Resilient Fundamentals in Emerging Markets Debt
Emerging markets (EM) debt investors face headwinds in the last quarter of the year, thanks to monetary tightening, geopolitical tensions, energy crises,…
Emerging markets (EM) debt investors face headwinds in the last quarter of the year, thanks to monetary tightening, geopolitical tensions, energy crises, and economic weakness in China. But despite the uncertainty, we have a constructive medium-term view.
In the near term, EM debt fundamentals remain supportive despite less favorable fiscal and debt dynamics being driven by softer economic conditions. Bright spots include:
- High commodity prices in most EMs should support external accounts.
- Because EM central banks preemptively hiked interest rates, real rates in EMs are now significantly higher than they are in advanced economies, supporting local currencies.
- In its latest world economic outlook, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected that economic growth in EMs would be 3.7% in 2023. This is the same level as 2022, but 2.6 percentage points higher than the projected growth in advanced economies. This widens the growth differential further in EM’s favor.
While there are some pockets of fundamental weaknesses, especially among certain energy- and food-importing countries, we believe the asset class is broadly well positioned to withstand a period of weaker global growth.
In our opinion, EM debt valuations remain compelling on both an absolute and relative basis, with spreads remaining wider than their historical levels.
EM sovereign high-yield spreads appear especially compelling, particularly relative to U.S. high-yield. In the distressed credit space, we believe current prices are overestimating the probability of credit events and underestimating potential restructuring and recovery values.
We believe current valuations overcompensate investors for credit risks and volatility.
Overall, we believe current valuations overcompensate investors for credit risks and volatility, and EM debt currently offers attractive value to investors with a medium- to long-term horizon and who have a willingness to tolerate a period of higher volatility.
Tough Technical Conditions
Technical conditions remain the weakest element of the investment case for EM debt. On the bright side, there is limited scope for new debt issuance, significantly reduced investor positioning, and high investor cash levels. That said, continued outflows from dedicated EM debt portfolios, high market volatility, and low liquidity offset the more positive technical indicators.
Potential Strategic Opportunities
We have not changed the strategic positioning of the portfolios materially. We continue to favor high-yield issuers over high-grade issuers, and remain strategically overweight in higher-yielding, frontier markets, where we believe the risk premia continue to overcompensate investors for credit risk and volatility.
However, we still see scope for fundamental differentiation among countries. We prefer commodity-exporting countries, especially in the energy space, but remain cautious about countries with strong trade and financial links to Russia. We also remain cautious about countries with strong dependence on food and energy imports.
We also continue to see opportunities in select distressed debt positions, where we believe bond prices do not reflect realistic assumptions for default risk and recovery values.
Lastly, we continue to prefer countries with easier access to financing, especially those that have strong relationships with multilateral and bilateral lenders.
In EM corporate credit, we believe a combination of differentiated credit fundamental drivers, favorable supply technical conditions, and attractive absolute valuations should continue to provide ample investment opportunities. But given uncertainty in the near term, we are focusing on issuers with low refinancing needs and robust balance sheets.
In Latin America, our positions are diversified across oil and gas; technology, media, and telecommunications (TMT); utilities, and financials. In Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA), our positions are diversified across financials; oil and gas; metals and mining; and real estate. In Asia, our positions are diversified across oil and gas; financials; industrials; metals and mining; utilities; and real estate.
Our highest-conviction overweight and underweight positions are shown in the table below.
In the high-beta bucket, our largest overweight positions are in Egypt, Argentina, and Ghana, and our largest underweight positions are in Honduras, Pakistan, and Papua New Guinea.
Egypt (overweight): We remain overweight Egyptian credit on the belief that external financing needs will be met with support from partners in the Middle East and ultimately the IMF.
Argentina (overweight): Overall, we remain bearish about Argentine fundamentals. However, we believe sovereign bonds are priced below their eventual recovery value, providing potential value. We favor bonds on the curve with stronger indenture protections. Our overweight is concentrated in higher-quality provincial issuers. We have also purchased credit default swap (CDS) protection (net) to hedge against a default by the Argentine government.
Ghana (overweight): Ghanaian bonds are priced low relative to our assessment of their default probability and possible losses if default occurs—i.e., we believe we are being compensated for the risks.
