
Setup in place for international equity outperformance
On a handful of occasions over the past 15 years, investors became excited about international equities, emboldened by brief spates of outperformance against the mighty S&P 500. And in all those cases, it faded quickly as S&P 'exceptionalism' reclaimed its spot at the top of the performance tables.
This wasn't always the case, as there have also been extended periods when EAFE or international equities outperformed the U.S. Now, with EAFE up about 13% so far in 2025 and the S&P 500 down over 3%, folks are talking international once again. Will this be yet another false signal, or is this cyclical dance finally changing tunes?
Comparing the U.S. equity market with EAFE is not as different as apples to oranges, but certainly to different kinds of apples. The U.S. market is skewed to more technology and many globally operating companies. Japan, too, has a lot of technology, but certainly more consumer discretionary and fewer financials. Europe has more financials, less technology. This does help provide some diversification, from different mixes and exposures.
So could we be entering a long period of international outperformance versus the U.S.? The setup is in place, but it has been in place for many years. Valuations naturally favour international, but that is usually the case given the sector differences and the valuations of those relative sectors.
That being said, the valuation spread was very extreme at the end of 2024 – a bit less so today. And it is not earnings growth, as estimates for 2025 have come down more outside the U.S. We have a hard time believing investors are banking on 2026 estimates at this point with so much uncertainty.
Probably more important than the above fundamentals is the starting points and relative changes. The U.S. dominated the 2010s thanks largely to technology megacaps. This received a boost following Covid, as U.S. policy was much more stimulative, both monetarily and fiscally. This helped the U.S. economy grow faster than most others, which were more restrained in their stimulus and spending.
This may be changing. The U.S. is beginning efforts to grapple with its deficit. Meanwhile, more and more international countries are starting to increase spending or spending plans. Add to this that the market has such high expectations for the U.S. economy and market, while much lower expectations for many international economies and markets. The bar is set pretty low in many places.
Most would agree that the European consumer is in very good shape. Japan is finally making progress on reforms to encourage more investor-friendly company behaviours. Add some negative sentiment around U.S. policy.
If the cycle has changed to favour international, the challenge for many portfolios will be a preponderance of U.S. equity overweights and subsequent international underweights. This isn't just at the client portfolio level. A common theme in multi-asset portfolios today is to rely on global equity managers for international exposure, but these days, 'global' is often just shorthand for 'mostly U.S.'
You actually have to go back a decade to find a time when non-U.S. equity made up the larger share of global equity products. Since then, the shift toward U.S. exposure has been steady and significant. Today, the median global equity manager in North America has roughly 60% of their portfolio in U.S. equities.
One could argue that due to the U.S. massively outperforming international markets over the past 15 years, the U.S. weight would naturally increase even if trimmed a bit along the way. The chart below shows the original region weight and applied market growth, which looks pretty similar to the changing global manager weights above. In fact, all these charts look similar to the global market cap charts over time.
But now we have to ask: Is this the right portfolio positioning for what lies ahead? Just because global market caps favour the U.S. more these days doesn't mean they're right. In fact, focusing too much on global market caps is literally backward-looking.
There's now more than $1.1 trillion invested in global equity mutual funds across North America. That's a massive pool of mostly active capital tilted toward a region that has already had a historic run. And while the past decade rewarded U.S.-heavy allocations, the next one may not. Valuations are elevated. Market leadership is narrow. And global monetary and economic conditions are diverging in ways we haven't seen in a very long time.
Final thoughts
Today, we are larger fans of international markets compared with U.S. equities. Valuations help a little, but more from a risk/reward perspective. The U.S. equity market is awesome, and it could outperform in the years to come. But after this relative run, plus the fact that it is possibly over-owned by investors, it would take even more exceptionalism to continue the dominance.
Japan and Europe are like fixer-uppers. Even minor improvements go a long way after underperforming for so long. And they're starting to make improvements, while one could argue the U.S. is doing the opposite.
Craig Basinger is the Chief Market Strategist at Purpose Investments Inc. and portfolio manager of several Purpose funds, including Purpose Tactical Thematic Fund. Brett Gustafson, Associate Portfolio Manager at Purpose Investments, contributed to this article.
