Pakistan Beats India, BRICs in Market Returns

[RiazHaq]

Karachi shares market significantly outperformed Mumbai in the last ten years. But this fact is not enough to get any positive attention from Fareed Zakaria, India's best-known cheerleader in the West.

As expected, Fareed Zakaria's discussion of "The Rise of the Rest" sings praises of the BRIC nations, particularly mentioning his native India in the most glowing terms. There is nothing wrong with that, except that Zakaria omits any positive mention of India's neighbor Pakistan in the context of economic performance in the decade of 1999-2009, and chooses to strike familiar themes of "Islamic jihadists" and "terrorism" when he does make any references to Pakistan.

What Zakaria has omitted is the story of the extraordinary returns Pakistan has produced for investors. Pakistan's key share index KSE-100 was just over 1000 points at the end of 1999, and it closed at over 9727.40 on Dec 31, 2009. During the same period, Mumbai Sensex index moved from just over 5000 points to close at 17,464.81. If you had invested $100 in KSE-100 stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, you'd have over $900 today, while $100 invested in the Mumbai's Sensex stocks would be worth $274. Investment of $100 in emerging-market stocks in general on Dec. 31, 1999, would get you about $262 today, while $100 invested in the S&P500 would be worth $91.

Haq's Musings: Karachi Tops Mumbai in Stock Performance

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

 

[Spitfighter]

^^ Is that from your blog?

 

[RobbieS]

Though I must say that stock market growth is not the only indicator of economic growth but one amongst many, still a 900% return over a 10 year period is commendable.

I think its fair to say that Pakistan's achievements of the past decade often get overlooked by experts. News of its recent economic growth gets drowned out amongst drone attacks and suicide bombers. I believe the Pakistani media should play a larger role in highlighting positive stories coming out of Pakistan.

 

[Developereo]

As expected, Fareed Zakaria's discussion of "The Rise of the Rest" sings praises of the BRIC nations, particularly mentioning his native India in the most glowing terms.

Zakaria is the poster child of affirmative action (political correctness). Devoid of any talent, he is on CNN and Newsweek purely to showcase 'diversity' and to help them gain market share in India

His commentaries are always lacking in any original thought or analysis, merely parroting what everybody else is saying, and his pathetic attempts to portray his native India as China's equal are a constant source of amusement, especially to the Chinese audience.

One of the most egregious moments on his show was when he and Shashi Tharoor were grinning from ear to ear while discussing suicide bombings in Pakistan which killed dozens of innocent civilains. Don't expect him (or anybody else in the Western media) to mention any positive news about Pakistan.

 

[naved_kam]

Karachi shares market significantly outperformed Mumbai in the last ten years. But this fact is not enough to get any positive attention from Fareed Zakaria, India's best-known cheerleader in the West.

As expected, Fareed Zakaria's discussion of "The Rise of the Rest" sings praises of the BRIC nations, particularly mentioning his native India in the most glowing terms. There is nothing wrong with that, except that Zakaria omits any positive mention of India's neighbor Pakistan in the context of economic performance in the decade of 1999-2009, and chooses to strike familiar themes of "Islamic jihadists" and "terrorism" when he does make any references to Pakistan.

What Zakaria has omitted is the story of the extraordinary returns Pakistan has produced for investors. Pakistan's key share index KSE-100 was just over 1000 points at the end of 1999, and it closed at over 9727.40 on Dec 31, 2009. During the same period, Mumbai Sensex index moved from just over 5000 points to close at 17,464.81. If you had invested $100 in KSE-100 stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, you'd have over $900 today, while $100 invested in the Mumbai's Sensex stocks would be worth $274. Investment of $100 in emerging-market stocks in general on Dec. 31, 1999, would get you about $262 today, while $100 invested in the S&P500 would be worth $91.

Haq's Musings: Karachi Tops Mumbai in Stock Performance

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

Hmmmm....... and your thoughts about invoking the floor and the trading suspension from August to December 2008?? Truly shows the confidence that the FIIs and DIIs had in the market, isn't it. In this scenario, the index performance is in no way indicative of the portfolio erosion of the retail investors.