We decreased our position in Honduras during a period of outperformance in July.
Honduras (underweight): We decreased our position in Honduras during a period of outperformance in July. Although Honduras does have the capacity to service its debt, fundamentals have been declining. The electricity sector, in particular, has been mismanaged, creating fiscal challenges. The new government has threatened repudiation of its debt obligations, which gives us some concerns about Honduras’s willingness to pay. Given valuations and the small chance of debt repudiation, we think there is better value elsewhere.
Pakistan (underweight): Risks remain regarding repayment and ongoing political turmoil, and the aftermath of the flood crisis has made the country even more vulnerable to external shocks.
Papua New Guinea (underweight): We believe a low foreign exchange reserves base and a weak fiscal position are key reasons to avoid investing in Papua New Guinea, although the country’s debt maturity profile is well spaced out (mostly to bilaterally lenders).
In the medium-beta bucket, our largest overweight positions are in Romania, Columbia, and Ivory Coast, and our largest underweight positions are in Brazil, Bahrain, and Jamaica.
Romania (overweight): We believe euro-denominated Romanian bonds are inexpensive relative to their U.S.-dollar-denominated equivalents given that much of the heavy issuance forecast in euro-denominated debt is behind us for the year and valuations remain attractive relative to regional peers.
Colombia (overweight): We find valuations attractive. Although President Gustavo Petro’s rhetoric has turned slightly more radical, we believe strong institutional checks remain intact. Petro has a majority in congress, but we believe the majority is thin, and not all parties in coalition with him would actually vote for more radical policies. We still believe that Petro will have to lead from the center in order to have a successful presidency.
Ivory Coast (overweight): We find valuations attractive in the country’s long-dated euro-denominated bonds and believe fundamentals remain relatively supportive.
Although Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s rhetoric has turned slightly more radical, we believe strong institutional checks remain intact.
Brazil (underweight): While currently underweight, we may pivot depending on the outlook for the second round of the country’s presidential election. We viewed investing in Brazil as an asymmetric proposition, as we thought there was a high probability of a surprise, and over the longer term Brazil may be in a position to perform well. Despite the mediocre macro outlook, Brazil does not suffer from many of the geopolitical and global headwinds that may impact other EM countries.
Bahrain (underweight): We are underweight Bahrain, predominantly based on valuation metrics. The country continues to hold high debt levels despite high energy prices and an improved fiscal consolidation effort.
Jamaica (underweight): We reduced risk in Jamaica during the quarter as valuations became more stretched. Jamaica has continued to implement an impressive fiscal consolidation agenda, even following the pandemic. When it comes to the ratio of debt to gross domestic product (GDP), Jamaica has kicked the can down the road, driven by pandemic impacts. Still, fiscal discipline has resulted in continued fundamental improvement. However, we believed market expectations were too high, and high dollar prices for many Jamaican bonds led us to believe there is a more efficient allocation of capital elsewhere in the EM universe.
In the low-beta bucket, our largest overweight positions are in Indonesia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Bermuda, and our largest underweight positions are in Malaysia, Uruguay, and China.
Indonesia (overweight): Indonesia’s improving terms of trades and structural reforms—designed to capture opportunities from green projects and supply chains—justified an overweight for a potential credit upgrade in the future.
UAE (overweight): Valuations are attractive in higher-yielding emirates such as Dubai and Sharjah.
Bermuda (overweight): We favor valuations and fundamentals over other low-beta sovereigns. Bermuda has similar valuations to Peru and Chile but a stronger fundamental trajectory as there is less institutional uncertainty in Bermuda.
We believe we could see outperformance of Chinese corporates over sovereign bonds, so we are overweight the former and underweight the latter.
Malaysia (underweight): We find valuations unappealing, particularly in the longer-duration sovereign and quasi-sovereign bonds.
Uruguay (underweight): Fundamentals in Uruguay remain strong, but bonds have compressed materially since the pandemic, offering limited potential spread tightening. Valuations are generally unappealing, in our opinion.
China (underweight): With COVID-related restrictions remaining tight and the housing crisis far from over, we believe the Chinese economy’s growth will remain subpar despite an expected rise in infrastructure spending. This could result in outperformance of Chinese corporates over sovereign bonds, so we are overweight the former and underweight the latter.
