The World Exchange Federation’s Universal Lessons
The Madrid-based World Federation of Exchanges and EBRD’s Capital Markets Development team unveiled an update on last year’s investor emerging and frontier market survey which found that operational and practical aspects were greater determinants than headline economic and share performance trends. Account opening and management costs, corporate governance in the broader ESG context, infrastructure beyond standard custody and settlement systems, and the local institutional base were core criteria according to the structured interviews with big foreign holders. The World Bank estimates almost $1 trillion in inflows from 2000-2017, and across the 25-country universe covered overseas direct ownership is $100 billion with their slice swamping not as deep domestic fund managers. The US and UK are the dominant sources accounting for 60% combined, followed by Western Europe, North America and Asia. Other emerging markets in Central Europe and the Middle East also actively allocate, and the biggest depository receipt target is Russian companies that received over $35 billion as of mid-2017. The original classifications date back decades, but index providers have created subsets such as advanced and secondary emerging using their own taxonomy beyond per capita income and general access and liquidity. Higher returns remain a prevailing attraction, but cheap valuations and price inefficiencies also contribute to long-term outperformance as an exposure rationale. EM is embedded in global mandates, and passive ETFs are increasingly available for the diversification range. Frontier exchanges “struggle for attention” with their limited research and risk premium, but big houses are forming dedicated teams. Share free float is smaller than developed markets, with the weighted portion halved to 10% of the MSCI All World Index adjusted for this factor. The EBRD is looking to introduce new benchmarks like an EU-wide one that can break these strangleholds and channel smaller company interest, with the possible eventual goal of a Capital Markets Union asset class.
Economic and political conditions were monitored as they affect company earnings and currency stability, but overall policy predictability was a more important consideration. So-called “red lines” varied without consensus, from capital controls and industries such as fossil fuels and tobacco to minimum investment size and trading. Other roadblocks included state and family control undermining minority rights, poor disclosure, steep transaction costs and lack of market data and information. Dual class shareholding with weighted voting was a flag, and management otherwise needed to communicate and interact regularly. Volatility was not a concern for long-term managers, with foreign portfolio swings often a mixed trigger since underlying conditions set the tone. More research on second-tier listings is desirable, and the EBRD is sponsoring a support program to address the gap. Global custodians and delivery versus payment practice are prerequisites, and international financial reporting rules should be followed. WFE and IOSCO membership is welcome, alongside strong insolvency codes. A competitive brokerage industry and anti-corruption bodies and norms are also in the frame, and greater local investor diversification especially where retail buyers are prominent is a frequent prescription. The review concludes that “friction removal” in the form of taxes and balance sheet and top executive access should be a guiding principle, with stated law and regulation within the same frontier as actual enforcement and experience.