But then, going by your earlier muzzzzings, the temptation to pick and quote selectively is too strong for you.....

 

[dvk1982]

His commentaries are always lacking in any original thought or analysis, merely parroting what everybody else is saying, and his pathetic attempts to portray his native India as China's equal are a constant source of amusement, especially to the Chinese audience.

Hmm, since u disagree, he has nothing original !! for u guys if sth contradicts , is fit for nothing and only loosers get into CNN.. ohh forgot whats the best news media if we discount the likes of CNN, BBC, etc ? may be u can name some Chinese and pakistanis !!!

He graduated from Ivey league and isn't one of those who get through just becoz of their parents status. i dont know what else have u heard from him but i got the opportunity to hear some of his speeches on drug abuse, trafficking and others. Some made gud sense..

Don't expect him (or anybody else in the Western media) to mention any positive news about Pakistan.

Now u may be true that he is biased but u implied or at least i felt that way - he is parroting and has no idea what he is talking abt...

P.S
One major mistake when we talk abt returns are comparing just absolute returns and neglecting "risk adjusted returns". To give u an example on any gud day, western worlds return will almost be lower than developing world's comparable day or year but that doesn't discourage investors becoz risk associate with each basis point return has to be considered too.

 

[Developereo]

Hmm, since u disagree, he has nothing original !! for u guys if sth contradicts , is fit for nothing and only loosers get into CNN.. ohh forgot whats the best news media if we discount the likes of CNN, BBC, etc ? may be u can name some Chinese and pakistanis !!!

Chinese and Pakistani media is 1000 times better than the Bollywood tripe that passes for Indian media. Seriously.

In any case, the media outlets want eyeballs. CNN hired Fareed Zakaria primarily to try and capture a particular demographic. The clearest indication is the time slot for his show. It is timed for prime-time in India, not the US.

This happens all the time in business. All media works that way.

One major mistake when we talk abt returns are comparing just absolute returns and neglecting "risk adjusted returns". To give u an example on any gud day, western worlds return will almost be lower than developing world's comparable day or year but that doesn't discourage investors becoz risk associate with each basis point return has to be considered too.

The stock market in Pakistan, or anywhere, provides returns based on performance. It is the investor who takes the risk, not the market.

In any case, your point only strengthens the case for investment in Pakistan because, despite all the risk, the rewards are clearly there.

and in case u just woke up and didn't notice west is just coming to terms with one of the greatest recessions and Liquidity crisis in recent times !! well FDI investments in Nov increased yoy (dont have the source, just google)

According to the Indian government, most of India's FDI comes from Mauritius (44&#37 which has been relatively unaffected by the global crisis.

it was so easy for u to pick some top old story and throw at us !!??

"On a cumulative basis, the FDI inflows remained almost flat at $19.38 billion in April-November 2009 compared with $19.79 billion in the year-ago period". - The Hindu Business Line : FDI inflows soar 60% in Nov at $1.74 b

just 2 +ve months removed the -22% deficiency but can ur selective choice distort the past ?

You've got to be kidding. The article you linked selectively compares a specific range of months. Unlike the article by the Indian government which is honest enough to show the (dismal) full year comparison.

Besides, the listing I showed was the latest available on the Indian government's website.

[Foreign Investments In Pakistan Drop 40.6% In July-December

Once again, Pakistan is embroiled in a major internal conflict. It's not the best time to invest but its still doing well, all things considered.

 

[dvk1982]

Chinese and Pakistani media is 1000 times better than the Bollywood tripe that passes for Indian media. Seriously.

In any case, the media outlets want eyeballs. CNN hired Fareed Zakaria primarily to try and capture a particular demographic. The clearest indication is the time slot for his show. It is timed for prime-time in India, not the US.

This happens all the time in business. All media works that way.

What ever u say, this is just personal choice how to interpret things. but calling sbdy lie zakaria as a parroting guy is stretching a bit too far. I can accept he is biased though....

