international diversification with frontier markets annual... · market classifications. they focus...
TRANSCRIPT
International diversification with frontier markets
We provide an analysis of frontier market equities within an
international context. We aggregate individual frontier country indices
into a frontier market index for study. Our principal components
analysis indicates frontier markets exhibit very little integration with the
world market. Further, contrasting developed and emerging market
equities, we find no indication of increasing integration through time.
Given the lack of integration with the world market, mean-variance
spanning tests and mean-variance geometry indicate significant benefits
of frontier market diversification.
I. Introduction
We present an analysis of frontier markets with respect to world market integration and
international diversification. Finance theory has shown that the benefit of international diversification
decreases when the world markets become increasingly integrated. In other words, to study the
international diversification, it is important to understand the degree to which frontier markets are
integrated with the rest of the world markets. We implement the principal component approach of
Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009) to examine integration across frontier markets with the world
component. We then investigate the diversification benefits of frontier market investing, to an already
diversified international investor, by performing the mean-variance spanning tests of Huberman and
Kandel (1987). Our results indicate significant diversification benefits of frontier markets. The benefits
accrue not only to broad frontier market investments but also to most country-specific frontier market
investments.
Frontier markets are essentially "pre-emerging" markets that are expected to be reclassified as
emerging markets once capital and liquidity increase. The term “frontier market” is often used to
describe equity markets of smaller, less accessible, and yet still investable countries of the developing
2
world. The term began used in 1990s when the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) started to track a frontier
market index, but gained wider awareness in 2007 when S&P launched the Select Frontier Index and the
Extended Frontier Index. To reflect the growing interest from international investors in these markets,
MSCI also launched its Frontier Markets Indices in late 2007. Recently, frontier market mutual funds and
exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have also been developed1. In general, S&P and MSCI as well as fund
managers have been emphasizing frontier markets’ strong growth potential and their low correlations
with emerging and developed markets, presenting great diversification opportunities.
Although frontier markets have attracted much attention, our understanding of these markets is
limited mainly due to the fact that they are relatively new to the investment community. While
numerous studies examine global relations across equity markets, very little research covering frontier
equity markets exists. The frontier market classification typically includes countries or markets that are
smaller than emerging markets. For example, the average market capitalization of countries defined as
frontier markets by MSCI was US$ 575 million, measured during the summer of 2009. The existing
research suggests that frontier market investment may offer benefits. Speidell and Krohne (2007) offer
an overview of frontier markets. They confirm that frontier markets typically exhibit low market
capitalizations. Further, they argue that frontier markets provide diversification benefits as they exhibit
low correlations with developed market equities. However, cross-market correlation may not be the
best indicator of diversification benefits (see e.g., Carrieri, Errunza and Hogan (2007) and
Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009)). Jayasuriya and Shambora (2009) study diversification benefits across
market classifications. They focus on optimal portfolios formed from developed markets, emerging
markets and a set of six frontier market countries, during a recent sample period. They find
1 On March 17, 2008, the Barclays Global Investors (BGI), one of the world’s largest asset managers, launched the
BGI Frontier Markets Fund which invests in 16 frontier markets and benchmarks to the MSCI Frontier Markets
Index. The Franklin Templeton Investments introduced its Templeton Frontier Markets Fund, the first actively
managed U.S.-registered frontier markets fund, on December 9, 2008. The Deutsche Bank launched the first
frontier market ETF in Europe in early 2008. The Bank of New York Mellon created its frontier market ETF in June
2008.
3
improvement in terms of portfolio risk and return by increasing diversification across developing
markets and with respect to frontier markets, conclude that these assets may help minimize portfolio
risk. Finally, Cheng, Jahan-Parvar and Rothman (2009) use variations of the CAPM to study nine equity
markets within the Middle East North African region. Their sample includes both emerging and frontier
equity markets. They find that most markets within their sample exhibit low levels of integration, but
they also find that both global and local risks are priced.
The topics of international market integration and international diversification have generated a
large amount of research. However, existing research focuses on developed and emerging market asset
classes. In an early study, Solnik (1974) argues international diversification is quite beneficial, effectively
based on lower levels of cross-market correlations. Subsequently, Odier and Solnik (1993) argue that
despite increasing informational integration across markets, as well as correlation increases during
periods of high volatility, overall correlations remain low and consequently international diversification
remains beneficial. Recently, Rua and Nunes (2009) use wavelets to study cross-market correlations
within developed markets; their study presents an analysis of correlations through time, as well as
across time horizons.
From an asset-allocation perspective, cross-market correlations are clearly informational.
However, research suggests cross-market correlations may not be the best indicator of diversification
benefits, or of overall market integration. Recently Driessen and Laeven (2007) study diversification
benefits across developed and emerging markets with emphasis on diversification benefits for local
investors. Their analysis considers both first and second moments, and they find international
diversification to be most beneficial for emerging market investors. However, You and Daigler (2010)
find little evidence of international diversification benefits focusing on downside risk, and allowing for
conditional correlations. With respect to international integration, Carrieri, Errunza and Hogan (2007)
4
argue against the validity of cross-market correlations as a measure of integration. Intuitively, they
discuss the case of Zimbabwe in which the large correlation with the worldwide price of copper and the
national market is not indicative of a highly integrated capital market. Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009)
also argue that cross-market correlations do not provide an adequate measure of integration. Varying
sensitivities to international factors across markets can lead to low correlations, despite high levels of
integration. Based on principal components, they detail levels of integration across countries and
provide evidence that integration tends to increase through time for the majority of countries within
their sample. However, they also document countries that become less integrated throughout their
sample.
Given the lack of research covering frontier equity markets, we provide an analysis of frontier
market integration, as well as frontier market diversification benefits. We conduct analyses across
frontier market countries, as well as across our broad frontier market indices, which include as many as
25 frontier market countries. The construction of our broad frontier market indices strengthens our
results by providing a lengthy sample period and minimizing country-specific noise. We apply the
Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009) measure of integration to broad indices across market classifications.
We find developed and emerging market indices exhibit significant exposure to the world market factor.
However, we find little evidence of integration between broad frontier market indices and the world
factor. Further, given the developed and emerging market indices, we find a significant increase in
integration through time, consistent with existing findings in the literature. However, there is no
evidence that frontier market integration is increasing through time. Our variance decomposition
further indicates that for most frontier market countries, the variance of the overall return is largely
attributable to idiosyncratic risk, rather than world or frontier market factors. This result suggests
country specific frontier market risk may be largely diversifiable.
5
To assess the diversification benefits of frontier markets, we conduct mean-variance spanning
tests. As described by Huberman and Kandel (1987) mean-variance spanning tests determine if the
minimum-variance frontier of a large set of assets is spanned by the minimum-variance frontier of a
subset of the assets. If the subset of assets do not span the minimum-variance frontier formed by the
larger set of assets, then additional diversification would improve the risk-return characteristics of the
portfolio. The mean-variance approach directly measures diversification benefits by considering both
first and second moments. Existing research applies the mean-variance approach to test the
diversification benefits of specific test assets in many situations. For example, Bekaert and Urias (1996)
implement the methodology to test the diversification benefits of emerging markets, while Chen and Ho
(2009) analyze the benefits of IPO indices. Driessen and Laeven (2007) also utilize mean-variance
spanning tests in an international diversification context, while varying the benchmark assets across
geographical regions. We implement our analysis with a universe of developed, emerging and frontier
market assets. We then test if broad developed, and emerging market indices span the minimum-
variance frontier formed with the inclusion of broad frontier market indices, as well as country-specific
frontier market indices. We further test if the inclusion of a broad frontier market index is sufficient to
capture the diversification benefits offered by country-specific frontier indices.
Our results document strong diversification benefits from frontier market investment.
Specifically, across the entire sample, the broad frontier market indices offer diversifcation benefits,
relative to developed and emerging market investment. These benefits tend to accrue based on shifting
the global minimum variance portfolio. The country specific tests indicate that country specific frontier
market investment further provides diversification benefits. These benefits tend to exist even after
including a broad frontier market index in the initial investment portfolio. Graphically, we extend these
results to show that frontier market diversification offers significant risk reduction potential. This result
is robust with and without short selling constraints and indicates that investors can achieve similar levels
6
of expected return with lower risk by including frontier market equities. We also show that
diversification benefits of frontier market indices appear strongest during the latter part of our sample.
Finally, we show that frontier market diversification is beneficial in terms of risk reduction, when
alternative benchmarks are performing the worst as well as during periods in which benchmark
portfolios perform the strongest.
