Countries that require less energy per unit of GDP may fare better during a period of high energy prices.

This table shows the Kg of oil equivalent consumed per unit of GDP on a purchasing power parity basis for 32 countries, as reported by the United Nations.

This data is not a measure of energy use efficiency, because it does not distinguish between countries with high energy intensity industries (such as steel making) versus those with low energy intensity industries (such as software).

The data also does not indicate how much margin exists to be more efficient if necessary.

Interesting observations, include that the United States and China have similar energy consumption per unit of GDP, although the US figures probably include a much higher personal energy use component as part of the overall energy use.

Also, India uses only about 82% as much energy per unit of GDP PPP as China.

Russia uses the most energy to produce its GDP.

Brazil consumes less energy for its GDP PPP than Japan.  Given that Brazil is essentially energy independent of the rest of the world and is an energy exporter, and given that Japan is an energy importer, Brazil might be expected to fare better than Japan when dealing with rising energy costs.

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC

[securities mentions in this article: EWH, IRL, EWL, EWI, EWU, EWO, EIS, EWP, EWZ, EWJ, EWG, TUR, EWQ, ECH, EWW, EWN, INP, EWK, THD, EWA, EWD, VTI, FXI, EWY, EWS, EWM, IF, EWC, EZA, RSX]

The world market capitalization is ever changing as share and market values fluctuate, and the US share is shrinking.

The US market share has been declining steadily in recent years, while other markets have been increasing. Today, the US market (proxy SPY) has declined to less than 41% from nearly 53% as recently as of 2004, according to the S&P “World by the Numbers” report.  In earlier times, the US share was much higher than 53%.

Emerging markets (proxies VWO and EEM) have been gaining market share notably through the BRIC countries of Brazil (proxy EWZ), Russia (proxy RSX), India (proxy INP), and China (proxy FXI).

Germany (proxy EWG) and Japan (proxy EWJ) have held their own and actually increased their market share since 2004.

This table presents the annual market shares for the US, Japan, Germany, China, India, Brazil and Russia as of January of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and May 2008.

Note that market share in this case is “free-float” market share, meaning freely investable shares. Free-float excludes shares not available for trading, such as government owned shares.

As of May 2008, world free-float market-cap was about $30.7 trillion versus a total market-cap of about $50.7 trillion. In other words, only about 61% of world total market-cap is considered free-float.

The US share has declined in part because the US market has not appreciated as fast as many other markets, but also because emerging markets have been releasing more shares into the free-float category.

The US share will likely continue to decline as more non-US markets open up their free-float, and perhaps as other markets gain in value at a faster pace.

Consider that 90% of US total market-cap is free-float, whereas only 19% of China’s total market-cap is free-float. China’s free-float market share would quadruple if 90% of its total market-cap were free to float.

Similar but less extreme circumstances exist between other developed market countries and other emerging market countries. For example, Japan and Germany have 75% and 76% of their total market-cap as free-float respectively, while Brazil, Russia and India have 51%, 39% and 31% of their total market-cap in free-float.

The approximate 41% US world market-cap share is in stark contrast to the typical 75% to 85% or higher US weight within the stock allocation of most US investor portfolios.

Those allocations may be suitable and appropriate, but here are some interesting questions to consider:

• Are most US investors aware that they have massively overweighted US stocks versus the US world weight?
• Do most US investors actively feel that US stocks are a better investment return opportunity which they have intentionally overweighted?
• Are most US investors underweight non-US stocks because they are concerned about foreign currency risk exposure of investing in non-US stocks?
• Do most investment advisors inform their clients of world market shares as it may relate to allocation choices, and then make an active and reasoned choice to overweight their US positions?
• Will most US investors continue to hold 75% to 85% or more in US stocks when/if the US world market-cap share falls to 30%?
• As a global citizen in a global investment world, what is the rational country allocation for you?

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC

Large banks are way down in the past 12 months, and as a consequence their trailing yields are well above normal.  That potentially creates substantial long-term equity income opportunity, but the big question is whether the dividends that make those yields will hold or be cut. 

If you subscribe to the “buy it when it’s cheap” philosophy, then you really need to evaluate any sector when it sinks the way large banks have done.

If you conclude that taking a position (partial or full) in large banks is the right thing to do, we believe that you should buy the sector, not individual banks (unless you have high research-based conviction about the individual company).

If you buy the sector, you are exposed to systematic risk for banks (general market risk and industry specific risk, such as more mortgage market trouble).  You would probably hold some stinkers in the group, but you would also hold the winners.  That means that a few banks with negative surprises will not destroy the income advantage of the sector.

If you buy inidividual banks, you take on systematic market and systematic sector risk, but also non-systematic (individual company) risk.  With individual banks, you have greater risk of permanent capital loss (some banks could fail), greater price volatility risk, and greater risk of yield reduction through dividend cuts.

Two good ETFs to participate in large banks are XLF (S&P 500 financials sector, which also includes insurance and investment banking) and KBE (KBW large bank index).

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC