【英语财经】重新定义新兴市场：选择最佳矩阵 Redefining EM: Choosing the best matrix

Emerging markets is one of the most powerful terms in the world. Companies plan global expansion strategies with reference to it, multilateral organisations use it to analyse key economic and social trends and some $10.3tn is invested in EM stock and bond markets by international funds via an alphabet soup of EM indices.

More than this though, our mental maps of the world tend to create an invisible but pervasive partition between EM countries at the periphery and developed market countries at the core of world affairs.

But such maps — say critics — are not only crude, they are outdated and unhelpful.

The Financial Times has run a series of articles — collectively titled Redefining Emerging Markets — on the limitations of the EM definition, while an editorial called for it to be scrapped. The main problems with the definition are twofold.

First, EM countries now account for a greater weight in world gross domestic product than DM countries (when measured by purchasing power parity) and several EM countries also have higher per capita GDPs than their DM counterparts.

Second, the lumping together in a single category of EM countries as diverse as China and the Czech Republic implies an equivalence and homogeneity which does not exist.

Redefining Emerging Markets: Suggested Alternatives

To help illuminate the debate the FT has published several alternatives to the emerging markets definition written by experts around the world. They are as follows:

Governance

regimes are the key

John Paul Smith, founder of Ecstrat, a consultancy advising on asset allocation, proposes a six category matrix that is aimed at assisting investors gauge risk. Each category defines a different type of governance regime, ranging from “Liberal Governance Regimes” to “Authoritarian Governance Regimes”. Countries fall into each category based on a quantitative and qualitative assessment of which regime they fit. Each regime has different risk associations for investors.

From Brics to

Blocs

Michael Power, strategist at Investec Asset Management, suggests a move away from static emerging market groupings such as Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China) toward a dynamic system of “Blocs”. His matrix divides countries into the four corners of a quadrant depending on whether they run a current account surplus or deficit and whether they primarily export manufactured goods or commodities. Sharp divergences in economic performance are evident between countries in different corners of the quadrant. By far the strongest are manufacturing exporters that run current account surpluses.

Cities, not countries, are key to fortunes

Richard Dobbs, director at McKinsey Global Institute, suggests that country-level groupings are less than helpful because they miss the real locus of developmental dynamism. He says that 440 emerging market cities — very few of them “megacities” — will account for close to half of expected global GDP growth between now and 2025. Many of these cities, such as Foshan, Porto Alegre and Surat, are not yet household names. Many company executives have not yet started to allocate resources with reference to this list of dynamic cities.

Group countries by 10 ‘clusters’

Peter Marber, head of emerging market investments for Loomis, Sayles & Company, an asset manager, suggests that countries should be grouped into 10 numbered “clusters” to produce a ranking of socio-economic maturation. The “cluster” methodology ensures that similar countries are grouped together, according to nine criteria that range from per capita income to economic competitiveness, credit ratings, health, education, political climate and others. Group 10 has the highest scores — denoting the most mature countries from a socio-economic standpoint — and group 1 the lowest scores. Interestingly, some countries commonly classified at “emerging markets” — such as Chile, Taiwan and South Korea — rank above some countries commonly classified as “developed” including Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy.

Asteriscs is a

new definition

Alexander Kozhemiakin, head of emerging markets at Standish, an asset management company, suggests Asteriscs as a new definition to replace “emerging markets” for investors. He says that in a world enamoured of acronyms, his stands for “assets tied to economies of risky countries”. He suggests that key benchmarks for assessing risk in a country include a geopolitical threat, wealth below the high income threshold, impaired creditworthiness and a non-democratic regime.

Ranking

countries according to 70 variables

Andrew Karolyi, professor of emerging market finance at Cornell University’s Johnson School, uses 70 variables sprinkled among six separate criteria to produce a ranking of countries’ risk profiles. His six criteria include financial market capacity constraints, operational inefficiencies in trading systems, foreign accessibility restrictions, corporate opacity, limits to legal protections and political instability. Mr Karolyi concludes that Venezuela is the most vulnerable among all emerging markets and Taiwan is the strongest.

