SIA Charts Daily Stock Report (siacharts.com)

The SIA Daily Stock Report utilizes a proven strategy of uncovering outperforming and underperforming stocks from our marquee equity reports; the S&P/TSX 60, S&P/TSX Completion and S&P/TSX Small cap We overlay these powerful reports with our extensive knowledge of point and figure and candlestick chart signals, along with other western-style technical indicators to identity stocks as they breakout or breakdown. In doing so we provide our Elite-Pro Subscribers with truly independent coverage of the Canadian stock market with specific buy and sell trigger points.

Note: Subscribers can screen all Canadian and U.S. stocks and mutual funds, or as components of equally weighted mutual fund sectors indices (e.g. Income Trusts, Precious Metals), and fund groups by issuer (eg. AGF, Dynamic, Franklin Templeton), all Canadian ETFs, ETF Families by issuer (iShares, Horizons, BMO) or as components of Equally Weighted ETF Sector Indices (e.g. 2020+ Target date, Cdn Equity Lg Cap), and create and monitor their own, or SIA’s existing model portfolios. Finally, subscribers benefit from being able to generate BUY-WATCH-SELL Signals on demand with SIA Charts proprietary Favoured/Neutral/Unfavoured, SMAX scoring algorithm (see green-yellow-red graph 1 below).

WESTON GEORGE (WN.TO) TSX – May 23, 2013

GREEN – Favoured / Buy Zone
YELLOW – Neutral / Hold Zone
RED – Unfavoured / Sell / Avoid Zone

WESTON GEORGE (WN.TO) TSX – May 23, 2013

Important Disclaimer

SIACharts.com specifically represents that it does not give investment advice or advocate the purchase or sale of any security or investment. None of the information contained in this website or document constitutes an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security or other investment or an offer to provide investment services of any kind. Neither SIACharts.com (FundCharts Inc.) nor its third party content providers shall be liable for any errors, inaccuracies or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Copyright © siacharts.com

  Latest AdvisorAnalyst Stories

Due to the recent strength in the US stock market, we thought it would be helpful to followers of Smead Capital Management to understand the history of our core investment beliefs and where our portfolio is in relation to those core beliefs. A review of the ongoing tension between valuation mattering dearly and the enormous benefits of long-term business ownership is especially interesting after a significant upward move in the stock market. How do you keep turnover and trading expense low, while maintaining a meaningful margin of safety? How do you maximize long-term returns by practicing “long-duration” common stock investing?

Our core belief is three-fold. 1) Valuation matters dearly, 2) we want to be business owners, and 3) to be long-term business owners we need to own very high quality businesses. We execute our belief by using our eight proprietary criteria for stock selection which are listed below.

• Meets an economic need
• Strong competitive advantage (wide moats or barriers to entry)
• Long history of profitability and strong operating metrics
• Generates high levels of free cash flow
• Available at a low price in relation to intrinsic value
• Management’s history of shareholder friendliness
• Strong balance sheet
• Strong insider ownership (Preferably with recent purchases)

I came into the investment business in 1980 with Drexel Burnham Lambert. The most admired mutual fund manager in the world at that time was John Templeton. He believed that valuation mattered dearly and he coined one of our favorite phrases, “the point of maximum pessimism”. He meant that you got the best price in buying a stock near the point where virtually nobody was optimistic about the company involved. Templeton went on to say, “If you wait to see the light at the end of the tunnel, you have already missed the bottom.” Long before Fama-French and David Dreman did studies on price-to-book and price-to-earnings ratios for their impact on forward results, Templeton had already incorporated it into his discipline.

Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett were the most famous stock pickers of the 1980’s. Both were interested in finding companies to buy which could go up more than ten-fold over the following decade or decades. Lynch called them “ten-baggers”. Lynch’s track record from 1977-1992 was dominated by holding huge multi-year positions in Fannie Mae and Phillip Morris. He liked to find a company which did great, but had some characteristic which stopped investors from falling completely in love with the stock.

Buffett started out as a John Templeton buyer via his work as a deep-value security analyst in the Ben Graham “high margin of safety” mode. As he got farther along and had larger amounts of capital to deploy, he began to point out the incredibly favorable taxation and low frictional cost of finding and taking ownership of a business and leaving it alone for decades. In 1989 Buffett said, “It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.” Do not be deceived by the importance of Buffett being the most successful investor of all-time and his willingness to stay away from market timing in relation to what he calls “great” companies! He bought in like Templeton, but he held on in a way that almost no one else has. He credits Phil Carret (the original manager of the Pioneer Fund) for teaching him about riding a great horse (stock) for a long time.

To practice the first two disciplines, we believe you have to do it in high quality businesses. Our discipline was heavily influenced by an unlikely stock picker named Barry Ziskin. Barry ran the Z-Seven Fund and used seven of his own criteria for selecting stocks. Like our eight criteria, they were dominated by qualitative aspects of a business surrounding the balance sheet and ability to generate free cash flow. He had a checklist for quality and a pricing discipline for acquisitions which forced him to make his original purchases at 10-times earnings or less. Valuation mattered dearly to Barry and John Templeton put a large personal investment under Barry’s jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, Barry had one criterion in his checklist that ruined the benefit of the other six. It was his rule that he had to sell the business if the stock reached a PE ratio of 20. In 1983, when I became aware of the Z-Seven Fund, Barry owned fifteen stocks. One of the 15 stocks was Nike (NKE). When it got to a PE ratio of 20, he sold it. From July 1, 1983 to today, Nike stock has produced a total return of 19.08% per year and the stock price has grown from $.55 to $65.53, a 119-bagger. Think of how many days that Nike hit a 52-week high in the last three decades. He would be one of the most successful stock pickers in the last forty years if he had not sold a single share, almost regardless of whatever else he’d have owned. The whole portfolio would be up six-fold even if he had lost all the other money on bankrupt securities and he hadn’t reinvested the Nike dividends in more Nike stock. If Barry practiced Warren Buffett’s favorite holding period, forever, he would be a household name in the money management world.

Now we need to put this history together with today’s circumstances to determine if there is value in this market and in our portfolio. Before we do this, we need to share a few underlying biases we have at the present time. First, since housing leads economic recoveries and our housing recovery is only about 18 months old, we believe the economic recovery is still in the early innings. Second, institutional and high net worth investors came into this market move in a deeply under-invested position and are in the early innings of correcting their asset allocation error. Third, it has been so long since we had a “good” economy, that most market participants can’t even remember what it looks like and how positively it would impact consumer and business confidence. Imagine what 6% unemployment and 2 million single family housing starts would mean to the customers of banks and consumer discretionary companies.

Fourth, a massive amount of money is trapped in very low interest rate instruments and it doesn’t appear anything will move that in the short run. Fifth, China’s charade of avoiding business cycles is coming to an end and with it is the long bull market in commodities. We believe the boom prices for commodities like Oil and Copper, created by China and emerging market group think, were a major drag on both the US stock market and the US economy. We believe a massive/secular bear market in commodities is in place and will last for 7 to 10 years. Lastly, sentiment is still very favorable as most people are more worried about another 2008 market hitting them than they are worried about missing a decade for stocks like the 1980’s. It is likely that this bull market will not end until the “seven lean years” and “new normal” people have admitted they are wrong or people quit listening to them. We don’t see this bull market ending until people cease using macroeconomic analyses as a primary tool for doing their stock picking.

Therefore, we are comfortable maintaining ownership of great companies in the 20-times earnings area like Cabela’s (CAB), Home Depot (HD), Starbuck’s (SBUX), Bristol Myers (BMY), Ebay (EBAY) and Disney (DIS). We don’t want to underestimate these companies ability to take advantage of a substantially better economy or end up looking foolish like Barry Ziskin did with Nike (NKE). We own very cheap stocks with either low price-to-book ratios like Bank of America (BAC), JP Morgan (JPM), Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) and Wells Fargo (WFC) or low PE ratios like Aflac (AFL), Gannett (GCI), Mylan Labs (MYL), Pfizer (PFE) and Merck (MRK). Simple optimism continues to beat “brilliant pessimism” and we view our portfolio as a great way to participate in this massive re-allocation of capital.

Best Wishes,

William Smead

The information contained in this missive represents SCM’s opinions, and should not be construed as personalized or individualized investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. It should not be assumed that investing in any securities mentioned above will or will not be profitable. A list of all recommendations made by Smead Capital Management within the past twelve month period is available upon request.