The stock market in Pakistan, or anywhere, provides returns based on performance. It is the investor who takes the risk, not the market.

well u r only half true... there is also what we call market risk or systematic risk, which is high for developing world compared to west, though i can't claim whether pakistans market risk is higher or lower to its neighbors...

According to the Indian government, most of India's FDI comes from Mauritius (44&#37 which has been relatively unaffected by the global crisis.

Dude lets not argue for the sake of it. well if u don't know Mauritius has nothing to do with the source of funds per se becoz even a US investor may choose FDI investment through different channels. Last time i checked, mauritius (in IT jargon, since u r from IT) is a router but not the major source of funds becoz of favorable tax treatments for foreign investors. since it's the entry point to india, u get to see 44% but the funds haven't originated there.

You've got to be kidding. The article you linked selectively compares a specific range of months. Unlike the article by the Indian government which is honest enough to show the (dismal) full year comparison.

Besides, the listing I showed was the latest available on the Indian government's website.

Once again, Pakistan is embroiled in a major internal conflict. It's not the best time to invest but its still doing well, all things considered.

Again u r wrong completely ... our fiscal yr starts from april-march, so there is NO selectivity in my data, I compared current fiscal yr (April-Nov- latest info to last fiscal yr over the same period.) and the gap has been cover mostly by Nov and oct FDI inflows.

Whatever link u pointed is outdated for it was updated more than 3 months back. I wudn't be surprised if India's FDI investment for current fiscal year 2010 ,which end in march, to be actually greater than last fiscal year.- u may get to know in next 2 months...

If u believe pak is doing gud, gud for u.. But don't just pass on ur categorical statements without verifying...

P.S. Fiscal year can be different from calender year. Indan govt closes its books in mrch and new financial year starts from April. So most of all our GDP and growth calculations are based over the period April to March (12 months) - this is just for pakistanis who aren't aware of this fact.

 

[RiazHaq]

The economic results of the decade of 1999-2009 speak much louder than any denials of the reality by the bigoted naysayers, Pakistan haters and Musharraf bashers, who are either highly politicized, or rabidly partisan or just plain clueless about good governance, economy, investing and business.

Pakistan has achieved such tremendous results in spite of extreme adversity at home and negative propaganda by Pakistan's hateful eastern neighbor and its shameless praise-singers in the West.

They are unaware of the best kept secret that Pakistani markets significantly outperformed those in the much hyped BRIC nations by a wide margin.

Pakistan's key share index KSE-100 was just over 1000 points at the end of 1999, and it closed at over 9727.40 on Dec 31, 2009. Pakistan rupee remained quite stable at 60 rupees to a US dollar until 2008, slipping only recently to about 80 rupees to a dollar. In spite of the currency decline, Pakistan's KSE-100 stock index surged 55% in 2009 in US dollar terms and 65% in rupee terms, after the IMF bailout that forced the current government to acknowledge the good policies and achievements during Musharaf years.

During the same period of 1999-2009, Mumbai Sensex index moved from just over 5000 points to close at 17,464.81. If you had invested $100 in KSE-100 stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, you'd have over $900 today, while $100 invested in the Mumbai's Sensex stocks would be worth $274. Investment of $100 in emerging-market stocks in general on Dec. 31, 1999, would get you about $262 today, while $100 invested in the S&P500 would be worth $91.

Pakistan's KSE-100 stock index surged 55% in 2009 in US dollar terms and 65% in rupee terms, in a year that also saw the South Asian nation wracked by increased violence and its state institutions described by various media talking heads as being on the verge of collapse. Even more surprising is the whopping 825% increase in KSE-100 from 1999 to 2009, which makes it a significantly better performer than the BRIC nations. BRIC darling China has actually underperformed its peers, rising only 150 percent compared with energy-rich Brazil (520 percent) and Russia (326 percent) or well-regulated India (274 percent), which some investors see as a safer and more diverse bet compared with the Chinese equity market, which is dominated by bank stocks. This is the kind of performance that has got the attention of some of the top investors and investment firms around the world.