“新兴市场”是世界上最强大的术语之一。公司参考该定义制定全球扩张战略计划，多边组织用它来分析关键的经济和社会趋势，同时国际基金通过各类新兴市场指数，将大约10.3万亿美元投资于新兴市场股票和债券市场。

但除此以外，我们心理上的世界地图，往往会为新兴市场国家和发达市场国家画上一条无形却无处不在的分割线，在全球事务中把新兴市场置于外围，而把发达市场置于核心。

但批评人士称，此类地图不仅粗糙，而且已经过时，起不到什么作用。

英国《金融时报》刊登了一系列关于新兴市场定义局限性的文章，总体命名为“重新定义新兴市场”，其中一篇社评呼吁废除这一定义。新兴市场定义的主要问题有两方面。

首先，按购买力平价衡量，新兴市场国家现在在全球GDP中的权重已经超过了发达市场国家，而且数个新兴市场国家的人均GDP也高于发达市场国家。

其次，将中国和捷克这样差别极大的国家简单归为一类新兴市场国家，似乎暗示它们是同质的，但实际上并不存在这种同质性。

重新定义新兴市场：几种建议的替代定义方法

为帮助呈现这场辩论，英国《金融时报》刊登了世界各国专家撰写的替代新兴市场定义的数种定义方法的文章。这些方法如下：

治理机制是关键

资产配置咨询机构Ecstrat的创始人约翰-保罗?史密斯(John-Paul Smith)，提出了旨在帮助投资者评估风险的包含6个类别的矩阵。每个类别定义一种不同的治理机制，从“自由治理机制”到“威权治理机制”。按照对各国治理机制的定量定性评估，来决定它们属于哪一类型。对投资者来说，每一种机制都关联不同的风险。

从“金砖国家”（Bric，指巴西、俄罗斯、印度和中国）到“集团”(Blocs)

天达资产管理公司(Investec Asset Management)策略师迈克尔?鲍尔(Michael Power)提议，从“金砖国家”等静态的新兴市场集合定义，转向一个动态的“集团”体系。他的矩阵将各国分为4个象限，划分标准是各国处于经常账户盈余还是赤字，以及主要出口制成品还是大宗商品。处于不同象限的国家的经济表现差别极为明显，其中表现最为强劲的是拥有经常账户盈余的制造业出口国。

城市、而非国家是财富的关键

麦肯锡全球研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)的董事理查德?多布斯(Richard Dobbs)表示，国家层面的集合概念提供不了多大帮助，因为它们未能把握到发展动力的真正源泉。他说，在从现在到2025年预期的全球GDP增长中，440个新兴市场城市（其中很少是“特大型城市”）所占比例将接近一半。其中许多城市，比如佛山、阿雷格里港(Porto Alegre)和苏拉特(Surat)，现在还不是家喻户晓的名字。许多西方公司高管还没有开始参考这个活力城市名单来配置资源。

按照10个“聚类”划分

资产管理公司Loomis, Sayles & Company的新兴市场投资主管彼得?马伯尔(Peter Marber)表示，应该根据社会经济成熟程度的不同，把各经济体分成10组“聚类”。按照从人均收入到经济竞争力、信用评级、健康、教育、政治氛围以及其他指标等9个标准，“聚类”法可以确保相似国家分到一组。10号组得分最高——代表着社会经济成熟程度最高的经济体——而1号组得分最低。有趣的是，一些通常被划分为“新兴市场”的经济体，比如智利、台湾和韩国，排名高于一些通常被划分为“发达市场”的经济体，比如西班牙、葡萄牙、爱尔兰和意大利。

新兴市场的新缩写：Asteriscs

资产管理公司Standish的新兴市场主管亚历山大?科热米亚金(Alexander Kozhemiakin)用“Asteriscs”来取代投资者对“新兴市场”的定义。他说，在一个迷恋首字母缩写词的世界里，他的Asteriscs代表“高风险国家经济体关联资产”(assets tied to economies of risky countries)。他表示，评估一国风险的关键指标包括地缘政治威胁、国家财富低于高收入门槛、信誉受损以及非民主体制。

按照70个变量对各经济体排名

康奈尔大学(Cornell University)约翰逊商学院(Johnson School)的新兴市场金融教授安德鲁?卡洛伊(Andrew Karolyi)使用6个不同标准当中的70个变量，对各国的风险概况进行排名。他的6个标准包括金融市场容量约束、交易系统运营效率低下、外资进入限制、企业透明度不高、法律保护限制以及政治动荡。卡洛伊得出结论称，在所有新兴市场当中，委内瑞拉是最脆弱的，台湾是最强劲的。

译者/邹策