Despite recent wobbles, investors who have stayed the course in emerging market equities since 2002 have been well rewarded for their loyalty, enjoying returns of 167 per cent, measured by the returns of the MSCI EM index.

按照摩根士丹利资本国际(MSCI)新兴市场指数的回报率衡量，尽管最近市场动荡，但自2002年一直坚守新兴市场的投资者的忠诚获得了丰厚回报，回报率高达167%。

They have done far better than those schmucks who instead put their faith in the mighty US stock market, where returns over the same period, while less volatile, have been a comparatively paltry 91 per cent, at least when measured by the S&P 1500 index, a broad-based measure (all data reflect simple index returns, ie not including dividend income).

与那些信任庞大的美国股市的笨蛋相比，他们的表现优秀多了，同期美国股市的回报率（尽管波动性没有那么高）相对较低，为91%，至少按照标准普尔1500指数(S&P 1500)衡量是如此。该指数是一个大盘指标（所有数据都反映出简单的指数回报，不包括股息收入）。

But what about those US-listed stocks with significant exposure to the emerging markets?

但那些在美国上市、但在新兴市场有显著敞口的股票表现如何？

On the face of it, one might expect these hybrids to have generated returns that fall somewhere between the extremes of purer emerging or developed market companies.

从表面来看，你可能会认为，这些“混血”股票的回报率将介于纯种新兴市场公司和纯种发达市场公司这两个极端之间的某个水平。

If so, one would be wrong. Very wrong. Since 2002, a universe of 39 such stocks created by Neuberger Berman, a New York-based investment house, has, in fact, delivered returns of 424 per cent, more than quintupling investors’ money, as the first chart shows.

如果这样认为的话，你就错了，而且错得厉害。自2002年以来，纽约投资机构Neuberger Berman创建的一个由39只此类股票组成的指数实际上实现了424%的回报率，使投资者的资金增值了4倍多，如图表一所示。

These 39 companies each generate at least 15 per cent of their revenues from emerging markets, a figure rising to 40 per cent or more for Yum Brands, the operator of fast food outlets such as KFC and Pizza Hut; Mead Johnson Nutrition, a manufacturer of infant formula; and Avon Products, the door-to-door cosmetics company.

这39家公司至少有15%的营收来自新兴市场，其中经营肯德基(KFC)和必胜客(Pizza Hut)等快餐门店的百胜餐饮集团(Yum Brands)；婴幼儿配方奶粉生产商美赞臣(Mead Johnson Nutrition)以及直销化妆品公司雅芳(Avon Products)的比例高达40%或更高。

The list also includes a number of other household names such as PepsiCo, McDonald’s, Colgate-Palmolive, Nike and Procter & Gamble, as indicated in the second chart.

这个名单还包括其他很多家喻户晓的品牌，如百事可乐(PepsiCo)、麦当劳(McDonald’s)、高露洁棕榄(Colgate-Palmolive)、耐克(Nike)和宝洁(Procter & Gamble)，如图表二所示。

Conrad Saldanha, senior portfolio manager for emerging markets equity at Neuberger Berman, says these companies and their peers in the EM Sales index have benefited from “the rise of the global middle class”.

Neuberger Berman新兴市场股票投资组合高级经理康拉德•萨尔达尼亚(Conrad Saldanha)表示，这些公司以及新兴市场销售指数(EM Sales index)的其他成份股公司都受益于“全球中产阶级的壮大”。

“So far this century, stocks with the highest proportion of revenues coming from the emerging world, regardless of whether or not those stocks are listed or domiciled there, have far outperformed both the emerging and developed world indices,” he says.

他表示：“本世纪到目前为止，新兴市场营收占比最高的股票（不管这些股票是否在新兴市场上市或者注册）都遥遥领先地跑赢新兴市场股指和发达市场股指。”

“They have continued to do so even during the recent years in which emerging markets have run out of steam.”

“甚至在新兴市场失去后劲的最近几年，它们也继续表现出色。”

So why have these EM-focused US-listed stocks performed so much better than the alternatives?

那么，这些在美国上市、但具有新兴市场焦点的公司的股票表现为何大大优于其他股票呢？

One thing to note is that the 39 companies are heavily skewed sectorally, with most geared to selling “consumer staples”, be they in the household products, food and drink or tobacco sectors.

有一点值得注意，这39家公司都存在严重的行业偏向，多数销售“日常消费品”，例如家用产品、餐饮或烟草行业。

“It’s almost exclusively dominated by consumer names and very strong brands, the highest quality names that are out there. These are global multinationals,” says Mr Saldanha.

萨尔达尼亚表示：“它几乎完全由消费者品牌和非常强大的品牌主宰，都是市场上质量最高的品牌。它们是全球跨国企业。”

This sectoral bias means the EM Sales index contains none of the energy, materials or banking stocks that have dragged down developed world equity indices in recent years.