While such obviously breath-taking results may not mean much to those determined to deny the achievements of a "dictator", they are not lost on smart investors, like those at Goldman Sachs and Franklin Templeton, both of whom are bullish on Pakistan, in spite of its current difficulties. Musharraf's legacy will live on with the investors' faith in Pakistan.

As to Zakaria (and his ilk), he is an unabashed cheerleader for India, lacking any objectivity as a journalist. He threw many softball questions at Manmohan Singh during his recent visit to Washington, asking him to badmouth Pakistan and China and repeat the familiar Indian positions, without ever bringing up the issues of poverty and deprivation in India, or challenges for Indian democracy. No mention of the Maoists insurgency that the Indian PM himself has described as the "greatest challenge to India's security" since independence.

Finally, it was Manmohan Singh who mentioned that India needs to sustain economic growth to bring "millions and millions" of people out of poverty.

Though Indian democracy has failed miserably in delivering even the most basic good governance and bare minimum necessities for the vast majority of its people, Indians are still lucky to have a leader like Manmohan Singh who knows what's important for his countrymen and does bot avoid talking about it even if it's unpleasant.

Let me quote what Soutik Biswas of the BBC wrote recently:

"A sobering thought to keep in mind though. Impressive growth figures are unlikely to stun the poor into mindless optimism about their future. India has long been used to illustrate how extensive poverty coexists with growth. It has a shabby record in pulling people out of poverty - in the last two decades the number of absolutely poor in India has declined by 17 percentage points compared to China, which brought down its absolutely poor by some 45 percentage points. The number of Indian billionaires rose from nine in 2004 to 40 in 2007, says Forbes magazine. That's higher than Japan which had 24, while France and Italy had 14 billionaires each. When one of the world's highest number of billionaires coexist with what one economist calls the world's "largest number of homeless, ill-fed illiterates", something is gravely wrong. This is what rankles many in this happy season of positive thinking."

Haq's Musings: Karachi Tops Mumbai in Stock Performance

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

BBC - Soutik Biswas's India: Harbingers of hope for India in 2010?

 

[conworldus]

The number of Indian billionaires rose from nine in 2004 to 40 in 2007, says Forbes magazine. That's higher than Japan which had 24, while France and Italy had 14 billionaires each. When one of the world's highest number of billionaires coexist with what one economist calls the world's "largest number of homeless, ill-fed illiterates", something is gravely wrong. This is what rankles many in this happy season of positive thinking."

Many Indians are pround that they have so many billionaires. They have a strange logic. They celebrate inequality, caste-based oppression, and overpopulation.

 

[sensenreason]

Karachi shares market significantly outperformed Mumbai in the last ten years. But this fact is not enough to get any positive attention from Fareed Zakaria, India's best-known cheerleader in the West.

As expected, Fareed Zakaria's discussion of "The Rise of the Rest" sings praises of the BRIC nations, particularly mentioning his native India in the most glowing terms. There is nothing wrong with that, except that Zakaria omits any positive mention of India's neighbor Pakistan in the context of economic performance in the decade of 1999-2009, and chooses to strike familiar themes of "Islamic jihadists" and "terrorism" when he does make any references to Pakistan.

What Zakaria has omitted is the story of the extraordinary returns Pakistan has produced for investors. Pakistan's key share index KSE-100 was just over 1000 points at the end of 1999, and it closed at over 9727.40 on Dec 31, 2009. During the same period, Mumbai Sensex index moved from just over 5000 points to close at 17,464.81. If you had invested $100 in KSE-100 stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, you'd have over $900 today, while $100 invested in the Mumbai's Sensex stocks would be worth $274. Investment of $100 in emerging-market stocks in general on Dec. 31, 1999, would get you about $262 today, while $100 invested in the S&P500 would be worth $91.