This paper makes several significant contributions. First, we provide empirical evidence on the
diversification benefit of a complete set of frontier markets. Existing studies focus mostly on a subset of
frontier markets (see, e.g., Cheng, Jahan-Parvar, and Rothman (2009) and Jayasuriya and Shambora
(2009)). Although Speidell and Krohne (2007) examine all potential frontier markets, their analysis is
limited to the correlation. Since the cross-market correlation may not be the best indicator of
diversification benefits, their results are far from conclusive. Second, we construct daily and monthly
equal-weighted and value-weighted frontier market indices. Existing indices start in 2007, but our
indices begin in 1989, allowing us to perform tests of the international diversification over a long period
of time. Third, we contribute to the market integration literature by extending the analysis to frontier
markets. We find little evidence of integration between broad frontier market indices and the world
markets. Furthermore, unlike other markets, there is no evidence that frontier market integration is
increasing through time. Lastly, our results are relevant to the recent findings in international
diversification. Bekaert, Hodrick, and Zhang (2009) find that country factors dominate industry factors in
international diversification and similarly, Baele and Inghelbrecht (2009) show that geographical
diversification continues to be superior to industry diversification. Our analysis of frontier markets
provides insights to the international diversification with respect to country factors and geographical
diversification. We leave the comparison between country factors and industry factors in the context of
frontier markets to future studies.
7
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We outline how our data set is constructed
in the following section. Section III presents the principal component analysis and variance
decomposition analysis. Section IV provides the mean-variance spanning tests to analyze diversification
benefits of frontier markets. Section V concludes.
II. Data
Our study considers an analysis across market classifications; namely developed, emerging and
frontier. We obtain daily and monthly data from the MSCI world index, which is comprised of developed
market countries; we refer to this index as the developed market index. We also obtain data for the
MSCI all country world index, which includes developed and emerging markets, as well as the MSCI
emerging market index. In certain cases, we also consider returns to the US CRSP value-weighted market
portfolio. Finally, we consider returns to a broad selection of country-specific frontier market indices,
with a sample of 25 frontier market countries. Following Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009), we choose the
total return index for each country, when available. We also aggregate country-specific returns to
calculate broad frontier market indices. These indices allow an analysis across the frontier market
classification. Finally, throughout the study, all returns and values are denominated in US Dollars, based
on the Datastream exchange rate facility.
To create our frontier market sample, we obtain monthly and daily return data covering frontier
markets from datastream. The specific countries included, as well as dates of coverage, are detailed in
Table 1. Further, there are cases where we do not have reliable observations for every point within the
coverage period, therefore we also list the total number of valid monthly observations for each country
included in our sample. Given our sample of frontier market country index returns, we also obtain
country market capitilization data. We then construct equal-weighted and value-weighted frontier
market indices for both daily and monthly periodicities. To provide a lengthy sample for analysis, we
8
begin our sample January 1989, and add countries to the index as the country-specific data becomes
available. Therefore, during the early years of our sample, our frontier indices contain relatively few
countries. However, as the sample progresses the coverage increases. Sub-sample analysis, as well as
analysis across countries confirm that our results are not driven by the early sample in which relatively
few countries enter the index. Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009) discuss data issues relating to stale prices.
Following their approach, we eliminate observations for a given country if the price index does not
change. Finally, given our focus on frontier markets from the perspective of a domestic investor, we
match frontier index returns only to dates of MSCI developed index returns. This further eliminates a
small number of stale prices from holidays.
Constructing the value weighted index is more difficult and requires certain degree of
estimation. First of all, market capitalization data is not readily available for every observation for every
country. Further, the periodicity of market capitalization is often longer than that of our return series.
For example, for daily returns, we have monthly market capitalization data, at best. In the cases in which
we did not have a fresh observation of market capitalization we use the most recent available
observation of market capitalization for which we had data2. In some instances we have no reliable
market capitalization data for a country, nor any reliable lagged observations. In these cases, to
construct the value-weighted index, we set the given country’s market capitalization equal to the
median level of all frontier market countries within the sample at that point in time.
***Insert Table 1 about here***
2 We use the most recent available market capitalization observation, rather than estimate market capitalization
based on subsequent returns and the previous observation, as this approach would miss any additions or deletions
from the index.
9
III. Principal Component Analysis and Variance Decomposition
We examine the extent to which frontier markets are integrated within the global market.
Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009) consider the level of world integration across a broad sample of
developed, emerging and frontier country-specific indices. Specifically, they regress daily country index
returns on their global principal components. We adopt the similar approach using their principal
components and apply the methdology towards our broad frontier market indices. To consider
additionall market classifications, we also perform the similar analysis on the MSCI developed market
index, which represents developed markets, and the MSCI emerging market index. We present principal
component results in Table 2. We focus on the adjusted R-square, as this measure signifies the
proportion of an index’s return explained by global factors. We also consider the coefficient on the 1st
principal component as this component is comparable to a global market factor. As the principal
components are mutually orthogonal, interpretation of the remaining coefficient estimates is not
straightforward and consequently we do not report these remaining estimates. We report our prinicpal
component regression results in columns two and three of Table 2. To provide a comparison across the
principal component approach and the common correlation method, we also report cross-index
correlations, and associated p-values, within the final four columns of the table.
***Insert Table 2 about here***
Results in Table 2 document a striking lack of world market integration across the frontier
indices, despite high levels of integration for the developed and emerging market indices. In Panel A, the
adjusted R-square from the principal component regressions are -0.0003 and 0.0045 for the frontier
value-weighted and equal-weighted indices, respectively. The corresponding values are 0.3974 and
0.5528 for the emerging market and developed market indices, respectively. The adjusted R-square
measures indicate that the principal components explain very little of the variation in frontier market
10
returns, despite the evidence that they explain a large portion of emerging and developed market return
variation. Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009) argue that the first principal component equates to the global
market factor. Coefficients for the global market factor are large in magnitude and highly significant
based on the emerging and developed market indices. However, based on the full sample in Panel A, the
coefficient estimate for the value-weighted frontier index is insignificant. While the global market factor
parameter estimate is significant based on the equal-weighted frontier index, it is small in magnitude.
Comparable parameter estimates for the developed and emerging market indices are both over twenty
times larger in magnitude. In short, the developed and emerging market indices exhibit high levels of
world market integration based on principal component regressions and the global market factor, while
the evidence suggests frontier markets are not integrated.
Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009) argue that their principal component approach provides a better
analysis of world market integration, relative to the common correlation approach. Carrieri, Errunza and
Hogan (2007) also discuss the drawbacks towards cross-market correlations as a measure of integration.
The final four columns in Table 2 report cross-market correlations for the entire sample, and each sub-
sample considered. This allows a comparison of inferences drawn from the principal component
approach, relative to the correlation approach. We find comparable results and inference across the
principal component measure, as well as the correlation between the frontier market indices with the
world market. That is, cases in which the coefficient on the first principal component are significant tend
to correspond to cases in which the correlation with the world market are significant as well. However,
as explained by Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009), correlations do not provide a great measure of the level
of integration. Therefore, the magnitude of integration is likely best described by the prinicpal
component results.
11
Our broad frontier indices include data from each frontier market when data become available.
Consequently, coverage of the indices is thin during the early sample periods. We therefore include sub-
sample results to provide analyses across a lengthy sample, as well as more recent samples which
include many frontier equity markets. For example, our broad indices include 20 of the 25 frontier
market countries by January, 2000. Results in Panel C of Table 2, covering the eight years from January,
2000 through December, 2007, confirm the analysis based on the entire sample discussed above.
Specifically, considering both broad frontier market indices, we find small, or insignificant parameter
estimates for the world factor, and adjusted R-square measures very close to zero. These results
contrast the large and significant world market factor coefficients, and large adjusted R-square
measures for the world and emerging market indices. Finally, we present sub-sample results across
approximately five year periods in Panels D through G. The results confirm the discussion above.
Levels of world market integration are likely time-varying. For example, Carrieri, Errunza and
Hogan (2007) indicate world market integration tends to increase. However, they do document
reversals in levels of integration. Bekaert, Harvey and Lumsdaine (2002) estimate structural break
models to identify periods of segmentation and integration. They discuss that integration may be a
gradual process and often occurs after dates of official liberalization. To consider trends within the level
of frontier market integration, we follow Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009) who regress the R-square from
the principal component analysis on a simple time trend. Initially, we estimate the principal component
model based on subsequent six month sub-samples from January 1989 through December 2007. We
take the R-square measure from each six-month regression, and regress this on a time trend. We also
conduct a similar analysis based on bimonthly regressions and sub-periods. We report results in Table 3.
