Emerging-Markets Stocks Have Rarely Been So Hated. It’s Time to Buy

The last time emerging markets were doing this badly the term “emerging markets” hadn’t been coined yet.

That spells opportunity, and the greatest spoils might go to those investors who are the boldest and also willing to look past that poorly-defined category. The benchmark for how emerging markets stocks are doing is a widely followed index maintained by MSCI that has returned less than 4% annually in the past five years, compared with nearly 12% for global equities and more than 15% for U.S. stocks.

Dig into any of those broad categories, though, and there are clear leaders and laggards. A whopping 65% of the MSCI All Country World Index’s market value, including nine of its top 10 stocks, were American as of the end of October. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index has been dragged down in large part since 2020 by China, where a housing crisis and a heavy-handed approach to technology firms by leader Xi Jinping have depressed valuations. Alibaba Group and Tencent Holdings were two of the world’s most valuable companies four years ago, before the tech crackdown.

If not for the massive surge of the MSCI index’s Chinese components in September on renewed stimulus hopes, the overall picture for emerging-markets stocks would be even worse. India, in no small part because it isn’t China, has seen huge foreign and domestic investor interest and now has the third largest weighting in the emerging-markets index. But it also is one of the world’s pricier markets .

Emerging markets outperformed developed market stocks in the century’s first decade as commodity prices boomed and the tech and housing bubbles dented the U.S. market. Today, though, they are much cheaper as a multiple of earnings, and not solely because of China.

Just buying an emerging-markets index fund and betting on the performance pendulum swinging back could be a decent strategy. Bolder investors might be able to do better: The most enticing opportunities are where skepticism is highest.

For example, Mexico and the multinational companies that use it as a base to sell products destined for the U.S. are in President-elect Donald Trump ’s crosshairs. Newly-elected leftist President Claudia Sheinbaum also faces violent drug cartels and protests over changes to the country’s judiciary. But the MSCI Mexico Index has gone absolutely nowhere, with a slightly negative return over the past decade and a forward price-to-earnings ratio of around 10 times—less than half that of the U.S. market.

And Mexico is pricey compared with South Africa, Brazil and Turkey, which fetch multiples on the same measure of about 9.8 times, eight times and five times, respectively. All three also face significant domestic problems and leaders who have mismanaged their economies. But even poorly-run countries can have long-term promise, and occasionally some short-term charms: Brazil’s dividend yield, for example, is about 6%, or five times that of the S&P 500 index.

Another way to profit as a savvy emerging-markets investor? By reading what is on the label and then ignoring it. MSCI’s benchmark has had an odd definition of what qualifies that mostly matters to professional money managers.

For example, both South Korea and Taiwan are major emerging markets, but their citizens are wealthier than those of developed Portugal or Greece. With leading high-tech companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co . and Samsung Electronics , educated workforces and excellent infrastructure, they have more in common with neighbouring Japan, a developed market. MSCI cites market access issues that hold them back. That might still make them attractive places to invest, but the rapid growth a country enjoys by becoming modern, educated and wealthy—the sort of thing that has people so excited about India’s long-term potential—are now behind them.

Getting booted from the index can create anomalies too. Israel, which is richer than Britain or France , was included in the emerging-markets index until 2010 for what seems like geographical reasons. Then it went from being a notable emerging-markets investing destination to irrelevancy for many fund managers.

Because it is the only officially “developed” market in the Middle East, Israel is now part of the little-tracked MSCI Europe and Middle East Index created that year instead of the more-followed MSCI Europe, which dates to 1986. It is also a minuscule part of MSCI EAFE, which tracks 21 non-U.S. developed markets. With world class healthcare and tech companies like Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Check Point Software in the index, “Startup Nation’s” stocks trade at barely half of the forward price-to-earnings ratio of the tech-heavy U.S. market.

