Of the five senses, vision is regarded as the most important as it allows us to navigate our environment, recognize the faces of our loved ones and read and watch to learn and entertain. But a good number of us do not have healthy eyes. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), at least 2.2 billion people globally suffer from near or distant vision impairment. The organization recognizes myopia as a significant public health concern given its rising prevalence around the world. A review of 276 studies (involving more than 5.4 million children from 50 countries across six continents) by the British Journal of Ophthalmology revealed that global prevalence of myopia among children and adolescents increased from 24% in 1990 to 36% in 2023 – one in three of all children and teens are nearsighted today. What is even more concerning is that myopia is starting earlier in children than before.

Prevalence of myopia by age group in 2000 vs. 2050, % of world population

Source: American Academy of Ophthalmology, BofA Global Research

The study predicted that approximately 740 million children and teens (more than half globally) will be myopic by 2050. American Academy of Ophthalmology in its 2016 article forecasted that by 2050, myopia would affect nearly half of global population. A more conservative projection this year puts the number at ~40% of global population – but it is clear that the world 25 years from now will have more than the 2.2 billion people in need of corrective lenses today.

Prevalence of myopia is not even across the world. Asia sees a higher prevalence (close to 40%) that is two to four times higher than that of other regions. East Asian countries – China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore – see much higher myopia rates, exceeding 80–90%, in their adolescent populations.

Source: ScienceDirect, Global perspectives on myopia and pathologic myopia: From environmental drivers to precision medicine

Primary drivers of myopia are genetics, near-work activities and lack of outdoor activities. A recent article in Progress in Retinal and Eye Research journal linked the high prevalences in the East Asian countries to educational systems characterized by intense academic competition, prolonged school hours and substantial homework assignments which significantly reduce opportunities for outdoor activities.

The WHO estimated that vision impairment cost the global economy an estimated USD411 billion in productivity loss, with only 36% of people with myopia having access to an appropriate intervention. Shanghai Conant Optical Co. Ltd. (2276 HK) in our Emerging Markets Small Cap Strategy seeks to address this global myopia pandemic. SCO, a sub-USD3 billion market cap company, is the second largest resin (plastic) optical lens maker in the world after EssilorLuxottica in terms of production volume. At its manufacturing locations across China and Japan, the company produced 209 million pieces to serve customers in over 90 countries around the world in 2024.

We believe SCO’s customer value proposition of value for money is especially effective in the product category of optical lenses. SCO’s high-index lenses (such as 1.74 and 1.67) are approximately half the price of comparable lenses from EssilorLuxottica, Hoya and Zeiss whilst providing the same level of vision correction. On product quality, SCO is an ODM (original design manufacturer) for all the previously mentioned global brands with various lens-coating options available. For the brand-conscious, it is “fortunately” very difficult to tell which brand of lens one is wearing. We are not surprised that the company is especially seeing strong demand in developing countries where its customer value proposition would be stronger. As a person who has been wearing glasses for the past three decades, I have found myself switching from the expensive Hoya and Nikon to much more affordable brands (including Asahi-Lite which is now owned by SCO), which have provided an identical visual experience – I have not looked back since.

China offers a significant room for growth, having entered the world’s largest short-sighted country in 2018, two decades after the company was established. Over 700 million people or roughly half the population in China are diagnosed with myopia. The prevalence of myopia is especially high in school-aged children – roughly 40%/70%/80% of students in elementary/middle/high school suffered from myopia according to a 2022 study published in Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. Laser eye surgery is not an option for these youths, and they must rely on glasses for vision correction until they are older. SCO’s sales in China focus on higher-index lenses where competition is more limited and penetration is lower, and 80% of those sales are of its own brand. The company’s growth in China has been margin accretive given the higher mix of own brand and higher-index lenses.

The company is also involved in the development of AI/AR glasses with leading technology companies in North America and China. SCO as a partner to the technology companies makes sense, given SCO’s scale and cost competitiveness. We appreciate that SCO is trying to solve the problem of the global myopia pandemic, but do not doubt that AI/AR glasses offer the next leg of growth for the company.

After the “meme stock” frenzy of 2021 and a bruising surge of volatility in 2022, many investors assumed retail traders had finally stepped back. The story was neat: higher rates, tighter liquidity and fading stimulus would restore rationality to equity markets. We were not convinced and argued in February 2023 that speculative behaviour was more likely to adapt than disappear.

Fast forward to today, and the data suggest retail participation has not only persisted, it has become a defining force in short‑term market moves. Across the small‑ and mid‑cap universes, trading volumes in lower‑priced, lower‑quality names have surged, with roughly a quarter of daily volume now concentrated in stocks trading under $5, a share last seen at the peak of 2021’s speculation. This renewed activity has driven a striking rotation beneath the surface: low ROE and even unprofitable companies have periodically outpaced their higher‑quality, high‑ROE peers over short horizons.

In this weekly, we want to address two questions:

1. Why does high ROE – the best proxy for quality – matter when investing? And,
2. What does history tell us about the performance of companies with high ROE versus those with low or negative ROE?

What ROE really measures

Return on equity (ROE) is net income divided by shareholders’ equity; it tracks how efficiently a business converts owners’ capital into earnings. In practical terms, it tells you how many dollars of profit a company generates for every dollar of equity on its balance sheet. Conceptually, ROE links back to basic valuation logic: for a given starting multiple, a firm that can earn and reinvest at higher rates should grow intrinsic value and future dividends faster over time. A company that compounds book value at 15–20% per year for a decade ends up in a very different place than one compounding at 5%, even if both start at the same size and valuation.