Haq's Musings: Karachi Tops Mumbai in Stock Performance

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

Hey Riaz, This is mighty impressive...Are non-Pakistanis allowed to invest in the stocks? I dont mind making a quick buck....If you know any legit ways for me to invest..do let me know...

On another note, Karachi's performance has been well noted by many and Pakistan is also listed as an emerging country in many financial indicators distributed weekly/monthly by many economic research firms/magazines....Ofcourse, its a small market and hence holds limited interest with the big guns..

Fareed Zakaria reports for CNN which is clearly big corporate ..and hence the omission...dont take it to heart. Pakistan given its smaller size should once peace prevails develop much faster than India can....

So work for peace...rest will follow.

 

[sensenreason]

The economic results of the decade of 1999-2009 speak much louder than any denials of the reality by the bigoted naysayers, Pakistan haters and Musharraf bashers, who are either highly politicized, or rabidly partisan or just plain clueless about good governance, economy, investing and business.

Pakistan has achieved such tremendous results in spite of extreme adversity at home and negative propaganda by Pakistan's hateful eastern neighbor and its shameless praise-singers in the West.

They are unaware of the best kept secret that Pakistani markets significantly outperformed those in the much hyped BRIC nations by a wide margin.

Pakistan's key share index KSE-100 was just over 1000 points at the end of 1999, and it closed at over 9727.40 on Dec 31, 2009. Pakistan rupee remained quite stable at 60 rupees to a US dollar until 2008, slipping only recently to about 80 rupees to a dollar. In spite of the currency decline, Pakistan's KSE-100 stock index surged 55% in 2009 in US dollar terms and 65% in rupee terms, after the IMF bailout that forced the current government to acknowledge the good policies and achievements during Musharaf years.

During the same period of 1999-2009, Mumbai Sensex index moved from just over 5000 points to close at 17,464.81. If you had invested $100 in KSE-100 stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, you'd have over $900 today, while $100 invested in the Mumbai's Sensex stocks would be worth $274. Investment of $100 in emerging-market stocks in general on Dec. 31, 1999, would get you about $262 today, while $100 invested in the S&P500 would be worth $91.

Pakistan's KSE-100 stock index surged 55% in 2009 in US dollar terms and 65% in rupee terms, in a year that also saw the South Asian nation wracked by increased violence and its state institutions described by various media talking heads as being on the verge of collapse. Even more surprising is the whopping 825% increase in KSE-100 from 1999 to 2009, which makes it a significantly better performer than the BRIC nations. BRIC darling China has actually underperformed its peers, rising only 150 percent compared with energy-rich Brazil (520 percent) and Russia (326 percent) or well-regulated India (274 percent), which some investors see as a safer and more diverse bet compared with the Chinese equity market, which is dominated by bank stocks. This is the kind of performance that has got the attention of some of the top investors and investment firms around the world.

While such obviously breath-taking results may not mean much to those determined to deny the achievements of a "dictator", they are not lost on smart investors, like those at Goldman Sachs and Franklin Templeton, both of whom are bullish on Pakistan, in spite of its current difficulties. Musharraf's legacy will live on with the investors' faith in Pakistan.

As to Zakaria (and his ilk), he is an unabashed cheerleader for India, lacking any objectivity as a journalist. He threw many softball questions at Manmohan Singh during his recent visit to Washington, asking him to badmouth Pakistan and China and repeat the familiar Indian positions, without ever bringing up the issues of poverty and deprivation in India, or challenges for Indian democracy. No mention of the Maoists insurgency that the Indian PM himself has described as the "greatest challenge to India's security" since independence.

Finally, it was Manmohan Singh who mentioned that India needs to sustain economic growth to bring "millions and millions" of people out of poverty.

Though Indian democracy has failed miserably in delivering even the most basic good governance and bare minimum necessities for the vast majority of its people, Indians are still lucky to have a leader like Manmohan Singh who knows what's important for his countrymen and does bot avoid talking about it even if it's unpleasant.