Marco Ruijer, CFA, is a portfolio manager on William Blair’s emerging markets debt (EMD) team.
Want more insights on the economy and investment landscape? Subscribe to our blog.
The post Resilient Fundamentals in Emerging Markets Debt appeared first on William Blair.default pandemic economic growth global growth bonds emerging markets real estate currencies euro congress spread gdp recovery interest rates oil africa brazil europe russia china
The Great Silence
The Great Silence
Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via DailyReckoning.com,
The kids are two years behind in education. Inflation still rages. White-collar…
Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via DailyReckoning.com,
The kids are two years behind in education. Inflation still rages. White-collar jobs are disappearing thanks to the reversal of Fed policy. Household finances are a wreck. The medical industry is in upheaval. Trust in government has never been lower.
Major media too is discredited. Young people are dying at levels never seen. Populations are still on the move from lockdown states to where it is less likely. Surveillance is everywhere, and so is political persecution. Public health is in a disastrous state, with substance abuse and obesity all at new records.
Each one of these, and many more besides, are continued fallout from the pandemic response that began in March 2020. And yet here we are 38 months later and we still don’t have honesty or truth about the experience.
Officials have resigned, politicians have tumbled out of office and lifetime civil servants have departed their posts, but they don’t cite the great disaster as the excuse. There is always some other reason.
This is the period of the great silence. We’ve all noticed it. The stories in the press recounting all the above are conventionally scrupulous about naming the pandemic response much less naming the individuals responsible.
Maybe there is a Freudian explanation: things so obviously terrible and in such recent memory are too painful to mentally process, so we just pretend it didn’t happen. Plenty in power like this solution.
Everyone in a position of influence knows the rules. Don’t talk about the lockdowns. Don’t talk about the mask mandates. Don’t talk about the vaccine mandates that proved useless and damaging and led to millions of professional upheavals.
Don’t talk about the economics of it. Don’t talk about collateral damage. When the topic comes up, just say, “We did the best we could with the knowledge we had,” even if that is an obvious lie.
Above all, don’t seek justice.
Where’s the National Commission?
There is this document intended to be the “Warren Commission” of COVID slapped together by the old gangsters who advocated for lockdowns. It is called Lessons from the Covid War: An Investigative Report.
The authors are people like Michael Callahan (Massachusetts General Hospital), Gary Edson (former deputy national security adviser), Richard Hatchett (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), Marc Lipsitch (Harvard University), Carter Mecher (Veterans Affairs), and Rajeev Venkayya (former Gates Foundation and now Aerium Therapeutics).
If you have been following this disaster, you might know at least some of the names. Years before 2020, they were pushing lockdowns as the solution for infectious disease. Some claim credit for having invented pandemic planning. The years 2020–2022 were their experiment.
As it was ongoing, they became media stars, pushing compliance, condemning as disinformation and misinformation anyone who disagreed with them. They were at the heart of the coup d’etat, as engineers or champions of it, that replaced representative democracy with quasi-martial law run by the administrative state.
The first sentence of the report is a complaint:
We were supposed to lay the groundwork for a National COVID Commission. The COVID Crisis Group formed at the beginning of 2021, one year into the pandemic. We thought the U.S. government would soon create or facilitate a commission to study the biggest global crisis so far in the 21st century. It has not.
That is true. There is no National COVID Commission. You know why? Because they could never get away with it, not with legions of experts and passionate citizens who wouldn’t tolerate a coverup.
The public anger is too intense. Lawmakers would be flooded with emails, phone calls and daily expressions of disgust. It would be a disaster. An honest commission would demand answers that the ruling class is not prepared to give. An “official commission” perpetuating a bunch of baloney would be dead on arrival.
This by itself is a huge victory and a tribute to indefatigable critics.
‘We Didn’t Crack Down Hard Enough’
Instead, the “COVID Crisis Group” met with funding from the Rockefeller and Charles Koch foundations and slapped together this report. Despite being celebrated as definitive by The New York Times and The Washington Post, it has mostly had no impact at all.
It is far from obtaining the status of being some kind of canonical assessment. It reads like they were on deadline, fed up, typed lots of words and called it a day.
Of course it is whitewash.