这种行业倾斜意味着，新兴市场销售指数不包括能源、原材料或银行股票，近年这些股票拖累了发达市场股指。

To be fair, though, the index has also not benefited from the technology stocks that were the main driver of the US equity markets last year. Nor, quite clearly, did it benefit from the rapid rise in commodity prices prior to 2014.

然而，公平地说，该指数也没有得益于成为去年美国股市主要推动力的科技股。同时，该指数显然也没有从2014年之前大宗商品价格快速上涨中受益。

Overall, the sectoral bias would appear to explain part of the outperformance vis-à-vis the broader US equity market, but certainly not all of it: US consumer staple stocks in general have only returned 135 per cent in price terms since 2002, better than the returns of materials and financials (but not energy stocks), well behind the returns of the EM Sales index.

总的来说，这种行业倾斜似乎可以在一定程度上解释这些股票的表现为何优于美国股市大盘，但肯定不能完全解释：总体而言，自2002年以来，美国日常消费品股票的回报率仅为135%（按股价衡量），高于原材料和金融类股票的回报率（但比不上能源股），远低于新兴市场销售指数的回报率。

Clearly the time period chosen will also affect the results. Since the start of 2011, just before emerging market equities peaked, the EM Sales index has underperformed the wider S&P 1500, rising 37 per cent compared to the S&P’s 65 per cent.

显然，所选取的时间段也会影响结果。自2011年初（新兴市场股市见顶之前）以来，新兴市场销售指数的表现逊于标普1500指数这个大盘，前者上涨37%，后者上涨65%。

However the EM Sales index has strongly outperformed EM equities themselves (down 26 per cent) over this period. Mr Saldanha attributes this to their defensive nature and status as “quality growth” companies, which has shielded them from the wider sell-off.

然而，同期新兴市场销售指数的表现远远优于新兴市场股市（下跌26%）。萨尔达尼亚将此归因于该指数成份股的防御特性以及作为“高质量增长”公司的地位，这让它们免遭大盘抛售的连带影响。

Overall, though, given the relatively long sweep of the data, it would seem churlish to dismiss the startling performance of the EM Sales index as an aberration resulting from the judicious selection of the time period.

然而，总的来说，鉴于这些数据覆盖的时间跨度相对较长，认为该指数的惊人表现是巧妙选择时间段所导致的反常现象似乎有点吹毛求疵。

Some believe there are sound reasons for choosing to play EM consumer trends via developed world-listed stocks.

一些人认为，有很好的理由选择驾驭新兴市场消费趋势，而非投资在发达国家上市的股票。

“In general, we currently prefer to access equity investments such as emerging market consumer plays via developed market stocks,” says Mark Haefele, global chief investment officer at UBS Wealth Management.

瑞银财富管理(UBS Wealth Management)全球首席投资官马克•黑费勒(Mark Haefele)表示：“总体而言，我们在股票投资上现在更喜欢通过发达市场股票来投资新兴市场消费者板块。”

Mr Haefele favours companies that are likely to produce “durable earnings growth”, a characteristic he believes is more prevalent in developed markets at present.

黑费勒青睐那些有望保持“可持续盈利增长”的公司，他认为，目前这一特点在发达市场更为普遍。

That said, he argues that in sectors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, most of the gains from EM growth will accrue to stocks actually listed in the emerging world.

话虽如此，他辩称，在医疗、教育和基础设施等行业，新兴市场增长所带来的大部分利好将体现于真正在新兴市场上市的股票。

Patrick Mange, emerging markets strategist at BNP Paribas Investment Partners, argues that developed world-listed companies tend to be better managed, more transparent and have superior corporate governance to their EM peers.

法国巴黎银行投资伙伴公司(BNP Paribas Investment Partners)新兴市场策略师帕特里克•芒热(Patrick Mange)主张，在发达国家上市的公司往往管理更完善、更透明，而且有着比新兴市场公司更优越的公司治理。

For developed world investors, there can also be no currency risk, reducing the risk premium, he adds.

他补充称，对于发达国家投资者而言，这种投资还可能没有汇率风险，从而降低了风险溢价。

Despite his findings, Mr Saldanha is less convinced, however. He says that Neuberger Berman’s equity team view many of the stocks in the EM Sales index as “rather expensive ways to play emerging markets at the moment”.

尽管有这样的发现，但萨尔达尼亚本人并不那么确信。他表示，Neuberger Berman的股票团队将新兴市场销售指数的很多成份股视为“目前投资新兴市场颇为昂贵的方式”。

More broadly, he says that, in common with many other EM investors, he prefers to get “pure” EM exposure, rather than being “bogged down by developed world exposure where growth is probably slower”.

他表示，更广义地讲，与其他很多新兴市场投资者一样，他倾向于获得“纯粹”的新兴市场敞口，而不是“被那些增长可能更为缓慢的发达市场敞口套牢”。