And there are other stock markets just waiting to join, or rejoin, the official emerging-markets club. By the time they do the best gains might have been had. Take Argentina , which was demoted to “stand-alone” status three years ago because it was difficult to invest there. It has had a blistering return in dollars of almost 50% a year in the three years through October compared with a negative return for the MSCI Emerging Markets Index over that time.

While far from a foolproof investing strategy, betting that the last shall be first and buying what feels uncomfortable could pay off when it comes to beaten-down emerging-markets stocks.

It’s the corporate gamble of the moment: Can you run a company, increasing sales and juicing profits, without adding people?

American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink through layoffs—without harming their businesses.

Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy many still describe as uncertain.

JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told investors recently that the bank now has a “very strong bias against having the reflective response” to hire more people for any given need. Aerospace and defense company RTX boasted last week that its sales rose even without adding employees.

Goldman Sachs , meanwhile, sent a memo to staffers this month saying the firm “will constrain head count growth through the end of the year” and reduce roles that could be more efficient with AI. Walmart , the nation’s largest private employer, also said it plans to keep its head count roughly flat over the next three years, even as its sales grow.

“If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Brian Chesky , Airbnb’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I see a lot of companies pre-emptively holding the line, forecasting and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.”

Airbnb employs around 7,000 people, and Chesky says he doesn’t expect that number to grow much over the next year. With the help of AI, he said he hopes that “the team we already have can get considerably more work done.”

Many companies seem intent on embracing a new, ultralean model of staffing, one where more roles are kept unfilled and hiring is treated as a last resort. At Intuit , every time a job comes open, managers are pushed to justify why they need to backfill it, said Sandeep Aujla , the company’s chief financial officer. The new rigor around hiring helps combat corporate bloat.

“That typical behavior that settles in—and we’re all guilty of it—is, historically, if someone leaves, if Jane Doe leaves, I’ve got to backfill Jane,” Aujla said in an interview. Now, when someone quits, the company asks: “Is there an opportunity for us to rethink how we staff?”

Intuit has chosen not to replace certain roles in its finance, legal and customer-support functions, he said. In its last fiscal year, the company’s revenue rose 16% even as its head count stayed flat, and it is planning only modest hiring in the current year.

The desire to avoid hiring or filling jobs reflects a growing push among executives to see a return on their AI spending. On earnings calls, mentions of ROI and AI investments are increasing, according to an analysis by AlphaSense, reflecting heightened interest from analysts and investors that companies make good on the millions they are pouring into AI.

Many executives hope that software coding assistants and armies of digital agents will keep improving—even if the current results still at times leave something to be desired.

The widespread caution in hiring now is frustrating job seekers and leading many employees within organizations to feel stuck in place, unable to ascend or take on new roles, workers and bosses say.

Inside many large companies, HR chiefs also say it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict just how many employees will be needed as technology takes on more of the work.

Some employers seem to think that fewer employees will actually improve operations.

Meta Platforms this past week said it is cutting 600 jobs in its AI division, a move some leaders hailed as a way to cut down on bureaucracy.

“By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Alexandr Wang , Meta’s chief AI officer, wrote in a memo to staff seen by The Wall Street Journal.

Though layoffs haven’t been widespread through the economy, some companies are making cuts. Target on Thursday said it would cut about 1,000 corporate employees, and close another 800 open positions, totaling around 8% of its corporate workforce. Michael Fiddelke , Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo sent to staff that too “many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”

A range of other employers, from the electric-truck maker Rivian to cable and broadband provider Charter Communications , have announced their own staff cuts in recent weeks, too.

Operating with fewer people can still pose risks for companies by straining existing staffers or hurting efforts to develop future leaders, executives and economists say. “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword,” said Matthew Martin , senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “You want to keep your head count costs down now—but you also have to have an eye on the future.”

Emerging-Markets Stocks Have Rarely Been So Hated. It’s Time to Buy

The best returns might require investing in troubled countries and looking past the benchmark index to find some gems

JPMorgan Chase has a ‘strong bias’ against adding staff, while Walmart is keeping its head count flat. Major employers are in a new, ultra lean era.