It begins with a bang to denounce the U.S. policy response: “Our institutions did not meet the moment. They did not have adequate practical strategies or capabilities to prevent, to warn, to defend their communities or fight back in a coordinated way, in the United States and globally.”
Mistakes were made, as they say.
Of course the upshot of this kvetching is not to criticize what Justice Neil Gorsuch calls “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.” They hardly mention those at all.
Instead they conclude that the U.S. should have surveilled more, locked down sooner (“We believe that on Jan. 28 the U.S. government should have started mobilizing for a possible COVID war”), directed more funds to this agency rather than that and centralized the response so that rogue states like South Dakota and Florida could not evade centralized authoritarian diktats next time.
The authors propose a series of lessons that are anodyne, bloodless and carefully crafted to be more-or-less true but ultimately structured to minimize the sheer radicalism and destructiveness of what they favored and did. The lessons are clichés such as we need “not just goals but road maps,” and next time we need more “situation awareness.”
There is no new information in the book that I could find, unless something is hidden therein that escaped my notice. It’s more interesting for what it does not say. Some words that never appear in the text: Sweden, ivermectin, ventilators, remdesivir and myocarditis.
‘Look, Lockdowns and Mandates Worked!’
Perhaps this gives you a sense of the book and its mission. And on matters of the lockdowns, readers are forced to endure claims such as “all of New England — Massachusetts, the city of Boston, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine — seem to us to have done relatively well, including their ad hoc crisis management setups.”
Oh really! Boston destroyed thousands of small businesses and imposed vaccine passports, closed churches, persecuted people for holding house parties, and imposed travel restrictions. There is a reason why the authors don’t elaborate on such preposterous claims. They are simply unsustainable.
One amusing feature seems to me to be a foreshadowing of what is coming. They throw Anthony Fauci under the bus with sniffy dismissals: “Fauci was vulnerable to some attacks because he tried to cover the waterfront in briefing the press and public, stretching beyond his core expertise—and sometimes it showed.”
“Trump Was a Comorbidity”
This is very likely the future. At some point, Fauci will be scapegoated for the whole disaster. He will be assigned to take the fall for what is really the failure of the national security arm of the administrative bureaucracy, which in fact took charge of all rule-making from March 13, 2020, onward, along with their intellectual cheerleaders. The public health people were just there to provide cover.
Curious about the political bias of the book? It is summed up in this passing statement: “Trump was a comorbidity.”
Oh how highbrow! How clever! No political bias here!
Maybe this book by the Covid Crisis Group hopes to be the last word. This will never happen. We are only at the beginning of this. As the economic, social, cultural, and political problems mount, it will become impossible to ignore the incredibly obvious.
The masters of lockdowns are influential and well-connected but not even they can invent their own reality.
Pandemic babies’ developmental milestones: Not as bad as we feared, but not as good as before
Research findings are mostly reassuring for parents — despite the disruptions to nearly every aspect of life during the COVID-19 pandemic, most children…
The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions that threatened children’s healthy development.
Scientists and physicians raised concerns early in the pandemic, pointing out that increased parental stress, COVID infections, reduced interactions with other babies and adults and changes to health care could affect child development. Furthermore, some children could be especially vulnerable to the pandemic circumstances.
With these concerns in mind, we started a longitudinal study of pregnant Canadians to understand how pandemic stressors might influence later child development.
Our initial findings were alarming: the rates of anxiety and depression among pregnant individuals were two to four times higher during the early phase of the pandemic compared to numerous pregnancy studies prior to the pandemic. This worrisome increase in mental health problems was seen worldwide.
Impact on children’s development
To determine how the pandemic might be affecting children’s development, we measured developmental milestones in 3,742 12-month-old infants born during the first 18 months of the pandemic. We then compared these infants to a similar group of 2,898 Canadian infants born between 2015 and 2018.
The study evaluated developmental milestones using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3. The ASQ-3 is a parent report of child behaviour that can help identify children at risk of developmental delays in five separate domains: Communication, Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Personal-Social and Problem Solving.
In a study to be published in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, we found that most children born during the pandemic were doing fine, with almost 90 per cent meeting their key developmental milestones in each area. This should be reassuring for parents, caregivers and communities, because it suggests that most children are developing normally despite adverse early circumstances.