Let me quote what Soutik Biswas of the BBC wrote recently:

"A sobering thought to keep in mind though. Impressive growth figures are unlikely to stun the poor into mindless optimism about their future. India has long been used to illustrate how extensive poverty coexists with growth. It has a shabby record in pulling people out of poverty - in the last two decades the number of absolutely poor in India has declined by 17 percentage points compared to China, which brought down its absolutely poor by some 45 percentage points. The number of Indian billionaires rose from nine in 2004 to 40 in 2007, says Forbes magazine. That's higher than Japan which had 24, while France and Italy had 14 billionaires each. When one of the world's highest number of billionaires coexist with what one economist calls the world's "largest number of homeless, ill-fed illiterates", something is gravely wrong. This is what rankles many in this happy season of positive thinking."

Haq's Musings: Karachi Tops Mumbai in Stock Performance

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

BBC - Soutik Biswas's India: Harbingers of hope for India in 2010?

I agree with you that enough credit has not been given to Pakistan to have grown impressively in the last 5 years or so and the stock market returns reflect the same.

However, your India bashing reflects exactly the same bias that you have accused Fareed or showing towards India.. Let me explain.

Everyone knows that India faces the challenge of poverty just like many other countries did a few years/decades ago. Till 1980, both India and China were not considered to hold any economic promise. Japan and Europe was being re-built after the second world war and both were Anti-US in their policies. In different ways, both India and China aligned with the US atleast economically and made pro-globalisation policies though at varying speeds and manner.

During this period, Japan went into economic oblivion and Europe tied itself in knots trying out EU and a single currency but losing out to major markets in manufacturing sector to others especially to China.

Economic size and not just the rate of growth reflects a nations economic power.BRICs amongst some 20 other nations (incl Pakistan) are considered emerging nations as they have to different degrees globalised and growing at a fast clip compared to the developed nations; for whom the emerging nations are the Growth markets.

Given India's size (Population) it is considered as a key future economic power. To realise this economic power, it needs to replicate China's fast growth for atleast a decade. Pakistan will also be a economic power but a smaller one and hence the lack of focus on Pakistan.

As far as India's growth story goes; it has many flaws but the fact remains India has grown faster and faster in the last 30 years. In other words, there is a certain amount of momemtum which should take India through to 2015 with reasonably high GDP growth (Ofcourse there are no guarantees...things like war or security concerns with China/Pakistan are clearly threats to this growth story). The last 2-3 years have seen a sea change in Indian polity and governance is a key issue and is being debated and actions being taken.

As far as the, inequity goes ; while I agree India has the largest poor people in the world but as a % this number will start to fall as the trickle down effect takes shape. One example of this trickle down is the IT industry. While the IT industry employs only 2-3 Milliopn people but creates ancilliary employment for atleast 5-6 million others....The govt is already spending large monies on the poor with employment schemes and the noise to make it as a straightforward cash hand out is growing. The day this becomes law..major corruption triggers would have been surgically removed from the Indian govt. It might happen in 2010.Defence procurement is being cleaned up. Tax compliance is being improved.More people are being brought under the tax regime and better tracking of money spent has been initiated.On the infrastructure front is India's main challenge - both from a vision and an execution standpoint.

In other words, the picture right now is of one where India is making improvements on multiple parameters at the same time and this will make a dent in many of India's problems.

The emphasis on governance and infrastructure development will in the years to come, make it EASIER to grow at the same rate as today.I firmly, believe (while being no apologist for the flaws in the story of the economic growth or social issues) that unless war is thrust upon India by the combine of US/China/Pakistan in some form or the other the next 10 years the growth story will remain intact and India will be a transformed place by 2020. The reports that emanate from Indian defence authorities about the Chinese threat or otherwise are based on this basic understanding of the situation. The fact is India doesnt want war today. Its unlikely to want one in 2020 but we will be much better equipped and prepared for one by 2020 and hence the fear that the countries mentioned would try and stymie this story with a war.

The maoist insugency goes, its been handled as we speak with a coordinated police action across many states.

