BRICs vs ICs

Justin Fox today lays

out the reasons why Brazil and Rusia pale in importance besides India and

China. "I’ve always been a little dubious of the famous Goldman Sachs forecast

about the future importance of the ‘BRICs’ economies," he writes. "BRICs,

I fear, may be a great acronym in search of a corresponding economic reality.

ICs doesn’t look or sound nearly as good, but that’s where the real action is."

In terms of macroeconomics, he’s probably right. Russia is a demographic nightmare,

rich in commodity wealth but poor in endogenous growth. Brazil has a much larger

and younger population, as well as a strong entrepeneurial class, but it, too,

has largely been riding the commodity boom.

But what Fox misses is that the BRICs idea was never purely macroeconomic:

it’s primarily an investment thesis. And what Brazil and Russia lack in terms

of long-term outlook, they more than make up for in terms of investability.

It has been much easier and much more lucrative in recent years to buy stocks

in Russia and Brazil than it has been to try and get stock-market exposure to

the relatively closed economies of China and India.

Especially now, with the Chinese stock-market bubble about to burst, faith

in China’s long-term prospects isn’t going to make you lots of money. Investing

in the likes of CVRD and Gazprom looks like a safer, smarter bet.

This entry was posted in emerging markets, stocks. Bookmark the permalink.