Honesty Did Pay
Virtue is more than its own reward.
Virtue is more than its own reward.
In preparing my mid-August column on international-stock funds, I ran the trailing 20-year performance numbers for various MSCI indexes. Twenty-one of them were single countries. The results are shown below, expressed as annualized total return in U.S. currency.
Victory for the contrarians! In 1993, pundits tended to rate the prospects of Hong Kong and Singapore the highest, and those of Sweden--frequently cited as the poster child for eurosclerosis--the lowest. If anybody predicted that Scandinavia would be a shining investment opportunity for the following two decades, I must have missed that call.
Among the factors separating the winners from the losers, a big item was the euro. Aside from the United Kingdom, every European country that eschewed the euro outgained every country in the eurozone.
It was also helpful to have natural resources. Norway, Canada, and Australia benefited from healthy commodities prices. In contrast, Japan, a large commodity importer, was hurt.
However, the biggest difference between the winners and losers seems to be cultural. The chart below plots the country's rank according to Transparency International's Corruption Index against the country's rank for 20-year stock-market performance. In each case, 1 is the best score, representing the least amount of corruption and the highest stock returns. If the correlation were perfect, the best-fit line would run diagonally from bottom left to upper right.
The line doesn't manage that feat, because it's pulled down at the top right by Singapore and New Zealand, which dramatically underperformed their excellent scores on corruption, and pushed up on the bottom left by Spain and to a lesser extent the U.S., which outdid expectations given their relatively high levels of corruption. (Relatively high, that is, when compared to this elite list. Overall, the U.S. is among the top 10% least corrupt countries in Transparency International's report.) Japan also is a bit of a misfit, having the very worst stock returns while only having only a modestly below-average corruption score.
The remaining 16 countries, however, form as close to a perfect 45 degree line as you will ever see with a study on stock performance.
There is a concern about cause and effect: Have rising stock prices somehow affected Transparency International's corruption scores? That seems unlikely. Transparency International evaluates countries by asking businesspeople about their perception of the honesty of a country's public sector and the prevalence of bribery, and by measuring various industry practices according to Transparency's standards of best practices. It's hard to see how these items could be much affected (if at all) by stock performance.
There's also the question of whether Transparency International gets it right. The company is the leader in its field, dominating Google searches and media reports to the extent that it's difficult to find a competitor. Presumably it does a thorough job, but I couldn't state for certain. At any rate, regardless of exactly what it measures, Transparency International's rankings have lined up quite nicely with the past 20 years of stock performance. It almost certainly won't line up as neatly over the next 20 years, but perhaps there will be enough correlation to make the rankings useful.
International stock investors typically pursue economic growth, not cultural honesty. After all, the ETFs of the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China didn't become far, far more popular than the ETFs of Northern Europe because the former countries have cleaner governments. Investors may wish to adjust their priorities.
John Rekenthaler has been researching the fund industry since 1988. He is now a columnist for Morningstar.com and a member of Morningstar's investment research department. John is quick to point out that while Morningstar typically agrees with the views of the Rekenthaler Report, his views are his own.
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.