Results based on the entire sample and six-month regressions are shown in Panel A, while the remaining
panels detail results based on bimonthly regressions and the sample periods given. We again provide a
comparison of the principal component approach relative to the correlation approach. We report the
12
principal component results in columns two and three. We report results based on correlations in the
final two columns. Results in these columns are based on regressing daily correlations formed from
either six month, or two month intervals and computed across the given index and the all country world
index, on a simple time trend, in the same fashion as the PC approach.
***Insert Table 3 about here***
From Panel A in Table 3, we see that the time trend estimate is positive and highly significant for
the developed and emerging market indices, while the corresponding estimates are insignificant based
on the frontier market indices. Therefore, we document increasing world market integration based on
emerging and developed market indices, but no trend in frontier market integration. Interestingly, the
principal component approach is able to capture changing levels of integration that are not captured by
the simple correlation approach. For example, across the entire sample period, the principal component
approach indicates that the developed market is becoming increasingly integrated, while the
corresponding estimate based on correlations is insignificant. The results in this section further
compliment the earlier findings in that not only do frontier markets exhibit a low level of overall
integration, but the level of integration does not appear to increase. The bimonthly regression sub-
sample analyses presented in Panels B through H also document several interesting results. First, the
time trend is significant and positive based on the equal-weighted frontier index during the 1994
through 1998 sample period presented in Panel F. However, no other sub-sample provides significant
estimates for either frontier market index. Further, in unreported results based on monthly regressions,
the time trend coefficient for the value-weighted frontier market index is negative and marginally
significant during the years from 1989 through 1999. Overall, the time trend and sub-sample analyses
document that frontier markets are not increasingly integrated with the world equity market. Table 3
also documents sub-samples in which the MSCI Developed portfolio does not exhibit a positive trend in
13
integration, consistent with the time-varying world market integration documented by Bekaert and
Harvey (1995). Specifically, the time-trend coefficient for our world portfolio is insignificant based on the
eight year sample from 2000 through 2007, presented in Panel D, as well as in the shorter sub-samples
from 1989 through 1993 and 2004 through 2007, presented in Panels E and H, respectively. Finally, in
most cases the principal component results are similar to the correlation results, with respect to frontier
markets. This is because both approaches fail to find a significant increase or decrease in world market
integration within our frontier market indices during most samples.
To further consider time-variation in levels of integration, we plot R-square measures from the
principal component analysis through time. In Figure 1, we plot R-square measures based on six-month
regressions, while Figure 2 documents results based on bimonthly regressions. The results are
comparable across figures and document several interesting findings. First, in Figure 1, the level of
integration for both frontier market indices remains essentially flat and approximately equal to zero.
This suggests a constant, and low-level of frontier market integration throughout the entire sample
period. Second, both figures document a dramatic time trend in terms of emerging market integration
approximately beginning during the early 1990s. Finally, the level of developed market integration
appears high and almost constant throughout the sample. This result helps explain the lack of a time-
trend for developed markets documented in the latter sub-samples presented in Table 3.
***Insert Figures 1 and 2***
The results presented above indicate broad frontier market indices exhibit a low level of world
market integration. Considering event-specific risk, Spiedell and Krohne (2007) argue that frontier
market volatility is not driven by the same factors that influence developed market volatility. Further, in
the context of Solnik (1974), if frontier market volatility is largely attributable to country-specific risk,
and not driven by global factors, then frontier market diversification will likely reduce portfolio risk. To
14
further investigate the characteristics of frontier market returns, we perform a variance decomposition
of the country-specific frontier market returns. Eun, Lai and Huang (2008) implement the variance
decomposition in the context of international diversification across market capitilization, while Chen and
Ho (2009) perform a similar analysis on an IPO index. In our study, we regress country specific returns on
the MSCI developed index return as well as the value-weighted frontier market index return. That is, we
specify
��,� = � + ��,� + ��,� + ��,�, (1)
in which ��,� represents the return to individual frontier country i during period t, and �,� and �,�
represent the returns to the MSCI developed index and our value-weighted frontier index, respectively.
This specification assumes that country-specific frontier market returns are driven by a global factor and
a frontier-market factor. We then decompose the variance of the country-specific return into the
proportions attributable to the developed market, the frontier market, as well as the idiosyncratic
component. We define the overall variance of country i’s return as Var(��), while
�� ∗ ���(�)/���(��) and �
� ∗ ���(�)/���(��) (2)
determine the proportion of variance attributable to the developed market portfolio, and broad frontier
index, respectively. Finally, ���(��) determines the idiosyncratic, or country-specific component of
overall variance. We report results in Table 4.
***Insert Table 4 about here***
From Table 4, it is clear that frontier market countries have little relation with the developed
market factor. Further, frontier market countries exhibit little relation with the broad frontier market
index. That is, for most contries, idiosyncratic volatility is the overwhelming proportion of the country’s
overall volatility. For example, the idiosyncratic volatility component contributes over 80% of the overall
15
volatility for 18 of the 25 frontier markets, and over 90% for 13 of the frontier markets. The developed
market contributes over 25% of overall volatility only for Bulgaria, Croatia and LIthiuania. Finally, the
frontier market component contributes less than 10% of overall volatility for 22 of the 25 countries.
From the variance decomposition, it is apparent that frontier market volatility is largely country-specific,
with developed and frontier market factors contributing little to overalll volatility, for most frontier
market countries. This result further suggests frontier market diversification may lead to risk reduction
benefits.
IV. Diversification Benefits of Frontier Market Equities
We conduct mean-variance spanning tests to analyze diversification benefits of frontier market
equities. Our study is similar in purpose to the large body of literature analyzing potential diversification
benefits of international investing. However, we take a specific focus on diversification benefits of
frontier markets. To our knowledge, and contrasting the research covering developed and emerging
markets, very little research analyzing the benefits of frontier market investing exist. Mean-variance
spanning tests determine if the minimum-variance frontier formed with a subset of assets spans the
minimum-variance frontier formed with the entire set of assets (Huberman and Kandel (1987), Bekaert
and Urias (1996)). Following De Roon, Nijman and Werker (2001), as well as Chen and Ho (2009), we
specify the following model:
��� = � + ���� + ��, (3)
in which ��� represents the test asset return and ��� represents the return of the K benchmark
portfolios. The spanning hypothesis may be tested based on the joint restriction that � = 0 and
� ≡ 1 − �1� = 0. Instances in which the spanning hypothesis is rejected indicate that the addition of
the test asset improves the mean variance performance of the overall portfolio, relative to the
performance of the portfolio formed from the benchmark assets. Chen and Ho (2009) further discuss
16
step-down tests to determine the source of rejection of the null hypothesis of spanning. Testing the
hypothesis that � = 0 is equivelant to testing whether the tangency portfolios from the set of K
benchmark portfolios is the same as the tangency portfolio formed from the K benchmark portfolios
combined with the test asset. Imposing the restriction that � = 0 and testing the hypothesis that � = 0
indicates whether the global minimum variance portfolios differ across the set of K benchmark
portfolios relative to the K benchmark portfolios combined with the test asset.
Prior to presenting spanning results, we present simple cross-market correlations from the
country-specific frontier indices with the benchmark indices described above. Correlations are often
used as a measure of potential diversification benefits, however, correlations focus only on second
moments, while the spanning tests consider both first and second moments of the distribution. The
correlations, presented in Table 5, indicate significant variation in correlations across the frontier market
countries. For example, Bulgaria, Croatia and Lithuania are all highly correlated with the US, developed
and emerging market indices, with correlations approximately equal to 0.5 or higher. However, Ghana,
Jamaica and Nigeria, for example, all exhibit insignificant correlation with the relevant benchmark
portfolios.
***Insert Table 5 about here***
In our study, we analyze the diversification benefits of broad frontier indices, as well as country-
specific frontier indices, relative to a broad diversified portfolio across market classifications. Therefore,
the vector of benchmark portfolio returns, which we define as ��, consists of the Fama-French US
market portfolio, the MSCI developed index, and the MSCI emerging market index. In analyses of
country-specific frontier indices, we also provide additional results in which we add the broad value
weighted frontier index to the grouping of benchmark portfolios described above. Our initial spanning
analysis tests the spanning restrictions for both of the broad frontier market indices, as well as for each
17
frontier market country. Tests based on the broad frontier indices cover the sample period from January
1989 through December 2008. Tests based on country-specific frontier indices cover the entire sample
for which we have data for the given country. Country-specific sample periods are defined in Table 1.