This Missive and others are available at smeadcap.com

Copyright © Smead Capital Management

  Latest AdvisorAnalyst Stories

I went to an estate sale this weekend. This wasn’t something I planned to do, but simply a spontaneous decision after seeing a sign in my neighbourhood. I approached the front door feeling excited about the possibility of finding a unique piece of artwork or a rare collectible inside. That excitement soon dissipated, but my visit to this particular home offered some parallels to my experience as an investor.

As soon as I stepped into this home, I was overwhelmed by the clutter. In one corner stood a large box of old cassette tapes. Beside it was an even older box of 8-tracks. The price had been slashed from 50 to 25 cents an item, but the lack of interest from other shoppers had nothing to do with cost. These items were obsolete and had virtually no value. The living room featured a 27-inch television set, although it was unclear whether that was 27 inches wide or 27 inches deep. The antenna nearly touched the ceiling. My favourite items were the sporting goods: rusty hockey skates, cumbersome camping equipment, and a pair of tennis rackets fashioned out of wood. Despite appearing to be half the size of modern tennis rackets, they felt about twice as heavy.

Walking through this home of obsolete objects reminded me of why we spend so much time and effort interviewing management teams. Understanding what management has done in the past is useful, but we’re more interested in learning about their vision for the future. If they have been successful at making wooden tennis rackets, are we confident that they can adapt to changing consumer preferences and offer new innovations? Or will they inefficiently allocate capital to a larger wooden racket factory just as their competitors introduce new graphite or titanium alternatives? How well do they understand their market and their role within it? How disciplined is their process to allocate capital?

These answers cannot easily be gleaned from the past, but are best understood by speaking with management themselves. We often go one step further and interview a company’s customers, suppliers, and competitors to gain even more insight into the abilities of the management team. This exercise is one way that we reduce the probability of being left behind and investing in wooden tennis rackets.

Speaking of tennis…I’m always looking for an opponent. If you don’t have a racket, I can lend you a newly-acquired wooden classic.

Steven Visscher

Copyright © Mawer Investment Management

  Latest AdvisorAnalyst Stories

The great divergence in performance among the major asset classes in 2013 rolls on. US REITs and US equities continue to lead the charge on the upside, pulling further away from the laggards, which are headed on the downside by commodities overall and foreign developed-market government bonds in US dollar terms. The wide array of returns so far this year is dramatic, but it’s not all that different from when we profiled this horse race a month ago. The main revision is that the hefty gains for US REITs and US stocks are even bigger.

Here’s how the numbers stack up according to a set of ETF proxies for this year so far through May 21, 2013:

For another perspective, imagine that we created an equally weighted portfolio of all the major asset classes at the close of 2012 and allowed the strategy to wander freely, based only on the ebb and flow of market prices. By that rule, here’s how this unmanaged asset allocation compares year to date for 2013:

Finally, here’s a visual summary of how the major asset classes have performed this year in relative terms through May 21, 2013. In the chart below, all the ETF prices have been reset to 100 as of Dec. 31, 2012:

  Latest AdvisorAnalyst Stories

“A number of macro trends have proven fortuitous for the Federal Reserve’s implementation of quantitative easing (QE). The European financial crisis and recession, as well as the depreciation of the yen, have driven global investors to dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. The relatively strong dollar has kept input prices down, giving the Fed greater leeway to be extremely accommodative in tackling the unemployment problem without stoking inflation.

As evidenced in today’s congressional Joint Economic Committee hearing, the Fed is facing increasing scrutiny over potential exit strategies for its asset purchase program and has been making an effort to communicate clearly with the markets to avoid surprises. One of the more attractive options for the Fed appears to be to let its portfolio wind down over an extended period, instead of selling assets. If the Fed takes this route, it could increase bank reserve requirements to opportunistically restrict money growth, or engage in reverse repurchase agreements to drain liquidity out of the system as needed.”