However, a slightly higher proportion of children born during the pandemic were at risk of developmental delay in Communication, Gross Motor and Personal-Social domains, compared to children born before the pandemic. Our findings are consistent with prior smaller studies showing only small increases in the risk for poor verbal, motor and cognitive performance among 12-month-old infants born during the pandemic.
The largest effects we observed were in the Communication and Personal-Social domains. Infants born during the pandemic were almost twice as likely to score below cutoffs compared to pre-pandemic infants.
This represents an increase of about one to two additional children in 100 who are at risk, but highlights some potentially concerning effects of the pandemic on early child development. Across Canada, this could result in service demands for 20,000-40,000 additional preschool children.
Although small in absolute terms, these increases have important implications, since already limited resources will need to increase to meet the needs of more children. Certainly, it will be important to continue monitoring infants/children born during the pandemic to determine how long-lasting these effects are.
Reassuringly, early interventions can be highly effective for children who are struggling.
Concerns about child development
Parents should be mostly reassured by these findings. Despite the disruptions to nearly every aspect of life during the pandemic, the majority of children continue to show healthy development. Parents with concerns about their child’s development may find these suggestions helpful:
Provide your child with many opportunities for one-on-one interaction with a caring and responsive adult. The Harvard Center on the Developing Child describes the back-and-forth interactions that form the key processes of child development as “serve and return.”
Believe in “ordinary magic.” This is the phrase that child development expert Ann Masten uses to describe how resilience emerges from ordinary, everyday processes and interactions. Children develop resilience when they have access to the right environments, the right relationships and the right chances to be able to safely explore themselves and the world around them.
Talk and sing with your child. Engaging an infant in conversation or song (even a pre-verbal infant) is a powerful way to encourage language learning.
There is a wide range of development that is considered “normal.” It is okay for your child to be at a different stage than other children their age, as long as your child is still showing signs of development.
If you are concerned about your child’s development after some time of monitoring, discuss your concerns with a qualified health professional to determine if further investigation is needed.
Overall, the findings of our study (and others) suggest that the effects of the pandemic on infant development (at least to one year of age) have not been as bad as we feared. However, a greater number of children will likely require further evaluation and support compared to pre-pandemic.
Gerald Giesbrecht receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation.
Catherine Lebel receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Brain Canada, the Azrieli Foundation, Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation, and the Canada Research Chairs program.
Lianne Tomfohr-Madsen receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Brain Canada, Calgary Health Trust, the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation and the Weston Foundation.depression pandemic covid-19 canada alberta
Nasdaq statistics in 2023
The Nasdaq is the world’s largest electronic stock exchange and second-largest stock exchange globally in terms of market capitalization behind the New…
The Nasdaq is the world’s largest electronic stock exchange and second-largest stock exchange globally in terms of market capitalization behind the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). It was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in New York City. The Nasdaq stock exchange lists over 3,500 companies, including many of the world’s leading technology companies.
The Nasdaq Composite Index, which is the largest index on the Nasdaq, measures all domestic and international common type stocks. The market-capitalization-weighted index is the second-largest stock market index in the world, after the S&P 500.
In terms of performance, Nasdaq stocks have often outperformed the broader stock market, with the Nasdaq 100 doing better than the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average in recent years.
Here is a summary of key Nasdaq stocks statistics for 2023.
- More than 3,500 companies are listed on Nasdaq.
- Nasdaq’s listed companies have a total market capitalization of $25.3 trillion.
- Over 4.3 billion shares are traded daily on the Nasdaq exchange.
- Technology stocks make up more than half of companies in the Nasdaq Composite.
- The Nasdaq 100 index comprises the largest 100 companies traded on the Nasdaq, with nearly 60% being in the tech sector.
Nasdaq stocks: market summary
1.There are over 3,500 companies listed on Nasdaq
More than 3,500 companies are listed on the NASDAQ stock market. According to this FactSheet by Nasdaq, these companies represent a wide variety of industries, including technology, healthcare, and financial services.