We present the spanning results in Table 6.
***Insert Table 6 about here***
The spanning tests across our entire sample provide evidence that frontier market equities
improve portfolio performance. The statistics of 18.65 and 41.23 strongly reject the null hypothesis of
spanning for both the broad value-weighted and equal-weighted frontier indices, respectively. Further,
the step-down tests indicate that both rejections can be attributed to different global minimum variance
portfolios. Further, for the country-specific indices, we find many test assets improve portfolio
performance. Specifically, we reject spanning for 15 of the country-specific frontier indices at the 5%
level. Interestingly, for the country-specific rejections, we continue to reject spanning after augmenting
the set of benchmark portfolios with the value-weighted frontier index. That is, even after adding a
broad investment in frontier markets, inclusion of specific frontier market countries continues to
provide benefits. Further, we observe that the rejections are due to both the tangency portfolio
hypothesis in some cases, and the global minimum variance portfolio in others. We find that the
spanning approach provides a more accurate representation of potential diversification benefits,
relative to the common correlation approach. From Table 5, Bulgaria, Croatia and Lithuania are all highly
correlated with our benchmark portfolios. However, spanning tests indicate that each of the markets
would provide further diversification benefits.
Given the evidence that broad frontier market diversification improves portfolio performance
presented above, we now graphically document the potential performance gains. Specifically, we plot
the mean-variance frontier formed from the three benchmark asset portfolios. We then plot the
18
potential mean-variance frontiers formed by augmenting the three benchmark asset portfolios with
either the value-weighted or equal-weighted frontier index. We present results allowing short-sales in
Figure 3 and results with no short-sale restriction in Figure 4.
***Insert Figures 3 and 4***
Figures 3 and 4 confirm the mean-variance spanning results. Specifically, we see large portfolio
improvements accrue by including frontier indices. The graphs suggest a 2%-4% reduction in risk, while
maintaining a given level of expected return based through the equal-weighted frontier index, as well as
a 1%-2% reduction based on the value-weighted index. Interestingly, it seems that the equal-weighted
index offers incremental portfolio improvement beyond the value-weighted index. This indicates that
smaller markets may have offered superior performance during our sample, or may have a lower
relation with global factors.
To further assess the benefits of frontier market investment, we conduct spanning analyses
across sub-periods, as well as across quartiles of benchmark performance. First, we split the 20 year
sample into four subsequent five year periods and conduct the spanning tests across each sample for
the broad frontier indices. We also define a measure of benchmark portfolio performance. Specifically,
we construct an equal-weighted index comprised of the three benchmark asset portfolios. We then
assign each monthly observation to a performance quartile. Finally, we conduct spanning tests across
each quartile. This analysis indicates if frontier market investing provides benefits during periods of
benchmark downturns, risk reduction, or benefits during periods of strong benchmark performance as
well. We report the sub-period analysis and performance quartile results in Table 7.
***Insert Table 7 about here***
19
The sub-period analysis indicates frontier market investment provides the strongest benefits
during the latter sample periods. For both broad indices, we fail to reject spanning during the initial
sample period, while we strongly reject spanning during the 1999 through 2003 and 2004 through 2008
samples. During the 1994 through 1998 sample, the statistic of 5.24 marginally rejects spanning for the
value-weighted index, while the statistic of 9.68 strongly rejects based on the equal–weighted index.
The step-down tests indicate a similar pattern across indices. Namely, we reject spanning based on
differing global minimum variance portfolios during the 1994 through 1998, and 2004 through 2008
samples, while the 1999 through 2003 rejections are based on the tangency portfolio.
The results based on levels of benchmark performance are interesting. As expected, we strongly
reject spanning during periods of the worst benchmark performance. Statistics of 12.35 and 23.39 reject
spanning for the value-weighted and equal-weighted indices, respectively, given the quartile of the
lowest benchmark returns. Further, the inclusion of the frontier indices would improve both the
tangency portfolio and the global minimum variance portfolio in these cases. We fail to reject spanning
for both portfolios conditional on the second benchmark performance quartile. The statistic of 4.87
marginally rejects spanning based on the value-weighted index and the highest benchmark portfolio
quartile. However, spanning is strongly rejected given either the third or fourth quartile of benchmark
performance based on the equal-weighted frontier index. The final rejections indicate that frontier
market diversification not only offers benefits during periods of poor benchmark returns, but also during
periods of strong benchmark performance.
Our results document striking diversification benefits of frontier markets. However, Bekaert and
Urias (1996) argue that analyzing non-investable indices may overstate diversification benefits.
Therefore, we present an analysis of frontier market diversification based on exchange traded funds.
Due to the limited available history, we focus on presenting measures of portfolio risk and return across
20
varying levels of international diversification. We focus on exchange traded funds representing the ex-
USA Developed Market, the S&P500, the MSCI Emerging markets index and the frontier market index,
and denote these ETFs based on their ticker symbols as VEU, SPY, EEM and FRNMX, respectively. We
present risk and return characteristics for each ETF across the entire sample for which the frontier
market ETF is available, approximately January 2009 through November 2009, as well as across the
sample from January 08, 2009 through March 9, 2009 which represents a period of extreme market
decline in which the S&P 500 fell approximately 25%. We also construct portfolios across the developed
and emerging market ETFs and then analyze the benefits of frontier markets by shifting portfolio
weights towards the frontier market index. We conduct comparisons across an equal weighted strategy
in which funds are either allocated with 1/3 weighting in the EEM, SPY and VEU, or are allocated with
1/4 portfolio weighting to each of the four ETFs. In this way the second equal weighting scheme includes
the frontier market. Finally, we conduct comparisons across portfolio weighting strategies that are tilted
towards the domestic market, with a majority of weights in the SPY and VEU. We present results in
Table 7.
***Insert Table 8 about here***
Results in Panel A indicate that the available sample is not one of strong frontier market
performance, relative to the other ETFs. Specifically, the FRNMX reports a holding period return of 14%,
compared to 64% for the EEM and 37% for the VEU. However, the frontier market ETF did not exhibit as
drastic declines during the extreme down market, falling only 19%, compared to over 25% for the
developed market ETFs. Comparisons across weighting strategies that include or exclude frontier
markets are presented in Panel B. There is some evidence that frontier markets provide diversification
benefits during the extreme down market sample. Annualized standard deviations for the portfolios that
21
include frontier markets are equal to 36% and 39%. These values compare to statistics of 45% and 43%
for the portfolios that exclude the frontier market ETF.
V. Conclusions
Our study considers returns to frontier market countries, as well as to broad frontier market
indices. The results relate to the large bodies of literature concerning levels of world market integration
as well as diversification benefits of international investing. These two large topics are likely related, as
levels of integration likely impact benefits of diversification. However, we take a specific focus on
frontier markets, which previously have received relatively little attention. We find evidence that
frontier markets exhibit very low levels of world market integration, and that levels are not increasing.
Further, we find frontier market volatility is largely idiosyncratic. Finally, our mean-variance analysis
suggests significant portfolio improvement from frontier market allocation.
.
22
References
Baele, Lieven, and Koen Inghelbrecht, 2009, Time-varying integration and international diversification
strategies, Journal of Empirical Finance, 16, 368-387.
Bekaert, Geert, Robert J. Hodrick, and Xiaoyan Zhang, 2009, International stock return comovements,
Journal of Finance, 64, 2591-2626.
Bekaert, Geert, Campbell R. Harvey, 1995, Time-varying world market integration, Journal of Finance,
50, 403-444.
Bekaert, Geert, Campbell R. Harvey, and Robin L. Lumsdaine, 2002, Dating the integration of world
equity markets, Journal of Financial Economics, 65, 203-247.
Bekaert, Geert and Michael S. Urias, 1996, Diversification, integration and emerging market closed-end
funds, Journal of Finance, 51, 835-869.
Carrieri, Francesca, Vihang Errunza and Ked Hogan, 2007, Characterizing world market integration
through time, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42, 915-940.
Chen, Hsuan-Chi, and Keng-Yu Ho, 2009, Do IPO index portfolios improve the investment opportunities
for mean-variance investors? Finance Research Letters, 6, 159-170.
Cheng, Ai-Ru, Mohammad R., Jahan-Parvar, and Philip Rothman, 2009, An empirical investigation of
stock market behavior in the Middle East and North Africa, Journal of Empirical Finance,
accepted manuscript.
