Three Differences Between MSCI and FTSE Indices

Index providers MSCI and FTSE have launched many indices over the years. Hundreds of ETF providers and other companies use these indices to benchmark the performance of their products. Some use the MSCI while others use the FTSE. For example, the iShares Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. The Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO), on the other hand, tracks the return of FTSE Emerging Transition Index.

Late last year, Vanguard decided to replace benchmark indices from MSCI with FTSE indices as for their ETF products. However iShares decided to stay with MSCI.

What are some of the differences between the MSCI and FTSE indices?

While there are many differences between the indices in terms of holdings, countries, sectors and style, in this article let me list three differences.

1. The MSCI EAFE Index (Europe, Australasia, Far East) and the FTSE Developed Ex North America Index have a greater than 10% difference in holdings.

2. The two index providers also differ in terms of country allocations in their emerging market indices. For example, MSCI considers South Korea as an emerging country and includes it in the emerging market index. But FTSE considers South Korea as a developed country and excludes it from the index.

3. MSCI excludes Pakistan and United Arab Emirates(UAE) from its emerging index since they are assigned the frontier market statuses. But FTSE includes them in its Emerging Index.

Update June 2017: MSCI added Pakistan to the MSCI Emerging Markets Index

The key takeaway from this post is that investors have to thoroughly review the benchmark index that an ETF tracks before deciding to investing in that ETF.

Source: MSCI versus FTSE: Why they’re not the same, Canadian Investment Review

Related:

Disclosure: No Positions

The Top 50 Global Pharma Companies 2013

The Pharmaceutical Executive magazine published its annual ranking of the Top 50 Pharma Companies Worldwide based on sales earlier this month. New York -based Pfizer(PFE) was topped the list with a sales of over $47.4 billion in 2012.

The Top 50 Global Pharma Companies are listed in the tables below:

Click to enlarge

1-Part-Top-50-Pharma-Companies-2013

2-Part-Top-50-Pharma-Companies-2013

Source: Pharmaceutical Executive

Here are a few observations:

  • Swiss drug giant Novartis(NVS) came in at number two with sales of over $45.0 billion.
  • Among the top 10, five are European pharma companies including Novartis, Sanofi (SNY), Roche (RHHBY), GlaxoSmithkline(GSK), and Astrazeneca (AZN).
  • Teva (TEVA) of Israel, the world’s largest generic maker had revenues of sales of over $17.0 billion and took the 11th spot. Teva’s growth so far has been astonishing and is now within striking distance of taking the 10th rank from Eli Lilly(LLY).
  • For the first time, Indian pharma maker Ranbaxy Laboratories appears in this top 50 list. Ranbaxy is majority-owned by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan.
  • For the first time in more than 50 years, year-on-year growth contracted in the U.S. market due to patent expiration of blockbusters such as Plavix, Seroquel, Lipitor, and Zyprexa and increased scrutiny of pricing by payers and regulatory approvals.
  • Due to the ongoing recession, growth in Europe was flat.
  • Fresenius is a leader in the dialysis market. Its Medical Care division trades on the NYSE under the ticker FMS.

Disclosure: No Positions

Also checkout: The Top 50 Global Pharma Companies 2014

Update:

Download: The Top 50 Global Pharma Companies 2012 (in pdf)

Knowledge is Power: Costs Matter, Cash Machines and Purity Concerns Edition

‘Keep calm and carry on’ as FTSE tumbles 2% (CityWire)

‘We are, in economic terms, all Japanese’: Paul Krugman (Financial Post)

Is this the end of Japan’s bull market? (MoneyWeek)

Avoiding stocks? (Fidelity)

Does Behavioral Investing Make Sense Anymore? (AllianceBernstein Blog)

Costs matter: Are fund investors voting with their feet? (Vanguard)

Purity Concerns: German Beer Brewers Foaming over Fracking (Der Spiegel)

Cash Machines  (Canadian Business)

Goa-Church

The Church of St. Francis of Assisi, Goa, India
Built in 1661 by the Portuguese

Is Market Timing A Good Investment Strategy?

Timing the market is not a good idea for most investors. Following this strategy is especially detrimental to long-term investors. Short-term investors also should avoid this strategy since even shorter time periods timing the market usually leads to lower returns. Investors holding equities for less than five years can be considered as short-term investors.

Proponents of this theory would argue that this is a great concept to follow and that buy-and-hold does not work anymore. With things like algorithms-based trading, high-frequency trading, high number of hedge funds in existence,  never-ending macro-economic crises, etc. it would seem that buying and selling at the market bottoms and peaks may be the best way to make money in this market. For example, supporters of this theory may support their case with a chart like the one below:

Click to enlarge

SP500-Inflection-Points

Source: Guide to the Markets, 2Q 2013, JP Morgan Asset Management

Though the chart looks pretty, in reality it is impossible for any investor to perfectly identify the market tops or bottoms and trade accordingly. In fact, majority of the investors missed the current bull market that started from early 2009 at the peak of the financial crisis.

