Vietnam Uncorrelated: a useful thing when “Mayday” strikes

In a highly linked world, it is wise for a portfolio to have some minimally correlated elements.

Five year historic data shows a correlation between the MSCI Emerging and the MSCI World of a fairly high 64%. The figure for Frontier versus World is, in contrast, significantly lower at 28%. One of the lowest within the Frontier category is MSCI Vietnam at only 3%: basically totally uncorrelated. Vietnamese correlation with both the S&P 500 and MSCI Emerging is also virtually totally absent, at 1%. This makes Vietnam a significantly less world-correlated market than, for example, Nigeria (22% to MSCI World), Kazakhstan (29%), or Kenya (22%). Choosing a different index, this time the VN-Index, makes little difference: its correlation is only 16% to MSCI World, 13% to Japan’s Nikkei, 14% to the S&P 500, and between 8-22% to other Asian markets. In contrast, relative to the S&P 500, Brazil (72%), China (63%), and Indonesia (46%) are fairly strongly correlated.

So Vietnam stands out globally, and within the major frontier and emerging markets, as a distinctly uncorrelated place. Why? Four possible reasons are:

  • The still semi-closed capital account. Capital can’t wash in and out so easily here as elsewhere.
  • Restricted foreign liquidity due to foreign ownership limit and paucity of attractive big-cap stocks.
  • Local factors, such as government reform orientation, are the more important market drivers compared to global ones. This makes sense in a place where strong economic advancement appears a destiny (this is East Asia after all), but where the main brakes to progress have been exerted by the Vietnamese one party state.
  • Vietnam’s performance in world trade and inward investment is, at this stage, a story of structural market share growth, rather than simple dependence on the demand or financial conditions in other markets. For example: Vietnam’s export performance has continued to power ahead post the global crisis even in initially weak markets like the US, EU and Japan, because the effect of Vietnam taking market shares from others is far more important than the overall market growth for the given products in those places. Another illustration of this is the currently rising GDP growth trend in Vietnam, versus the falling one elsewhere in the emerging and frontier world.

Why, apart from normal risk management considerations, is it good to be uncorrelated right now?

  • Dynamic America is once again leading the western world out of recession, meaning once again, the dollar is king. The good news here for Vietnam is that the country on the whole is still so cost competitive, that its own currency need not sink so much against the dollar as is the case for other emerging countries. This means less currency risk in this market for dollar-based investors.
  • That big sucking sound of capital pulling out of emerging markets is something Vietnam is less vulnerable to than others. Reasons for this include the prevalence of relatively sticky inward remittances from overseas Vietnamese and FDI (a chunky USD 12bn pa or so each for a USD 200bn-ish GDP economy) in the overall balance of payments, the partially closed capital account making the inward-outward capital tide less severe, and the country-fund-dominated nature of the Vietnamese stock market (again, sticky).
  • Some of the most prominent markets in the world seem dicey at present. America has momentum on its side but it isn’t cheap (19x trailing on the S&P 500), China looks overbought (22x, Shanghai Composite), India expensive (20x, BSE 500), and Russia dead for good reason (5x). The major eurozone markets have some momentum, but are in a currency facing structural weakness.

In such a world, to allocate something to an uncorrelated market with a good story seems eminently sensible: make it Vietnam.


Mekong Man

  1. Dos Perros

    I am unsure that you fully understand the mathematical concept of “correlation”. Anything with an r2 (r squared) less than 0.8 (your 80%) is regarded as not significantly correlated. Indonesia at 46% is not “fairly strongly correlated”; not even as much as one toss of a coin to the next (which has a 50/50 chance of being the same as the previous). What would be interesting would be an inverse correlation; ie. one which consistently moves in the opposite direction, as often occurs with stocks vs interest rates. Something which is uncorrelated merely moves independently of the other input.

    • Thanks for your comment, Dos Perros. Perhaps “moderately correlated” would be a better term for me to use for Indonesia. But in the social sciences there is typically a lower threshold for “significant correlation” than in pure mathematics and hard science. Mekong Man

      • Dos Perros

        Quantitative analysis of stock price movements is a “social science”? Really?

  2. Look at markets like Bangladesh and Iraq which are both negatively correlated to MSCI World Index and invest in AFC Asia Frontier Fund 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

clear formSubmit