s illusions I recall, I really don’t know life at all.” Same could be said of the world allocation category, whose constituents must hold at least 40% in non-U.S. securities and allocate across stocks, bonds, and cash. These structural biases translate to a performance profile that is either starkly advantaged or disadvantaged relative to more geographically concentrated alternatives. With this in mind, we’re asking: If the category’s poor showing for much of the 1990s was followed by more attractive 2000s, is a similar shift possible following the category’s poor showing in the 2010s? Does the category contain compelling options for investors despite these challenges?
Let’s Start With the Market Context
Consider the world allocation Morningstar Category not only relative to its disappointing recent history but also over multiple decades and market cycles. The 2010s' decade was characterized by an epic equity bull market, during which U.S. stocks outperformed global indexes by more than 100 percentage points. Morningstar analyst Dan Sotiroff provides an explanation that identifies three factors--a strong U.S. dollar, more exposure to red-hot tech names in U.S. indexes, and fundamentally stronger earnings for U.S. companies--as contextualizing that performance. U.S. fixed-income indexes also topped their global peers, with multiple eurozone debt crises occurring in Greece, Spain, and Italy, among others. This culminated in a sizable divergence in 2014, which saw the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Index return just 0.6%, compared with 6.0% for the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. Aside from that year, the indexes largely moved in line with each other.
Thomas Lancereau does not own (actual or beneficial) shares in any of the securities mentioned above. Find out about Morningstar’s editorial policies.
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management. We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.