2. The market capitalization of the nasdaq stock market is $25.3 trillion
The total market capitalization of all Nasdaq stocks is $25.3 trillion (as of May 29, 2023). This is the second-largest market capitalization in the stock exchange industry, only behind the NYSE. Compared in terms of growth, the Nasdaq shows a faster pace since January 2018, when it had a market cap of about $11 trillion. The NYSE had a market cap of $23 trillion at the time.
3. Over $200 billion worth of stocks trade on Nasdaq daily
In 2023, an average of over $200 billion worth of stocks were traded on Nasdaq daily, with $290 billion traded on 25 May 2023.
4. An average of 4.3 billion shares are traded daily on Nasdaq
According to daily market data for Nasdaq, an average of 4.3 billion shares in volume are traded daily on the Nasdaq exchange.
5. There are over 1000 international stocks listed on the Nasdaq
There are a total of 1,000 foreign companies listed on the Nasdaq stock market. These companies represent a wide variety of countries, including China, India, and Japan.
Nasdaq markets and indices stats
6. Nasdaq operates 29 markets, a clearinghouse, and 5 central securities depositories
The Nasdaq’s operations encompass 29 markets for stocks, bonds, derivatives and commodities. It also operates a clearinghouse and five central securities depositories.
7. Nasdaq’s trading technology is used by over 100 exchanges globally
Nasdaq’s growth as a leading electronic stock exchange has seen its proprietary trading technology deployed by 100 exchanges across 50 countries.
8. Nasdaq trades under the ticker NDAQ and part of the S&P 500 since 2008
The Nasdaq Inc stock trades under the symbol NDAQ on the Nasdaq exchange. The company has also been a component of the S&P 500 Index since 2008.
9. The Nasdaq has two major indexes
Nasdaq has two major indexes that track the performance of Nasdaq stocks daily. There’s the Nasdaq Composite and the Nasdaq 100. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite tracks most securities on the Nasdaq exchange (except for mutual funds, preferred stocks, and derivatives).
10. More than half of Nasdaq Composite stocks are tech companies
Tech stocks account for 52% of the total market weight of Nasdaq Composite, with 457 tech companies currently making up the index. Consumer Discretionary is next with about 18% and 450 stocks while healthcare is the third largest with 9% and 1,078 companies.
11. About 6 out of 10 companies in Nasdaq 100 are tech stocks
Nearly 60%, or approximately six out of every 10 of the companies that make up the Nasdaq 100 are in the technology sector.
12. Apple is the top stock by market capitalization in the Nasdaq Composite
The top 3 components on the Nasdaq Composite are Apple, Microsoft and Amazon with 13.2%, 10.87% and 5.36% respectively. Nvidia, Tesla, Alphabet and Meta Platforms are in the top 10. Apple has a market capitalization of $2.76 trillion.
Nasdaq IPOs and ETFs
13. A total of 156 IPOs went live on Nasdaq in 2022
There were a total of 156 IPOs on the NASDAQ stock market in 2022. According to market details the exchange’s website, there were also 29 exchange transfers.
14. IPOs on Nasdaq raised $2.1 billion in Q1, 2023
IPOs statistics show the Nasdaq attracted $2.1 billion in new listings in the first quarter of 2023, making the stock exchange the fourth largest in Q1.
15. The Nasdaq also lists more than 2,300 ETFs
There are a total of 2,300 etf listings on the Nasdaq stock market. These etfs track a wide variety of asset classes, including stocks, bonds, and commodities.
Nasdaq stocks: performance, key milestones and facts
16. The Nasdaq Composite stocks are 24% up year-to-date
As of May 2023, the Nasdaq Composite has returned over 24%, with gains in the past month nearly at 7%.
17. The Nasdaq Composite’s YTD return is higher than that of the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average
This Nasdaq statistic will surprise investors, but the 24% year-to-date returns for the Nasdaq Composite index are higher than the 9.97% for the S&P 500 and -0.13% for the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
18. Nasdaq-100 ‘s YTD and 1-Year returns are 13% and 32% respectively
Over the past year, the Nasdaq-100 Index has returned roughly 13% after most stocks dipped in 2022 amid economic and geopolitical headwinds headlined by rising inflation and the Russia-Ukraine war. However, the index is 32% up so far (as of May 29, 2023).