De Roon, Frans A., Theo E. Nijman and Bas J. M. Werker, 2001, Testing for mean-variance spanning with
short sales constraints and transaction costs: The case of emerging markets, Journal of Finance,
56, 721-742.
Driessen, Joost, and Luc Laeven, 2007, International portfolio diversification benefits: Cross-country
evidence from a local perspective, Journal of Banking and Finance, 31, 1693-1712.
Eun, Cheol S., Wei Huang, and Sandy Lai, 2008, International diversification with large- and small-cap
stocks, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43, 489-524.
Huberman, Gur, and Shmuel Kandel, 1987, Mean-variance spanning, Journal of Finance, 42, 873-888.
Jayasuriya, Shamila A., and William Shambora, 2009, Oops, we should have diversified! Applied Financial
Economics, 19, 1779-1785.
Odier, Patrick and Bruno Solnik, 1993, Lessons for international asset allocation, Financial Analysts’
Journal, 49, 63-77.
Pukthuanthong, Kuntara and Richard Roll, 2009, Global market integration: An alternative measure and
its application, Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 214-232.
23
Rua, Antonia, and Luis C. Nunes, 2009, International comovement of stock market returns: A wavelet
analysis, Journal of Empirical Finance, 16, 632-639.
Solnik, Bruno, 1974, Why not diversify internationally rather than domestically, Financial Analysts’
Journal, 30, 48-54.
Speidell, Lawrence and Axel Krohne, 2007, The case for frontier equity markets, Journal of Investing, 16,
12-22.
You, Leyuan, and Robert T. Daigler, 2010, Is international diversification really beneficial? Journal of
Banking and Finance, 34, 163-173.
24
Table 1. Country-specific frontier index summary statistics and sample period
We present summary statistics regarding the country-specific frontier indexes within our sample.
First and Last refer to the dates a given country enters and exits the sample, while n documents the
number of monthly return observations. We define �� as the monthly return for country i.
Country First Last n
��� (��)∗ 10^3
���(��)∗ 10^3 �# (��) ��$(��)
Argentina 08/1993 12/2008 185 -1.021 15.072 -0.478 0.409
Bahrain 01/2000 02/2008 98 9.046 1.331 -0.077 0.106
Botswana 01/1996 01/2008 145 17.443 3.668 -0.144 0.373
Bulgaria 11/2000 12/2008 98 16.621 13.804 -0.549 0.291
Croatia 01/1997 12/2008 144 6.290 10.473 -0.483 0.317
Estonia 06/1996 12/2008 151 7.751 12.755 -0.507 0.284
Ghana 01/1996 01/2008 145 -4.238 2.943 -0.171 0.219
Jamaica 01/1996 01/2008 143 9.713 7.168 -0.237 0.370
Jordan 01/1989 12/2008 240 6.892 2.874 -0.196 0.155
Kenya 02/1990 12/2008 227 0.861 6.871 -0.280 0.492
Kuwait 01/1995 12/2008 168 9.273 2.537 -0.205 0.155
Lebanon 04/2000 01/2008 25 38.220 55.543 -0.288 0.375
Lithuania 01/2000 12/2008 108 9.753 7.294 -0.415 0.174
Maurtius 01/1996 01/2008 141 10.416 2.669 -0.208 0.214
Nigeria 07/1995 02/2008 152 19.970 4.705 -0.196 0.251
Oman 11/1996 12/2008 146 7.653 4.740 -0.252 0.277
Pakistan 01/1989 12/2008 240 3.463 9.774 -0.507 0.345
Romania 10/1997 12/2008 135 -1.314 14.975 -0.512 0.341
Saudi Arabia 01/1998 01/2008 121 15.018 5.414 -0.227 0.171
Slovenia 01/1994 12/2008 180 5.677 5.687 -0.273 0.244
Sri Lanka 10/1990 12/2008 219 1.228 5.465 -0.239 0.202
Trinidad and
Tobago
01/1996 02/2008 145 12.995 1.848 -0.090 0.151
Tunisia 01/1998 12/2008 132 7.141 1.456 -0.162 0.142
Ukraine 02/1998 02/2008 121 15.176 18.846 -0.542 0.861
United Arab
Emirates
06/2005 02/2008 33 -3.410 16.095 -0.291 0.271
25
Table 2. The degree of global market integration
We present the coefficients of the first principal component and their t-statistics and adjusted R-
squared of the principal component regression. We regress dollar-denominated index returns on ten
global factors, which are estimated by out-of-sample based on the covariance matrix in the previous
calendar year computed with the returns from 17 major countries, the “pre-1974 cohort” present on
DataStream in 1973 and remaining present every year thereafter. The first principal component
captures the global factor as described in Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009). Coefficients are multiplied by
10^3 in order to show detail. The final four columns report cross-index correlations of daily returns for
each sub-sample.
Index PC1
Adjusted
R2
MSCI All
Country
MSCI
Developed
MSCI
Emerging
Value-
weighted
frontier
index
Panel A: 1989 - 2007
MSCI Developed 1.7620
(0.000) 0.5528
0.9860
(0.000) - - -
MSCI Emerging 1.9950
(0.000) 0.3974
0.5484
(0.000)
0.5110
(0.000) - -
Value-weighted frontier
index
0.0315
(0.560) -0.0003
0.0135
(0.345)
0.0175
(0.220)
-0.0103
(0.473) -
Equal-weighted frontier
index
0.0758
(0.009) 0.0045
0.0313
(0.028)
0.0324
(0.023)
0.0323
(0.024)
0.6253
(0.000)
Panel B: Sub-sample 1 (1989-1999)
MSCI Developed 1.5540
(0.000) 0.5578
0.9764
(0.000) - - -
MSCI Emerging 1.8100
(0.000) 0.2993
0.5017
(0.000)
0.4716
(0.000) - -
Value-weighted frontier
index
0.0089
(0.908) -0.0013
0.0047
(0.804)
0.0110
(0.557)
-0.0171
(0.364) -
Equal-weighted frontier
index
0.0768
(0.137) 0.0072
0.0212
(0.259)
0.0256
(0.174)
0.0116
(0.536)
0.7184
(0.000)
Panel C: Sub-sample 2 (2000-2007)
MSCI Developed 1.8850
(0.000) 0.6983
0.9956
(0.000) - - -
MSCI Emerging 2.1720
(0.000) 0.5664
0.6047
(0.000)
0.5585
(0.000) - -
Value-weighted frontier
index
0.0518
(0.512) 0.0004
0.0274
(0.213)
0.0282
(0.199)
0.0006
(0.980) -
Equal-weighted frontier
index
0.0816
(0.013) 0.0000
0.0559
(0.011)
0.0516
(0.019)
0.0760
(0.001)
0.4067
(0.000)
26
Panel D: Sub-sample 1 (1989-1993)
MSCI Developed 1.5150
(0.000) 0.6332
0.9570
(0.000) - - -
MSCI Emerging 1.3820
(0.000) 0.1994
0.3896
(0.000)
0.3787
(0.000) - -
Value-weighted frontier
index
0.0674
(0.553) 0.0036
0.0178
(0.524)
0.0295
(0.291)
-0.0283
(0.311) -
Equal-weighted frontier
index
0.1220
(0.203) 0.0136
0.0130
(0.640)
0.0205
(0.464)
-0.0274
(0.327)
0.8421
(0.000)
Panel E: Sub-sample 2 (1994-1998)
MSCI Developed 1.5770
(0.000) 0.7099
0.9964
(0.000) - - -
MSCI Emerging 2.1310
(0.000) 0.4243
0.6226
(0.000)
0.5684
(0.000) - -
Value-weighted frontier
index
0.0017
(0.990) -0.0068
-0.0115
(0.679)
-0.0084
(0.762)
-0.0204
(0.464) -
Equal-weighted frontier
index
0.0470
(0.485) 0.0014
0.0358
(0.199)
0.0366
(0.189)
0.0514
(0.065)
0.6231
(0.000)
Panel F: Sub-sample 3 (1999-2003)
MSCI Developed 2.1180
(0.000) 0.6594
0.9979
(0.000) - - -
MSCI Emerging 1.9220
(0.000) 0.4353
0.5426
(0.000)
0.5094
(0.000) - -
Value-weighted frontier
index
0.1740
(0.048) 0.0040
0.0556
(0.046)
0.0526
(0.058)
0.0616
(0.027) -
Equal-weighted frontier
index
0.0601
(0.152) -0.0023
0.0445
(0.110)
0.0408
(0.143)
0.0932
(0.001)
0.3948
(0.000)
Panel G: Sub-sample 4 (2004-2007)
MSCI Developed 1.6070
(0.000) 0.7317
0.9902
(0.000) - - -
MSCI Emerging 2.5980
(0.000) 0.7182
0.7411
(0.000)
0.6769
(0.000) - -
Value-weighted frontier
index
-0.1410
(0.316) 0.0101
-0.0279
(0.369)
-0.0223
(0.474)
-0.0640
(0.039) -
Equal-weighted frontier
index
0.0821
(0.063) 0.0090
0.0680
(0.028)
0.0634
(0.041)
0.0464
(0.135)
0.4141
(0.000)
27
Table 3. World market integration through time
We present regression of adjusted R-square from principal component model on time. First, we regress
daily dollar-dominated index returns on ten global factors, which have been estimated by out-of-sample
components based on the covariance matrix in the previous calendar year computed with the returns
from 17 major countries i.e., the “pre-1974” described in Pukthuanthong and Roll (2009). We fit the
result monthly R-squares for each index to a simple linear time trend for all illustrated years. The time
trend slope coefficients and p-values are given underneath the ‘PC’ heading. Comparable results from
regressing simple daily return correlations for the given index with the MSCI all country world index, on
a time trend are presented underneath the ‘Correlation’ heading. In Panel A we present results for the
entire sample based on six-month regressions. In the remaining panels we present results based on
bimonthly regressions for the given sample period. Comparably, results in Panel A are based on six-
month correlation estimates, while the remaining correlation anslyses are based on bimonthly
correlations of daily returns.