Many research studies have proven that market timing does not work. Here is the  result of a new study by Fidelity, UK:

Analysis by fund managers Fidelity found that if you invested £10,000 across all FTSE companies over the past 15 years and just left it there, you would have £19,610 today.

But if you missed the best ten days trying to second-guess the rises and falls you would have £10,611. If you missed the best 40 days you would have just £3,554 — cutting your initial outlay by more than half.

One of the best performing equity income fund over the past 20 years in the UK is the £14 billion Invesco Perpetual High Income fund run by fund manager Neil Woodford. This fund holds high-quality dividend paying companies. One of the reasons for the Neil’s excellent consistent performance can be attributed to the fact that the fund’s major holdings have not changed much in the past 10 years.  Some of the top holdings in the fund include AstraZeneca PLC (AZN),GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK),Reynolds American Inc. (RAI) and British American Tobacco plc (BTI). The fund is up 32.3% in 1 year and 51.4% in 5 years in the local market.

Source: The Footsie’s had a stellar year, but will the great share boom turn to bust?, This is Money, UK

Disclosure: No Positions

OECD: Income Equality Rises After The Financial Crisis

The OECD released on a report last week discussing rising income equality and poverty since the global financial crisis. The report noted that income inequality based on the gini coefficient actually increased in the past few years in developed countries. This is not surprising as the poor and middle-class suffer more as jobs disappeared and many governments implemented austerity programs to cut down on social welfare. On the other hand, as is usual in such situations, the affluent were to able to take advantage of the crisis and increase their wealth due to favorable tax treatments, buying assets at rock-bottom prices, borrow funds at cheap rates for investment purposes, etc. According to the OECD, income inequality has been rising in the OECD countries since the mid-1980s.

From an article by Brian Keeley in OECD Insights:

‘There’s a lot of little kids going hungry round here,’ explained one friend, who works in a local community centre. Indeed, just the other day she had spoken to a family where the child had been chewing wallpaper at night. ‘He didn’t want to tell his mum because he knew she didn’t have the money for supper,’ she explained.”

That’s not from Dickens or George Orwell’s Down and Out in  Paris or London, but from a recent column by Gillian Tett in the Financial Times. And she’s writing not about Lagos or Lahore, but Liverpool, a modern city in one of the world’s wealthiest countries.

Of course, the presence of poverty amid plenty – inequality – is not new. In reality, it’s hard to imagine any society functioning without some sort of  wealth gap. But the past few decades have seen inequality rise in much of the world. That’s causing concern, and not just for reasons of social justice: A number of economists, most notably, perhaps, Joe Stiglitz, argue that excessive inequality undermines the foundations of growth by restricting the ability of poorer people to develop their human capital and by encouraging what economists call “rent seeking” – in essence, instead of creating a bigger economic pie, the well-off use their economic and political strength to take a bigger slice of the existing pie.

The following chart shows the level of income inequality among OECD countries:

Click to enlarge

Income-Inequlity-OECD

Source: Income Distribution and Poverty at the OECD,  OECD

From the report:

Income inequality increased especially in Spain, where Gini coefficient increased from 0.31 to 0.34. On the other hand, after having increased since the early 2000s, income inequality fell substantially in Iceland, moving down eleven places on an OECD countries’ inequality ranking to the lowest level (Figure 4).

Consolidation policies appear to have been designed in an overall equalising manner. Disposable income inequality also declined in Portugal and New Zealand, although by a smaller amount.

The higher the gini coefficient, the higher the income inequality. Chile has the highest gap between the rich and poor. It is interesting that Iceland has the lowest gini coefficient. The tiny country of Iceland became the basket case of greed and recklessness when some of its banks collapsed and the bankers brought the economy to its knees at the start of the financial crisis. Fortunately unlike other developed countries, Icelandic politicians were smart and actually cared about their country. Iceland implemented some of the boldest policies to rescue the economy and in fact sent some of the crooked bankers to prison in the process. Compared to that, not one banker in the US or UK for example has been sent to prison. As a result ordinary people in these countries continue to pay the price while the bankers and politicians who perpetrated the crisis have moved on with their lives. Or to put it differently they are continuing to enjoy the high life.

No one would be surprised to see the U.S. at the fourth place in the above ranking. Since Turkey, Chile and Mexico are actually emerging countries, in reality the U.S. has the highest income inequality among developed countries. It is interesting that Israel has the next highest income equality though most people would think otherwise. The Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden follow extreme form of socialism which leads to some of the lowest income inequality measures among the OECD nations.