Countries With Less Global Exposure Are Actually Doing Better Than Those With More

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/ubs-sp-500-global-exposure-2012-8

For The First Time In 20 Years, Countries With Less Global Exposure Are Actually Doing Better Than Those With More



Jonathan Golub, Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for UBS, recently wrote about it in a note to clients:

"Over the past 20 years, companies with larger foreign footprints have generally grown faster than those with less global exposure. However, following the onset of the financial crisis and the ensuing global recession, domestically-oriented companies have outperformed their more foreign-exposed peers...

Over the past two years in particular, global macro risks have re-escalated as the European Union has battled sovereign debt issues and emerging markets have faced slowing demand. By contrast, the U.S. has experienced a modest, less turbulent recovery. As a result, more domestically-exposed names have exceeded expectations by a greater amount on both top- and bottom-lines.

This strength is now evident in growth rates as well. More specifically, 2Q earnings and revenue growth has outpaced that of more foreign-exposed names by roughly 5-6%. Given continuing challenges in the global economic environment, we expect this pattern to persist through the end of the year."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ubs-sp-500-global-exposure-2012-8#ixzz23KjeXuku

[pampango]

1. It's 'companies' not 'countries'. In 2011 companies that were more domestically-oriented did better

than those that were more involved in international business.

"Over the past 20 years, companies with larger foreign footprints have generally grown faster than those with less global exposure. However, following the onset of the financial crisis and the ensuing global recession, domestically-oriented companies have outperformed their more foreign-exposed peers..."