PC Correlation
Index Time Adjusted R2 Time Adjusted R2
Panel A: 1989 - 2007
MSCI Developed 2.03*10-3
(0.003) 0.2069
6.94*10-4
(0.178) 0.0235
MSCI Emerging 1.90*10-2
(0.000) 0.7053
1.16*10-2
(0.000) 0.399
Value-weighted frontier index -3.60*10-4
(0.375) 0.0003
3.83*10-4
(0.800) -0.026
Equal-weighted frontier index -6.64*10-5
(0.886) -0.0272
2.43*10-3
(0.111) 0.043
Panel B: 1989 – 2007
MSCI Developed 6.56*10-4
(0.012) 0.0568
5.90*10-5
(0.535) -0.0055
MSCI Emerging 6.07*10-3
(0.000) 0.4866
3.92*10-3
(0.000) 0.2926
Value-weighted frontier index -8.47*10-5
(0.858) -0.0086
7.76*10-5
(0.857) -0.0086
Equal-weighted frontier index -2.82*10-4
(0.553) -0.0055
5.42*10-4
(0.255) 0.0027
Panel C: Sub-sample 1 (1989-1999)
MSCI Developed 1.23*10-3
(0.010) 0.0599
3.81*10-4
(0.118) 0.0228
MSCI Emerging 5.08*10-3
(0.005) 0.1142
5.53*10-3
(0.001) 0.1591
Value-weighted frontier index -7.59*10-4
(0.516) -0.0071
1.82*10-4
(0.866) -0.0152
Equal-weighted frontier index 5.96*10-4
(0.612) -0.0110
9.29*10-4
(0.395) -0.0041
28
Table 3 (cont’d).
Panel D: Sub-sample 2 (2000-2007)
MSCI Developed -3.69*10-4
(0.660) -0.0174
-3.56*10-4
(0.202) 0.0142
MSCI Emerging 5.63*10-3
(0.000) 0.3717
5.17*10-3
(0.001) 0.2165
Value-weighted frontier index -1.30*10-3
(0.339) -0.0018
-1.71*10-3
(0.203) 0.0140
Equal-weighted frontier index 1.46*10-4
(0.918) -0.0215
2.08*10-3
(0.236) 0.0093
Panel E: Sub-sample 1 (1989 – 1993)
MSCI Developed 2.94*10-3
(0.154) 0.0544
1.25*10-3
(0.290) 0.0057
MSCI Emerging -1.07*10-3
(0.854) -0.0345
1.17*10-3
(0.843) -0.0342
Value-weighted frontier index -8.86*10-4
(0.852) -0.0337
4.36*10-3
(0.240) 0.0151
Equal-weighted frontier index -1.74*10-3
(0.661) -0.0274
4.27*10-3
(0.233) 0.0165
Panel F: Sub-sample 2 (1994-1998)
MSCI Developed 3.53*10-3
(0.003) 0.0844
4.51*10-4
(0.006) 0.2117
MSCI Emerging 1.51*10-2
(0.004) 0.2392
8.81*10-3
(0.034) 0.1204
Value-weighted frontier index 6.34*10-4
(0.847) -0.0341
3.12*10-3
(0.373) -0.0062
Equal-weighted frontier index 6.41*10-3
(0.021) 0.0720
7.03*10-3
(0.043) 0.1082
Panel G: Sub-sample 3 (1999-2003)
MSCI Developed 1.86*10-3
(0.011) 0.1203
-1.25*10-4
(0.086) 0.0693
MSCI Emerging 9.97*10-3
(0.002) 0.2605
-1.38*10-3
(0.673) -0.0290
Value-weighted frontier index 3.06*10-4
(0.934) -0.0353
2.48*10-3
(0.396) -0.0089
Equal-weighted frontier index 5.41*10-4
(0.818) -0.0340
4.76*10-4
(0.893) -0.0350
Panel H: Sub-sample 4 (2004-2007)
MSCI Developed 6.11*10-4
(0.644) -0.0436
-4.32*10-5
(0.969) -0.0454
MSCI Emerging 1.12*10-2
(0.000) 0.4180
8.86*10-3
(0.014) 0.2108
Value-weighted frontier index -1.44*10-4
(0.973) -0.0454
-3.35*10-3
(0.338) -0.0018
Equal-weighted frontier index -5.92*10-3
(0.500) -0.0129
8.70*10-3
(0.100) 0.0782
29
Table 4. Frontier market variance decomposition
Table presents results from the variance decomposition using the MSCI developed index and our value
weighted frontier market index as the two factors. With the Chen and Ho (2009) paper as a reference,
the developed index is comparable to their use of the CRSP market index and the frontier market index
is comparable to their use of each size and book/market portfolio. First and last refer to the data
availability for each country. Variance is the overall variance for the country’s return. The final three
columns present the percentage of the overall variance accounted for by the developed market, frontier
market and idiosyncratic component, respectively.
Country Variance
Developed market
proportion
Frontier market
proportion
Idiosyncratic
proportion
Argentina 0.0151 0.2285 0.0400 0.7315
Bahrain 0.0013 0.0828 0.0621 0.8551
Botswana 0.0037 0.0211 0.0183 0.9606
Bulgaria 0.0138 0.2845 0.0986 0.6169
Croatia 0.0105 0.2906 0.0993 0.6100
Estonia 0.0128 0.0998 0.0567 0.8435
Ghana 0.0029 0.0098 0.0167 0.9734
Jamaica 0.0072 0.0008 0.0038 0.9954
Jordan 0.0029 0.0497 0.0886 0.8617
Kenya 0.0069 0.0497 0.0333 0.9170
Kuwait 0.0025 0.0454 0.0617 0.8930
Lebanon 0.0555 0.0489 0.0275 0.9236
Lithuania 0.0073 0.3140 0.0881 0.5979
Maurtius 0.0027 0.0009 0.0400 0.9591
Nigeria 0.0047 0.0024 0.0022 0.9954
Oman 0.0047 0.0518 0.0458 0.9024
Pakistan 0.0098 0.0091 0.0573 0.9336
Romania 0.0150 0.0963 0.1498 0.7539
Saudi Arabia 0.0054 0.0079 0.2320 0.7600
Slovenia 0.0057 0.0865 0.4730 0.4405
Sri Lanka 0.0055 0.0440 0.0796 0.8764
Trinidad and
Tobago
0.0018 0.0001 0.0051 0.9948
Tunisia 0.0015 0.0342 0.0265 0.9393
Ukraine 0.0188 0.0390 0.0192 0.9418
United Arab
Emirates
0.0161 0.0028 0.0919 0.9052
30
Table 5. Frontier market correlation
Entries within the table represent correlations across frontier market country and index returns, with
the Fama and French US market portfolio, the MSCI Developed market portfolio, the MSCI Emerging
market portfolio and our Value-weighted frontier market index.
US Developed Emerging Frontier
Value-weighted
Frontier Index
0.2590
(0.000)
0.3085
(0.000)
0.3325
(0.000) -
Equal-weighted
Frontier Index
0.3757
(0.000)
0.4245
(0.000)
0.5024
(0.000)
0.7245
(0.000)
Argentina 0.449
(0.000)
0.4780
(0.000)
0.5664
(0.000)
0.3668
(0.000)
Bahrain 0.2357
(0.020)
0.2877
(0.004)
0.3769
(0.000)
0.3003
(0.003)
Botswana 0.1247
(0.135)
0.1453
(0.081)
0.1790
(0.031)
0.1587
(0.057)
Bulgaria 0.4657
(0.000)
0.5333
(0.000)
0.5700
(0.000)
0.5260
(0.000)
Croatia 0.5320
(0.000)
0.5391
(0.000)
0.6017
(0.000)
0.4984
(0.000)
Estonia 0.2776
(0.001)
0.3159
(0.000)
0.3919
(0.000)
0.3409
(0.000)
Ghana -0.1210
(0.147)
-0.0991
(0.236)
-0.0589
(0.481)
0.1099
(0.188)
Jamaica -0.0089
(0.917)
-0.0288
(0.733)
-0.0072
(0.932)
0.0552
(0.513)
Jordan 0.2123
(0.001)
0.2229
(0.001)
0.2004
(0.002)
0.3519
(0.000)
Kenya 0.1692
(0.011)
0.2229
(0.001)
0.1991
(0.003)
0.2432
(0.000)
Kuwait 0.2016
(0.009)
0.2130
(0.006)
.2363
(0.002)
0.3082
(0.000)
Lebanon 0.2436
(0.241)
0.2210
(0.288)
0.3213
(0.117)
0.1886
(0.367)
Lithuania 0.4916
(0.000)
0.5603
(0.000)
0.6089
(0.000)
0.5170
(0.000)
Maurtius -0.0131
(0.877)
0.0296
(0.727)
0.1147
(0.176)
0.2022
(0.016)
Nigeria 0.0532
(0.515)
0.0492
(0.548)
0.1320
(0.105)
0.0544
(0.506)
Oman 0.2133
(0.010)
0.2277
(0.006)
0.2674
(0.001)
0.2844
(0.001)
Pakistan 0.1134
(0.080)
0.0954
(0.141)
0.2396
(0.000)
0.2571
(0.000)
Romania 0.2686
(0.002)
0.3104
(0.000)
0.5053
(0.000)
0.4780
(0.000)
31
Table 5 (cont’d).
Saudi Arabia 0.0845
(0.357)
0.0891
(0.331)
0.1686
(0.065)
0.4898
(0.000)
Slovenia 0.2330
(0.002)
0.2726
(0.000)
0.2726
(0.000)
0.7478
(0.000)
Sri Lanka 0.2030
(0.003)
0.2098
(0.002)
0.3715
(0.000)
0.3340
(0.000)
Trinidad and
Tobago
0.0098
(0.907)
-0.0108
(0.897)
-0.0914
(0.274)
-0.0721
(0.389)
Tunisia 0.1394
(0.111)
0.1850
(0.034)
0.1108
(0.206)
0.2244
(0.010)
Ukraine 0.1600
(0.080)
0.1974
(0.030)
0.3117
(0.001)
0.1744
(0.056)
United Arab
Emirates
0.0406
(0.823)
0.0534
(0.768)
0.0098
(0.957)
0.3078
(0.081)
32
Table 6. Mean-variance spanning tests
We present results from mean-variance spanning tests for our sample of broad frontier market
indices and country-specific frontier market indices. We use OLS to estimate the following model
��� = � + ���� + ��,
Where ��� represents the test asset return and ��� represents the return of the K benchmark
portfolios. We define K to include the Fama-French US market portfolio, the MSCI developed market
index and the MSCI emerging market index in the second through fourth columns. In the fifth through
seventh columns, we expand K to also include our Value-weighted Frontier market index. Entries in
the table correspond to Wald-statistics and associated p-values for each test. Spanning tests the joint
restrictions that � = 0 and � ≡ 1 − �1� = 0. In the event we reject Spanning at the 10% level, we
present step-down tests to determine the source of rejection. Tangency tests the hypothesis � = 0
and indicates whether the two tangency portfolios are statistically different. GMV tests the
hypothesis � ≡ 1 − �1� = 0, conditional on � = 0, and indicates whether the global minimum
variance portfolios differ. The sample is monthly from January 1989 through December 2008.
% = &�'(, �)*+ , �*,*-.′ % = 0�'(, �)*+ , �*,*-,�-12�3′ Test Asset Spanning Tangency GMV Spanning Tangency GMV
Value-weighted
Frontier Index
18.65
(0.000)
0.81
(0.367)
17.85
(0.000)
- - -
Equal-weighted
Frontier Index
41.23
(0.000)
1.67
(0.196)
39.44
(0.000)
- - -
Argentina 34.08
(0.000)
0.16
(0.692)
34.08
(0.000)
39.41
(0.000)
0.37
(0.541)
39.17
(0.000)
Bahrain 9.43
(0.009)
4.69
(0.030)
4.56
(0.033)
13.33
(0.001)
2.86
(0.091)
10.27
(0.001)
Botswana 13.68
(0.001)
10.99
(0.001)
2.51
(0.113)
15.35
(0.001)
9.75
(0.002)
5.28
(0.022)
Bulgaria 20.58
(0.000)
3.59
(0.058)
16.54
(0.000)
30.35
(0.000)
2.26
(0.133)
27.72
(0.000)
Croatia 34.52
(0.000)
0.28
(0.597)
34.41
(0.000)
55.83
(0.000)
0.07
(0.797)
56.14
(0.000)
Estonia 8.99
(0.011)
1.18
(0.277)
7.80
(0.005)
14.55
(0.001)
0.86
(0.354)
13.70
(0.000)
Ghana 1.64
(0.440)
- - 0.56
(0.758)
- -
Jamaica 1.56
(0.459)
- - 1.16
(0.561)
- -
Jordan 14.82
(0.001)
2.61
(0.106)
12.13
(0.001)
31.10
(0.000)
1.97
(0.160)
29.01
(0.000)
Kenya 7.85
(0.020)
0.06
(0.814)
7.83
(0.005)
13.64
(0.001)
0.00
(0.984)
13.70
(0.000)
Kuwait 10.33
(0.006)
5.07
(0.024)
5.13
(0.024)
16.80
(0.000)
4.42
(0.036)
12.12
(0.001)
Lebanon 0.50
(0.777)
- - 0.59
(0.743)
- -
Lithuania 29.14
(0.000)
3.81
(0.051)
24.67
(0.000)
39.82
(0.000)
2.86
(0.091)
36.32
(0.000)
33
Table 6 (cont’d).
% = &�'(, �)*+ , �*,*-.′ % = 0�'(, �)*+ , �*,*-,�-12�3′ Test Asset Spanning Tangency GMV Spanning Tangency GMV
Maurtius 7.49
(0.024)
7.43
(0.006)
0.05
(0.816)
8.38
(0.015)
6.11
(0.013)
2.18
(0.140)
Nigeria 11.52
(0.003)
11.37
(0.001)
0.15
(0.702)
11.34
(0.004)
10.80
(0.001)
0.50
(0.480)
Oman 5.70
(0.058)
1.74
(0.187)
3.94
(0.047)
9.81
(0.007)
1.37
(0.241)
8.41
(0.004)
Pakistan 0.83
(0.661)
- - 4.88
(0.087)
0.00
(0.979)
4.90
(0.027)
Romania 2.08
(0.354)
- - 10.67
(0.005)
0.13
(0.721)
10.61
(0.001)
Saudi Arabia 4.43
(0.109)
- - 16.32
(0.000)
1.31
(0.253)
14.97
(0.000)
Slovenia 15.28
(0.001)
1.88
(0.170)
13.33
(0.000)
105.84
(0.000)
1.10
(0.294)
104.68
(0.000)
Sri Lanka 3.83
(0.148)
- - 10.60
(0.005)
0.05
(0.820)
10.60
(0.001)
Trinidad and
Tobago
11.59
(0.003)
11.29
(0.001)
0.28
(0.598)
11.70
(0.003)
11.54
(0.001)
0.15
(0.699)
Tunisia 11.47
(0.003)
6.39
(0.012)
4.89
(0.027)
14.32
(0.001)
5.60
(0.018)
8.41
(0.004)
Ukraine 2.77
(0.250)
- - 3.57
(0.167)
- -
United Arab
Emirates
0.20
(0.903)
- - 1.31
(0.520)
- -
34
Table 7. Mean-variance spanning across sub-samples and levels of benchmark performance.