Economic Data Releases

Mixed Data and Low Inflation Leave Room for Continued Quantitative Easing

• Industrial production fell by 0.5% in April, the most in five months.
• Housing starts dropped 16.5% in April to a five-month low of 853,000 at an annualized rate.
• Building permits jumped 14.3% in April to a annualized rate of 1.017 million, the most since June 2008.
• The NAHB homebuilder confidence index rose to 44 in May, the first improvement in five months.
• Initial jobless claims for the week ended May 11th rose to a six-week high of 360,000.
• The University of Michigan consumer confidence index jumped to 86.7 in May, the highest since July 2007.
• The leading indicator index had the best one-month gain in over a year in April, rising 0.6%.
• Regional Fed indices disappointed, with the Empire, Philadelphia, and Chicago indices all unexpectedly falling.
• CPI inflation fell to 1.1% in April, the lowest since 2010.

Eurozone Recession Reaches Record Length, Signs of Abenomics Impact in Japan

• GDP in the eurozone contracted for a record sixth straight quarter, falling 0.2% in the first quarter.
• German GDP rose a less-than-expected 0.1%, while France saw a second consecutive quarter of contraction, and Italian GDP shrank for a seventh quarter.
• The eurozone CPI fell 0.1% in April, putting the year-over-year CPI at 1.2%, a more than three-year low.
• Home prices in the U.K. increased 2.1% in May to a record high.
• U.K. consumer prices rose less than forecast in March, putting the CPI up 2.4% from a year earlier.
• Japan’s GDP grew at a better-than-expected 3.5% annualized rate in the first quarter.
• Japanese industrial production rose for a fourth straight month in March, the best streak since 2011.

Chart of the Week

Selling Not Required

If the Fed continues its current pace of asset purchases through the rest of 2013, the total amount of assets on its balance sheet will reach approximately 24% of GDP by the end of the year. When the Fed changes its monetary policy, it can do so by either selling its current assets or simply letting the bonds mature by holding them to maturity. If the Fed holds its bonds to maturity, its total assets to GDP ratio could fall to below 10% by 2023.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Bloomberg, Guggenheim Investments. *Note: We assume the nominal GDP will grow at an average rate of 5% per year. We also assume the Fed will continue its current asset purchase pace throughout the end of this year but stop purchasing with no asset sales starting next year. Only maturing principals will be absorbed. Interest income will be retained for operating and money supply purposes.

This article is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investing advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. This article contains opinions of the author but not necessarily those of Guggenheim Partners or its subsidiaries. The author’s opinions are subject to change without notice. Forward looking statements, estimates, and certain information contained herein are based upon proprietary and non-proprietary research and other sources. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but are not assured as to accuracy. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Guggenheim Partners, LLC. ©2013, Guggenheim Partners. Past performance is not indicative of future results. There is neither representation nor warranty as to the current accuracy of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information.

Copyright © Guggenheim Partners LLC

  Latest AdvisorAnalyst Stories

In his new book, Douglas Rushkoff examines the telescoping of time and context wrought by ubiquitous digital technologies.

One of the few observers who is able to articulate a coherent critical account of American culture is Douglas Rushkoff. His new must-read book is Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now (print edition) and (Kindle edition).

I have long found inspiration and insight in Rushkoff’s work, especially his keen understanding of the pathologies of consumerism. In my 2009 book Survival+, I wrote:

Rushkoff’s reply to an interview question on the consequences of ubiquitous marketing reveals how media/marketing has created an unquestioned politics of experience in which one’s identity and sense of self is constructed almost entirely by what one buys:

“Children are being adultified because our economy is depending on them to make purchasing decisions. So they’re essentially the victims of a marketing and capitalist machine gone awry. You know, we need to expand, expand, expand. There is no such thing as enough in our current economic model and kids are bearing the brunt of that…. So they’re isolated, they’re alone, they’re desperate. It’s a sad and lonely feeling….The net effect of all of this marketing, all of this disorienting marketing, all of the shock media, all of this programming designed to untether us from a sense of self, is a loss of autonomy. You know, we no longer are the active source of our own experience or our own choices. Instead, we succumb to the notion that life is a series of product purchases that have been laid out and whose qualities and parameters have been pre-established.”

In my view, this is a brilliant analysis of the rot at the heart of the American project.

