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
The best returns might require investing in troubled countries and looking past the benchmark index to find some gems
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.
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
The Federal Budget may have softened some of its proposed tax reforms, but it has exposed a bigger issue: too many families are relying on wealth structures that no longer reflect the realities of modern life.
For many Australians, the 2026 Federal Budget initially felt like a direct challenge to the way wealth is created, held and transferred between generations.
The headlines were immediate: changes to capital gains tax, reforms to discretionary trusts, restrictions on negative gearing and increased scrutiny of investment structures. Unsurprisingly, affluent families, business owners and investors began asking the same question:
Is the way we hold our wealth still fit for purpose?
In recent days, the government has announced several significant amendments following industry consultation and public feedback, including exempting testamentary trusts from the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax and expanding capital gains tax concessions for small businesses.
The backdown is welcome. But it also highlights something much bigger.
This Budget has accelerated a conversation that many Australian families have been postponing for years.
The conversation is not really about tax. It is about wealth stewardship.
For decades, Australians have built wealth through businesses, property, investments and careful long-term planning. Yet many families have not revisited the legal structures surrounding those assets in years, sometimes decades.
We often see clients who have spent years building significant wealth, only to discover their legal arrangements no longer reflect their current circumstances.
Their children are now adults. They may own multiple properties.
They may have sold a business, entered a second marriage, become grandparents or accumulated digital assets that did not exist when their original estate plans were prepared.
The trust that distributes income may need to be reconsidered. The bucket company may no longer be so attractive.
The Budget has simply exposed a reality that already existed: wealth structures cannot remain static while life continues to evolve.
Importantly, trusts themselves are not the issue.
Trusts are legitimate planning tools that provide flexibility, protection and continuity. When used appropriately, they allow families to adapt to changing circumstances over time.
And neither is tax the issue, really. Getting the fundamentals right is more important for long-term, sustainable wealth than a few favourable tax treatments around the edges.

The real issue is complacency.
Too often, families create structures and assume the job is done. It isn’t.
Estate planning is no longer a document you sign once and file away in a drawer. It is an ongoing process that should evolve alongside your life.
We are also seeing a broader shift in how Australians define wealth itself. It is no longer just the family home and an investment portfolio.
Modern wealth includes businesses, digital assets, cryptocurrency, intellectual property, frequent flyer points and increasingly complex family arrangements.
At the same time, Australians are living longer than ever before, meaning wealth may need to support multiple generations simultaneously. This creates new responsibilities and new risks.
How do you help your children enter the property market without exposing family wealth to relationship breakdowns?
How do you structure wealth so that it remains a source of opportunity rather than future conflict?
These are the questions families should be asking now.
The recent debate surrounding testamentary trusts also serves as an important reminder that policy decisions can have unintended consequences for vulnerable Australians. It is encouraging that the government has listened to feedback and clarified its position.
But the lesson remains: the wealth landscape is changing.
Increasingly, governments, regulators and tax authorities are paying closer attention to how wealth is held and transferred. That means families cannot afford to adopt a “set-and-forget” approach to their structures.
The families who will be best placed for the future are not necessarily those with the greatest wealth.
They are the families with the greatest clarity. Clarity around ownership, succession and governance. And clarity around how wealth will transition from one generation to the next.
Ultimately, preserving wealth is not about avoiding change.
It is about preparing for it.
Because the greatest risk is not change itself.
It is losing the ability to respond to it.
Anthony Hunt is Co-Founder of Wealth Lawyers and former COO of Westpac Private Bank. He advises business owners, investors and affluent Australian families on wealth protection, succession planning and intergenerational wealth transfer
Brickworks has enlisted acclaimed architecture studio Kennedy Nolan to explore how homes could become more adaptable, energy-efficient and connected to community.
Chinese carmaker GAC will expand its Australian electric vehicle line-up with the city-focused AION UT hatchback.