19. NVIDIA, Meta and Tesla are the best performing Nasdaq stocks in 2023 so far
Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) is the best performing mega cap on Nasdaq with 172% YTD return so far. It was followed by Meta (NASDAQ:META) and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), up 110% and 78%, respectively. Nvidia’s stock exploded in May as the company highlighted major revenue gains in coming quarters due to demand for AI-powered chips.
20. Nasdaq-100 Index stocks have added just 101% in five years
Over a 5-year time frame, the Nasdaq-100 Index has yielded a positive return of 101%. The period with the sharpest climb for the index in the last five years was between March 2020 and November 2021.
21. Nasdaq-100 Index’s 10-year return is about 358%
The NASDAQ-100 Index has returned +358.37% over a 10-year period and an impressive +3,088% since May 1995.
22. Nasdaq Composite stocks have returned about 71% in the past five years
Nasdaq statistics over the past five years show that the Nasdaq Composite Index has gained 71% in that period and 285% over the past 10 years. Since 1983 (40 years), the index has gained by over 4,000%. This suggests that investing over extended time frames can come with considerable returns on investments.
23. Nasdaq’s largest point increase: 760.97 points
On October 11, 2022, the Nasdaq Composite witnessed an unprecedented positivity to record a historic surge. The index closed a staggering 760.97 points higher, marking its largest ever single-day points increase.
24. The Nasdaq Composite declined 13.3% in April 2022, its worst monthly performance since October 2008
After notching its all-time high in November 2021, the Nasdaq Composite declined sharply by 23%. This included a 13.3% dip in April 2022 that was the index’s worst monthly return since October 2008. At the time, it had fallen 17.4% as the global financial crisis raged.
25. The largest single-day points decrease for Nasdaq Composite was 970.28 points
The Nasdaq Composite experienced its most substantial single-day points drop on March 16, 2020. Amid the global panic due to the covid-19 pandemic, the index plummeted by 970.28 points.
26. Nasdaq’s highest daily trading volume was over 12 billion trades
January 27, 2021, stands as a historic day for Nasdaq in terms of trading volume. On this day, the total trading volume reached a record-breaking 12,030,107,207 trades.
The Nasdaq stock market is currently one of the most important stock exchanges in the world. It is home to a wide variety of companies, lists thousands of companies and its indexes have outperformed the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average in recent years.
The strong performance of the Nasdaq stock market is due to a number of factors, including the growth of the technology and healthcare sectors. This sees the Nasdaq Composite Index up over 24% year-to-date.
In terms of investment, the Nasdaq is a popular choice for investors who are looking for exposure to growth stocks and international exposure as it lists over 1000 companies from more than 100 countries.
The post Nasdaq statistics in 2023 appeared first on Invezz.bonds pandemic covid-19 dow jones sp 500 nasdaq stocks etf commodities india japan russia ukraine china
‘The Official Truth’: The End Of Free Speech That Will End America
President Biden & House Speaker Kevin McCarthy Agree On Tentative Debt Deal To Avert Default
In This “Age of Funemployment,” Is a Recession Possible?
Gaslighting: The American People Are Trapped In A Textbook Abusive Relationship
Costco Shares Some Really Good News For Shoppers
Costco Tells Americans the Truth About Inflation and Price Increases
‘Kevin Caved’: McCarthy Savaged Over Debt Ceiling Deal
“Hard Pass”: Here’s What’s In The Debt Ceiling Deal Republicans Are About To Nuke
Nasdaq statistics in 2023
Under Pressure From Fat Activists, NYC Bans Weight Discrimination
International22 hours ago
‘The Official Truth’: The End Of Free Speech That Will End America
Uncategorized12 hours ago
U.S. Breakeven Inflation Comments
Government2 hours ago
Gaslighting: The American People Are Trapped In A Textbook Abusive Relationship
International9 hours ago
Nasdaq statistics in 2023
International24 hours ago
Never Short a Dull Market; AI is Sexy, But Everyone Hates Oil
Government14 hours ago
Zero Young Healthy Individuals Died Of COVID-19, Israeli Data Show
Spread & Containment13 hours ago
Kids missing school: Why it’s happening — and how to stop it
International11 hours ago
Graham Criticizes Defense Spending In Debt Ceiling Deal: “Biggest Winner Of Biden Defense Budget Is China”