In his new book, Rushkoff examines the telescoping of time and context wrought by ubiquitous digital technologies. We’re always accessible, always connected and every channel is always on; this overload affects not just our ability to process information but our culture and the way media and marketing are designed and delivered.

The title consciously plays off the influential 1970 book by Alvin Toffler, Future Shock, which posited that our innate ability to process change was limited even as the rate of change in our post-industrial world increased. That rate of change would soon overwhelm our capacity to process new inputs and adapt to them.

In Rushkoff’s view, we’ve reached that future: the speed of change and the demands of the present are disorienting us in profound ways.

We all know what stress feels like: it often causes our view to narrow to the present stressor, and we lose perspective and the ability to “make sense” of anything beyond managing the immediate situation.
Rushkoff identifies five symptoms of present shock:

1. Narrative collapse – the loss of linear stories and their replacement with both crass reality programming and post-narrative shows like The Simpsons.

2. Digiphrenia – digitally provoked mental chaos as technology lets us be in more than one place at any one moment. As Rushkoff notes in this chapter: Our boss isn’t the guy in the corner office, but the PDA in our pocket. Our taskmaster is depersonalized and internalized.

3. Overwinding – trying to squish huge timescales into much smaller ones, for example, packing a year’s worth of retail sales expectations into a single Black Friday event.

4. Fractalnoia – making sense of our world entirely in the present tense, by drawing connections between things with weak causal relationships, for example Big Data, which excels at identifying correlations but is utterly incapable of identifying cause amidst the correlations.

5. Apocalypto – the intolerance for presentism leads us to fantasize a grand finale, the cultural equivalent of a “market-clearing event.”

As Janet Maslin of the New York Times wrote in her review: “How do we shield ourselves from distraction, or gravitate to what really matters?”

Studies have shown that our innate ability to remember people and identify their relationships with others is limited to around 100 people–the size of a village or combat company. We undoubtedly have similar innate limitations on how many channels of input we can absorb.

Clay Shirky (author of Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations) calls this filter failure, his term for what used to be called information overload. Our filters become overloaded and we lose the ability to “make sense” of what’s going on around us.

As the phenomenologists discovered in the 20th century, our basic coping mechanism is to separate the world (and inputs) into three basic categories: the focal point, the foreground and the deep background. Being unable to sort out which input belongs in the three spaces leads to disorientation and poor decisions.

The parallels between filter failure and stress are not coincidental, as we handle filter failure and present shock the same way we handle stress: we limit inputs and make a concerted effort to reorient our awareness and context, what some call “be still and know.”

Another troubling parallel to present shock is addiction. People now respond to texts, emails, alerts and phone calls like rats in the proverbial cage with the lever that releases another tab of cocaine: they over-stimulate themselves to death but are incapable of restraining their impulse for more.

The “obvious” solution is to turn off inputs as a way of restoring our ability to live in a present without novelty and distraction. This is akin to withdrawal from a powerful opiate, and so we should not be surprised that there are now treatment facilities for kids who need to detox from digital inputs.

Rushkoff is especially attuned to the distortions in our experience of time created by digital media-communication present shock: “Time in the digital era is no longer linear but disembodied and associative. The past is not something behind us on the timeline but dispersed through the sea of information.”

In effect, change no longer flows linearly like time anymore, it flows in all directions at once.

History and meaningful context are both fatally disrupted by this non-linear flow of time and narrative. Is it any wonder that we now read about young well-educated people who do not understand the meaning of “policy”? To understand policy requires a grasp of the histories and narratives that led to the policy, and the linear, causally-linked way that policy is designed to solve or ameliorate a specific problem or challenge.

If the causal chains of history and narrative are disrupted, then how can anyone fashion a meaningful context for actions and narratives, and effectively frame problems and solutions? If everything is equally valid in a non-linear flood of data, then what roles can authenticity, experience and knowledge play in making sense of our world?

These are knotty, complex issues, and you will find much to constructively ponder in Present Shock.

  Latest AdvisorAnalyst Stories

I get a kick out of watching how the cycle of emotions never changes over time.  If there’s one guarantee in the markets it is that people respond to the same environments with the same cyclical thought process.  And it’s funny to see how some portfolio managers think they’re immune to it.  As if only the guy on the street is vulnerable to the rollercoaster ride of emotions.  But nothing could be further from the truth.