Notes and disclaimer
Content copyright © 2025 by Purpose Investments Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part by any means without prior written permission is prohibited. This article first appeared on the ' Market Ethos ' page of the Purpose Investments' website. Used with permission.
Charts are sourced from Bloomberg unless otherwise noted.
The content of this document is for informational purposes only, and is not being provided in the context of an offering of any securities described herein, nor is it a recommendation or solicitation to buy, hold or sell any security. The information is not investment advice, nor is it tailored to the needs or circumstances of any investor. Information contained in this document is not, and under no circumstances is it to be construed as an offering memorandum, prospectus, advertisement or public offering of securities. No securities commission or similar regulatory authority has reviewed this document and any representation to the contrary is an offence. Information contained in this document is believed to be accurate and reliable, however, we cannot guarantee that it is complete or current at all times. The information provided is subject to change without notice.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with investment funds. Please read the prospectus before investing. If the securities are purchased or sold on a stock exchange, you may pay more or receive less than the current net asset value. Investment funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated. Certain statements in this document are forward-looking. Forward-looking statements ('FLS') are statements that are predictive in nature, depend on or refer to future events or conditions, or that include words such as 'may,' 'will,' 'should,' 'could,' 'expect,' 'anticipate,' intend,' 'plan,' 'believe,' 'estimate' or other similar expressions. Statements that look forward in time or include anything other than historical information are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results, actions or events could differ materially from those set forth in the FLS. FLS are not guarantees of future performance and are by their nature based on numerous assumptions. Although the FLS contained in this document are based upon what Purpose Investments and the portfolio manager believe to be reasonable assumptions, Purpose Investments and the portfolio manager cannot assure that actual results will be consistent with these FLS. The reader is cautioned to consider the FLS carefully and not to place undue reliance on the FLS. Unless required by applicable law, it is not undertaken, and specifically disclaimed, that there is any intention or obligation to update or revise FLS, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
If I Could Only Buy and Hold a Single Stock, This Would Be It.
Let's make this clear from the start: I would never recommend owning just one stock for the long haul. A proper nest egg needs some variety, either in a carefully assembled basket of diverse stocks or focused on a broad market-tracking exchange-traded fund (ETF). For the sake of argument, however, I could imagine buying some Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A)(NYSE: BRK.B) stock and just letting it roll. The usual suspects aren't diverse enough for this challenge I know, I know. You wanted me to double down on Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), whose stock has absolutely crushed the general market in the long run. Or I could have picked Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX), the media-streaming pioneer that's created most of my wealth so far and that might join the trillion-dollar market cap club in a few years. Perhaps you expected Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), with its unmatched five-year returns and huge long-term future in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry. These stocks sure tick a few of the right boxes, but none of them are as naturally diversified as Berkshire Hathaway. That's really what I'm looking for in a "single stock for all ages." Why my biggest winners don't make the cut I own all three of the suggested Berkshire alternatives above, by the way. Netflix Netflix was an early name in my portfolio, inspired by fellow Fool Rick Munarriz's in-depth analysis of the company in the mid-2000s. When Netflix went through the Qwikster-branded separation of DVD and streaming services, I doubled down on my investment at a fantastic price. That particular Netflix stake has gained 10,350% in less than 14 years. But that's just my favorite play on the future of digital media services. I would never dare to make Netflix my only holding, just in case somebody builds a better media-streaming mousetrap. Amazon I wish I had pounced on Amazon much earlier, like Motley Fool co-founders Tom and David Gardner did. But I dragged my feet, and watched the online bookstore become an e-commerce buffet with a highly profitable side of cloud computing services. My oldest Amazon investment is only up by 430% since January 2017. Still, Amazon only operates in a couple of business sectors. The company (and stock) could be vulnerable to a sudden sea change in cloud computing, possibly led by Microsoft 's (NASDAQ: MSFT) Windows Azure. And how well would Amazon's dominant e-commerce business perform if global rivals such as Alibaba (NYSE: BABA) or MercadoLibre (NASDAQ: MELI) found some traction in the American market? Amazon is not a one-trick pony, but the company should pick up a few more skills before entering this single-stock discussion. Nvidia I'm especially worried about Nvidia's long-term tenacity. The early leader in AI accelerator hardware could very well run into a superior alternative in the next few years. The risk only grows larger if you stretch the timeline out over decades. Rivals like Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ: AMD) and Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) control