We present results from mean-variance spanning tests for our sample of broad frontier market indices.
We use OLS to estimate the following model
��� = � + ���� + ��,
Where ��� represents the test asset return and ��� represents the return of the K benchmark portfolios.
We define K to include the Fama-French US market portfolio, the MSCI developed index and the MSCI
emerging market index. Entries in the table correspond to Wald-statistics and associated p-values for
each test. Spanning tests the joint restrictions that � = 0 and � ≡ 1 − �1� = 0. In the event we reject
Spanning at the 10% level, we present step-down tests to determine the source of rejection. Tangency
tests the hypothesis � = 0 and indicates whether the two tangency portfolios are statistically different.
GMV tests the hypothesis � ≡ 1 − �1� = 0, conditional on � = 0, and indicates whether the global
minimum variance portfolios differ. The sample is monthly from January 1989 through December 2008.
We split the overall sample into four equal test-periods identified in the initial column The test assets
are defined as the Value-weighted, and Equal-weighted, Frontier indices in Panels A and B Respectively.
In Panels C and D, we construct an equal-weighted index of our three benchmark portfolios, and sort
observations based on quartiles of the index’s performance.
Sample period Spanning Tangency GMV
Panel A: Value-weighted Frontier Index and sub-sample analysis
01:1989-12:1993 2.07
(0.356)
1.16
(0.282)
0.90
(0.342)
01:1994-12:1998 5.24
(0.073)
0.06
(0.810)
5.27
(0.022)
01:1999-12:2003 7.54
(0.023)
5.74
(0.017)
1.66
(0.197)
01:2004-12:2008 15.13
(0.001)
0.61
(0.434)
14.62
(0.000)
Panel B: Equal-weighted Frontier Index and sub-sample analysis
01:1989-12:1993 1.67
(0.434)
0.37
(0.544)
1.32
(0.251)
01:1994-12:1998 7.38
(0.025)
0.46
(0.496)
6.99
(0.008)
01:1999-12:2003 9.68
(0.008)
5.84
(0.016)
3.54
(0.060)
01:2004-12:2008 56.90
(0.000)
2.54
(0.111)
52.93
(0.000)
35
Table 7 (cont’d).
Benchmark
Performance Spanning Tangency GMV
Panel A: Value-weighted Frontier Index
1st
Quartile 12.35
(0.002)
6.91
(0.009)
4.93
(0.026)
2nd
Quartile 3.61
(0.164)
3.20
(0.074)
0.40
(0.529)
3rd
Quartile 2.97
(0.226)
1.02
(0.313)
1.95
(0.162)
4th Quartile 4.87
(0.088)
0.07
(0.798)
4.88
(0.027)
Panel B: Equal-weighted Frontier Index
1st
Quartile 23.39
(0.000)
12.84
(0.000)
8.84
(0.003)
2nd
Quartile 3.03
(0.219)
1.36
(0.244)
1.67
(0.197)
3rd
Quartile 9.93
(0.007)
1.22
(0.269)
8.67
(0.003)
4th Quartile 18.96
(0.000)
1.68
(0.195)
17.07
(0.000)
36
Table 8. Diversification benefits based on ETFs.
We present international portfolio return and standard deviation statistics. Portfolios are formed with Exchange traded funds in which EEM
represents the MSCI Emerging markets index ETF, FRNMX represents the frontier market ETF, SPY represents the S&P500 ETF, and VEU
represents the FTSE All-World ex US ETF. ETF characteristics are reported in Panel A for the given samples. In Panel B, portfolio characteristics
are reported for various weighting schemes across the ETFs considered. Specifically, Equal- No represents an equal weighting scheme across the
EEM, SPY and VEU ETFs, Equal- Yes represents the inclusion of the frontier market ETF in which equal weights are assigned to all four ETFs,
Developed- No represents an allocation shifted towards developed markets with 50% in the SPY, 30% in VEU and the remaining 20% in EEM and
finally, Developed- Yes represents an allocation shifted towards developed markets that also includes frontier markets with an allocation of 17%,
9%, 47% and 27% across EEM, FRNMX, SPY and VEU, respectively. Statistics are presented in decimal form.
01/08/2009 – 11/24/2009 01/08/2009 – 03/09/2009
Panel A: ETF risk-return statistics
Annualized Holding
Period Return σ
Annualized Holding
Period Return σ
EEM 0.6364 0.4037 -0.1864 0.5570
FRNMX 0.1425 0.2566 -0.1870 0.4414
SPY 0.2407 0.2765 -0.2518 0.3704
VEU 0.3678 0.3476 -0.2740 0.4759
Panel B: Risk-return statistics across portfolio weights
Equal- No 0.4104 0.3352 -0.2374 0.4586
Equal- Yes 0.3536 0.2734 -0.2205 0.3647
Developed- No 0.3545 0.3161 -0.2452 0.4308
Developed- Yes 0.3353 0.2919 -0.2390 0.3922
37
Fig 1: Indicators of global market integration by index returns from January 1989 to December 2007. Our measure of market integration is the adjusted R-square from a regression of country index returns on global factors. Plotted here are 6-month adjusted R-squares estimated for each index. We regress daily dollar-denominated index returns on 10 global factors, which are estimated by out-of-sample principal components based on the covariance matrix in the previous calendar year computed with the returns from 17 major countries, the “pre-1974 cohort” present on DataStream in 1973 and remaining present every year thereafter. FIV is value-weighted frontier index; FIE is equal-weighted frontier index; ERET is MSCI emerging market index; and WRET is MSCI developed market index
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
FIV FIE ERET WRET
38
Fig 2: Indicators of global market integration by index returns from January 1989 to December 2007. Our measure of market integration is the adjusted R-square from a regression of country index returns on global factors. Plotted here are bimonthly adjusted R-squares estimated for each index. We regress daily dollar-denominated index returns on 10 global factors, which are estimated by out-of-sample principal components based on the covariance matrix in the previous calendar year computed with the returns from 17 major countries, the “pre-1974 cohort” present on DataStream in 1973 and remaining present every year thereafter. FIV is value-weighted frontier index; FIE is equal-weighted frontier index; ERET is MSCI emerging market index; and WRET is MSCI developed market index
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Tim
e
Au
g-8
9
Ap
r-9
0
De
c-9
0
Au
g-9
1
Ap
r-9
2
De
c-9
2
Au
g-9
3
Ap
r-9
4
De
c-9
4
Au
g-9
5
Ap
r-9
6
De
c-9
6
Au
g-9
7
Ap
r-9
8
De
c-9
8
Au
g-9
9
Ap
r-0
0
De
c-0
0
Au
g-0
1
Ap
r-0
2
De
c-0
2
Au
g-0
3
Ap
r-0
4
De
c-0
4
Au
g-0
5
Ap
r-0
6
De
c-0
6
Au
g-0
7
FIV FIE ERET WRET
39
Fig 3: Short sale is allowed. Portfolio 1 includes the U.S. market, the MSCI Developed Index, and the MSCI Emerging Market Index. Portfolio 2 includes the U.S. market, the MSCI Developed Index, the MSCI Emerging Market Index, and the Value Weighted Frontier Market Index. Portfolio 3 includes the U.S. market, the MSCI Developed Index, the MSCI Emerging Market Index, and the Equally Weighted Frontier Market Index.
Fig 4: Short sale is prohibited. Portfolio 1 includes the U.S. market, the MSCI Developed Index, and the MSCI Emerging Market Index. Portfolio 2 includes the U.S. market, the MSCI Developed Index, the MSCI Emerging Market Index, and the Value Weighted Frontier Market Index. Portfolio 3 includes the U.S. market, the MSCI Developed Index, the MSCI Emerging Market Index, and the Equally Weighted Frontier Market Index.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17
Ex
pe
cte
d R
etu
rn
Standard Deviation
Mean-Variance Frontier
Portfolio 1
Portfolio 2
Portfolio 3
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11 0.115 0.12 0.125 0.13 0.135 0.14 0.145 0.15 0.155
Ex
pe
cte
d R
etu
rn
Standard Deviation
Mean-Variance Frontier
Portfolio 1
Portfolio 2
Portfolio 3