Although the financial crisis might feel like it was a lifetime ago, the cycle of various strategic approaches to this market is fresh on my mind.  We all know the cycle of emotions.  You tend to feel euphoric at the peak, panicked at the trough and generally confused all the way inbetween.  Don’t worry – portfolio managers are no better.  They just express their emotions in varying degrees of active portfolio management with fancier sounding ways to express the rollercoaster ride they’re on.

So it’s been fun to watch how often we used to hear about certain approaches in recent years:

• In 2009 buy and hold died.
• Almost everyone became a trader at the trough of the crisis.
• Then it was “buy the dips, sell the rips”.
• Then it was all about high quality dividend names.
• Then it was a “stock pickers market”.
• Now buy and hold is all you hear about from anyone.
• “Stocks for the long run!”
• Then long only via defensive names will be the only game in town.
• Then buy and hold will die.
• Then short strategies dominate.
• Then tactical approaches win, hedge funds are your only savior, etc, etc.

Rinse, wash and repeat….Don’t worry, portfolio managers are just like everyone else.  They just express their emotions in different & fancier money losing terminology.

Copyright © Pragmatic Capitalism

  Latest AdvisorAnalyst Stories

It’s always a good idea to check in on your portfolio to make sure it’s still giving you the exposure you originally intended.  But just like eating an apple a day or flossing every night, most of us tend to ignore this kind of well-intentioned advice. However, something I’m seeing in exchange traded product (ETP) flows and a chart my team put together recently made me think twice about ignoring my portfolio – especially when it comes to my emerging market holdings.

Take a look at these side-by-side charts, showing the MSCI Equity Sector Weightings from 1995-2013. One chart tracks sector weightings among emerging markets while one tracks sector weightings among developed markets.

If I asked you to label one chart for emerging markets and one for developed, could you do it?  It turns out the one of the left is for EM and the one on the right is for DM. But what’s so surprising to me is that over this 18 year period, how similar the sector weightings between these two types of markets has become.

While investors often associate the emerging world with resources, these days, emerging markets are just as likely to be associated with banks. Financials make up 28% of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, compared with a 22% combined share of energy and materials and, interestingly, a 21% financials share in developed markets.

My colleagues at the BlackRock Investment Institute recently pointed out that perhaps the label “emerging markets” has begun to outlive its use.  Market correlations in EM are at their lowest level since 2006, and the disparity is growing all the time as economies and markets mature at very different speeds.

How is this playing out when it comes to flows of emerging market exchange traded products?

EM ETPs finished 2012 with a record quarter of inflows. Bumper EM equity ETP inflows of $10.9 billion in January turned into outflows in February and March. While it seemed that the tide had swiftly turned on EM stock sentiment, as I pointed out in a recent blog post, the headline outflow numbers actually belied a flurry of activity below the surface.  Assets may have been leaving some of the larger EM equity ETFs, but there were still inflows occurring in some of the newer and more granular EM funds.

As the distinction between EM and DM becomes somewhat blurred, and the number of EM funds expand, we’re seeing investors seek more granular exposures to emerging markets.  Depending on investment objectives, some investors are choosing to add funds that offer exposure to the less risky EM countries, while others are looking for the stronger sectors within EM.

Now, none of this is meant to imply that emerging markets are no longer risky (they are) or that they have surpassed developed markets in terms of investment stability (they have not).  And we expect that broad, diversified EM equity funds will always have a place in many investors’ portfolios – particularly those who don’t have very specific views on emerging markets.  But the increased interest in individual countries and other narrow EM exposures could be an interesting byproduct of the changing nature of emerging markets themselves – and a good reminder to always check your portfolio to ensure you’re getting the exposure you expect.

Sources: BlackRock, Bloomberg

Dodd Kittsley, CFA, is the Head of Global ETP Market Trends Research for BlackRock and a regulator contributor to the iShares Blog. You can find more of his posts here.

In addition to the normal risks associated with investing, international investments may involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuation in currency values, from differences in generally accepted accounting principles or from economic or political instability in other nations. Emerging markets involve heightened risks related to the same factors as well as increased volatility and lower trading volume.

Copyright © iShares

  Latest AdvisorAnalyst Stories