India's criticism of Pakistan in western capitals is specifically related to the issue of terrorism/J & K and nothing to do with a 'conspiracy' to pull down Pakistan.Its your choice to believe otherwise. As far as India supporters go in the west..yeah it much be another Zionist conspiracy and has nothing to do with Pakistan's actions in J & K and Afghanistan.

Im no fan of the billionaires in India or elsewhere...and take no pride in number of super wealthy folks here. If some people do take pride in it, I dont have a problem. To each his own. Remember, we have freedom here.

 

[Veer]

Karachi shares market significantly outperformed Mumbai in the last ten years. But this fact is not enough to get any positive attention from Fareed Zakaria, India's best-known cheerleader in the West.

As expected, Fareed Zakaria's discussion of "The Rise of the Rest" sings praises of the BRIC nations, particularly mentioning his native India in the most glowing terms. There is nothing wrong with that, except that Zakaria omits any positive mention of India's neighbor Pakistan in the context of economic performance in the decade of 1999-2009, and chooses to strike familiar themes of "Islamic jihadists" and "terrorism" when he does make any references to Pakistan.

What Zakaria has omitted is the story of the extraordinary returns Pakistan has produced for investors. Pakistan's key share index KSE-100 was just over 1000 points at the end of 1999, and it closed at over 9727.40 on Dec 31, 2009. During the same period, Mumbai Sensex index moved from just over 5000 points to close at 17,464.81. If you had invested $100 in KSE-100 stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, you'd have over $900 today, while $100 invested in the Mumbai's Sensex stocks would be worth $274. Investment of $100 in emerging-market stocks in general on Dec. 31, 1999, would get you about $262 today, while $100 invested in the S&P500 would be worth $91.

Haq's Musings: Karachi Tops Mumbai in Stock Performance

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

Pakistan Beats India, BRICs in Market Returns Your title and writeup shows your hateful nature towards India.

Because you are boasting Beats India. But in reality BRIC means Brazil, Russia, India and China.

You have not said Karachi exchange beats returns of BRIC countries or Pakistan Beats China but due to your ill intention and selected myopia you are only mentioning India.

While, i'm happy for this achievement if it is true and there are no sub texts to it. But how you will you gain with this type of twisted articles.

 

[Veer]

Many Indians are pround that they have so many billionaires. They have a strange logic. They celebrate inequality, caste-based oppression, and overpopulation.

If Pakistanis can feel happy and jump like jump[ing jack hearing another country i.e. Chinese progress and achievements. Who are you to tell Indian what they should celebrate or not.

 

[Goodperson]

Karachi shares market significantly outperformed Mumbai in the last ten years. But this fact is not enough to get any positive attention from Fareed Zakaria, India's best-known cheerleader in the West.

As expected, Fareed Zakaria's discussion of "The Rise of the Rest" sings praises of the BRIC nations, particularly mentioning his native India in the most glowing terms. There is nothing wrong with that, except that Zakaria omits any positive mention of India's neighbor Pakistan in the context of economic performance in the decade of 1999-2009, and chooses to strike familiar themes of "Islamic jihadists" and "terrorism" when he does make any references to Pakistan.

What Zakaria has omitted is the story of the extraordinary returns Pakistan has produced for investors. Pakistan's key share index KSE-100 was just over 1000 points at the end of 1999, and it closed at over 9727.40 on Dec 31, 2009. During the same period, Mumbai Sensex index moved from just over 5000 points to close at 17,464.81. If you had invested $100 in KSE-100 stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, you'd have over $900 today, while $100 invested in the Mumbai's Sensex stocks would be worth $274. Investment of $100 in emerging-market stocks in general on Dec. 31, 1999, would get you about $262 today, while $100 invested in the S&P500 would be worth $91.

Haq's Musings: Karachi Tops Mumbai in Stock Performance

Haq's Musings: India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

What is this you are comparing Apples with Oranges. BSE sensex is different than Karachi the indices are different. Fairer comparison to some extent could be with Market capitalization.

As per title you said BRIC countries but discussing performance of only Karachi and Mumbai.