tiny slices of the AI chip opportunity so far, but that could change. The next market-defining AI winner could be some upstart I haven't heard of yet. Moreover, leading cloud computing experts such as Microsoft and Amazon already design AI accelerators of their own, hoping to meet their exact needs at a lower cost. Nvidia's big growth spurt might have a few years left in it. I'm just not convinced that the stock will continue to rise after that. My largest Nvidia purchase has posted a 780% gain since June 2022, but I cashed in on those paper gains and sold most of my Nvidia shares earlier this year. This pony needs to learn a few more tricks, too. Berkshire is the Swiss Army knife of stocks So diversity sets Berkshire apart from the biggest success stories of this era. Sure, Warren Buffett's stock-picking and wealth management expertise deserves tons of respect. But he is also known as a great mentor, and many of Berkshire's top-performing picks in recent years were added by Buffett's lieutenants. I expect the company to continue doing well when the Oracle of Omaha retires at the end of 2025. The stock is kind of like a carefully curated ETF. Berkshire Hathaway owns and operates 68 distinct companies these days. The names range from GEICO car insurance and Duracell batteries to Business Wire information services and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad. Berkshire dabbles in e-commerce (Oriental Trading Company) and clothing (Fruit of the Loom), not to mention home construction (Clayton Homes) and fast food (Dairy Queen). This business list is almost as diverse as the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) market index. And that's just Berkshire's in-house brands. The company also owns stock in about 40 public companies. The largest investments include a $60.7 billion stake in Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), a $45.1 billion position in American Express (NYSE: AXP), and a $28.5 billion holding of Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO). That's consumer electronics, financial services, and beverage distribution. Apple's gigantic presence may look risky, but the danger looks smaller when you also consider Berkshire's epic collection of fully owned businesses. Do you see a theme here? I do, but it's not a single industry. Berkshire is all about diversity, shielding the company and its investors against the temporary ups and downs in any one particular industry. Full disclosure: I don't own Berkshire (yet) I don't actually own any Berkshire Hathaway stock yet. I get my portfolio diversification kicks in other ways, with several dozen hand-picked stocks and a couple of broad index funds serving this purpose. That's arguably a mistake, since Berkshire's stock tends to outperform the S&P 500 in the long run, and I can't compete with the Buffett team's stock-picking skill. So if you're starting a new portfolio today, or just looking for an alternative to the common S&P 500 index funds, you should give Berkshire Hathaway a serious look. It's definitely a safer long-term bet than Nvidia, Netflix, or even Amazon. Should you invest $1,000 in Berkshire Hathaway right now? Before you buy stock in Berkshire Hathaway, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Berkshire Hathaway wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to171%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. American Express is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Anders Bylund has positions in Alibaba Group, Amazon, Intel, Netflix, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Advanced Micro Devices, Amazon, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Intel, MercadoLibre, Microsoft, Netflix, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends Alibaba Group and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft, short August 2025 $24 calls on Intel, and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
‘There's Still Time to Invest in Snowflake Stock,' Says Five-Star Analyst
Although Snowflake (SNOW) shares have already climbed over 35% this year, UBS believes that the software stock still has more room to grow. Following Snowflake's annual Summit in San Francisco, UBS upgraded the stock from Neutral to Buy and raised its price target from $210 to $265. Despite being late to the upgrade, analysts led by five-star rated Karl Keirstead said that Snowflake's performance has only started improving in the last few quarters, and that the broader AI-related investment cycle is just beginning. Confident Investing Starts Here: Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter Indeed, UBS noted that Snowflake is one of the companies benefiting from the need for 'AI-ready' data, along with Palantir (PLTR) and Databricks. The analysts also pointed out that more software companies like Salesforce (CRM), ServiceNow (NOW), and SAP (SAP) are moving into the data space, which they see as evidence of the growing demand for data. As a result, UBS believes that Snowflake investors haven't fully priced in this growth potential yet and that there's still time to invest before the full AI boom happens. Separately, Morgan Stanley kept its Equal-weight rating and $200 price target despite Snowflake's strengths in data security, ease of use, and multi-cloud capabilities. While the analysts led by five-star rated Keith Weiss praised the company's role in secure AI integration, they remain cautious about the stock's high valuation, which sits at about 55 times the expected free cash flow for 2026. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that Snowflake's expansion into data engineering and AI has significantly increased its market opportunity and might justify its premium valuation. Is SNOW a Good Buy Right Now? Overall, analysts have a Strong Buy consensus rating on SNOW stock based on 34 Buys, six Holds, and zero Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average SNOW price target of $225.03 per share implies 6.4% upside potential. See more SNOW analyst ratings


CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Trump says Elon Musk could face ‘serious consequences' if he backs Democratic candidates
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, from left, Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump and Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, attend a campaign event, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File) BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — U.S. President Donald Trump is not backing off his battle with Elon Musk, saying Saturday that he has no desire to repair their relationship and warning that his former ally and campaign benefactor could face 'serious consequences' if he tries to help Democrats in upcoming elections. Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker in a phone interview that he has no plans to make up with Musk. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is over, Trump responded, 'I would assume so, yeah.' 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Trump continued. 'You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him.' The U.S. president also issued a warning amid chatter that Musk could back Democratic lawmakers and candidates in the 2026 midterm elections. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC, though he declined to share what those consequences would be. Musk's businesses have many lucrative federal contracts. The president's latest comments suggest Musk is moving from close ally to a potential new target for Trump, who has aggressively wielded the powers of his office to crack down on critics and punish perceived enemies. As a major government contractor, Musk's businesses could be particularly vulnerable to retribution. The dramatic rupture between the president and the world's richest man began Thursday, with Musk's public criticism of Trump's 'big beautiful bill' pending on Capitol Hill. Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a 'disgusting abomination.' Trump and Musk began trading bitterly personal attacks on social media, sending the White House and GOP congressional leaders scrambling to assess the fallout. U.S. Vice President JD Vance, in an interview Friday, tried to downplay the feud. He said Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Trump, but tried to downplay it as an 'emotional guy' getting frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' Vance said. Other Republicans in recent days urged the two men to mend fences. Musk's torrent of social media posts attacking Trump came as the president portrayed him as disgruntled and 'CRAZY' and threatened to cut the government contracts held by his businesses. Musk, who runs electric vehicle maker Tesla, internet company Starlink and rocket company SpaceX, lambasted Trump's centerpiece tax cuts and spending bill but also suggested Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the president's association with infamous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. 'Look, it happens to everybody,' Vance said in the interview. 'I've flown off the handle way worse than Elon Musk did in the last 24 hours.' Vance made the comments in an interview with " manosphere" comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the U.S. Navy when he opened for Trump at a military base in Qatar. The vice president told Von that as Musk for days was calling on social media for Congress to kill Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' the president was 'getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon, but I think has been very restrained because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk.' 'I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine,' he added. Musk appeared by Saturday morning to have deleted his posts about Epstein. The interview was taped Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X, the social media network the billionaire owns. During the interview, Von showed the vice president Musk's claim that Trump's administration hasn't released all the records related to Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. Vance responded to that, saying, 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Vance said in response to another post shared by Musk calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance. 'It's totally insane. The president is doing a good job.' Vance called Musk an 'incredible entrepreneur,' and said that Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, which sought to cut government spending and laid off or pushed out thousands of workers, was 'really good.' The vice president also defended the bill that has drawn Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Trump's first term. The bill would slash spending but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by US$2.4 trillion over the decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'It's a good bill,' Vance said. 'It's not a perfect bill.' He also said it was ridiculous for some House Republicans who voted for the bill but later found parts objectionable to claim they hadn't had time to read it. Vance said the text had been available for weeks and said, 'the idea that people haven't had an opportunity to actually read it is ridiculous.' Elsewhere in the interview, Vance laughed as Von cracked jokes about famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass' sexuality. 'We're gonna talk to the Smithsonian about putting up an exhibit on that,' Vance joked. 'And Theo Von, you can be the narrator for this new understanding of the history of Frederick Douglass.' The podcaster also asked the vice president if he 'got high' on election night to celebrate Trump's victory. Vance laughed and joked that he wouldn't admit it if he did. 'I did not get high,' he then said. 'I did have a fair amount to drink that night.' The interview was taped in Nashville at a restaurant owned by musician Kid Rock, a Trump ally. Article by Michelle L. Price and Bill Barrow.