High – and sustainably high – ROE typically reflects one or more durable advantages: strong pricing power, an advantaged cost position, valuable brands or networks, or business models that require relatively little capital to grow. This is why investors often group high-ROE companies under the broader “quality” or “profitability” factor. In other words, ROE is not just a ratio; it is often a shorthand for underlying business quality.

Why high ROE wins over time

History is clear: profitability and quality matter far more over multi-year horizons than they do over six month “junk” episodes. Portfolios tilted toward companies with high and persistent profitability have historically delivered higher average returns than portfolios concentrated in low profitability or unprofitable names, even after controlling for size and valuation.

There are three main reasons for this:

1. Compounding of retained earnings: High-ROE companies can reinvest a larger portion of each dollar of earnings at attractive rates. Over time, this drives faster growth in earnings per share and intrinsic value without requiring fresh capital from shareholders.
2. Resilience through cycles: Businesses that earn high returns on capital usually have competitive advantages that help them sustain margins and cash flows during downturns, which tend to show up as shallower drawdowns and faster recoveries.
3. Better capital allocation options: Management teams leading high-ROE franchises often have more flexibility: reinvest in the core, expand into adjacencies, pay dividends or buy back shares. Lower-quality companies, in contrast, often need to issue equity or debt simply to survive, diluting existing shareholders.

Short periods of outperformance by low-quality stocks can be sharp and uncomfortable, but they have historically been transient, while compounding fundamentals tend to dominate over longer horizons.

When you think about it, the lesson for long-term investors couldn’t be clearer: real wealth comes from investing in companies that steadily compound capital at high rates, not from jumping on every fleeting speculative surge. The junk rallies fade and quality compounding lasts.

Time to take out the trash – What really is a “junk rally”?

In a universe of over 12,000 companies within global small caps, not every balance sheet is one to admire. Our job as active managers is to find real quality – the companies that actually make money and know how to grow it – and to avoid the companies that are overleveraged, poorly managed or structurally unprofitable. Many of those “junk” businesses feel more like ticking time bombs than investments. So, what happens when these so‑called junk companies rally and drive index performance? Do we simply throw in the towel and chase them?

A junk rally is a period when the lowest‑quality stocks – often those with excessive leverage, negative earnings, high beta or heavy short interest – significantly outperform the broader market, particularly higher‑quality names. These episodes tend to be most intense and momentum‑driven in small caps, where smaller market caps and thinner liquidity allow collective enthusiasm and buying pressure to move prices disproportionately.

Junk rallies often arrive with a burst of excitement – usually from retail investors – as they rush into stocks chasing a story and paying little attention to fundamentals. To spread these stories, investors turn to platforms like Reddit, X or Instagram, using viral posts and online communities to build momentum. As more buyers join in, the rally feeds on itself, with price action attracting even more attention.

Common terms around these episodes include:

• Diamond hands: Investors who refuse to sell, convinced that holding long enough will eventually make them rich.
• Short squeeze: When heavily shorted stocks rise sharply, forcing short sellers to buy back shares to cover positions, which drives prices even higher.
• FOMO (“fear of missing out”): The anxiety investors feel when they believe they might miss a big gain if they do not act immediately.
• Pump and dump: When prices are hyped up – often by coordinated online promotion and early movers sell into the frenzy, leaving late buyers exposed when prices fall back.

These phrases rarely appear in institutional memos, but the behaviours behind them very much exist in our universe and often bring sharp, sudden volatility to stocks whose fundamentals have not changed.

How junk rallies behave in practice

Over the past five years, we have seen several junk rallies – wild bursts where low‑quality stocks suddenly take off. Each time, two features have stood out. First, these rallies are typically parabolic and short‑lived; trying to jump on the bandwagon after the move is underway is almost always a poor risk‑reward trade‑off. Second, they almost always mean‑revert back toward the market, making them more about timing and positioning than about sustainable value creation.

Normally, we would pay limited attention to these episodes. However, because these lower-quality stocks sit in our benchmark, big, synchronized rallies in some low-quality pockets can cause us to lag temporarily. That is exactly what happened in 2020, 2023, and again in 2025, when risk on sentiment sent the lowest quality corners of the market flying while our quality growth names took a back seat. As the excitement faded and fundamentals reasserted themselves, excess junk gains unwound and quality leadership reemerged.

Proof that low quality doesn’t last

Even without decades of data, recent episodes make the point: high ROE remains a long‑run winner. In the 2022 low‑quality rally, high‑quality stocks temporarily lagged as low‑quality names spiked and then sold off, but by the end of that six‑month stretch, the high‑quality cohort had again moved ahead. You saw a similar pattern in the quality rally of summer 2024, which lost steam by early 2025, and more recently in the post‑Liberation Day rebound, where relief from macro fears and crowded positioning turbocharged the most speculative, lower‑ROE parts of the market.

Once low quality lost steam, high quality rebounded faster

Low quality was ahead, but high quality protected during Liberation Day market correction

In the immediate aftermath of Liberation Day, low‑quality stocks rallied because the market shifted violently from fear to relief: investors moved quickly from pricing in severe recession and trade dislocation to betting on a softer outcome, and that swing in sentiment tends to benefit the most beaten‑up, highly levered and high‑beta parts of the market first. Positioning and mechanics amplified the move, as many lower‑quality names were heavily shorted and under‑owned going into the shock, so even a modest improvement in the macro narrative forced short covering and factor rebalancing, turbocharging returns in exactly the sort of speculative companies that typically lead junk rallies.

The current junk rally is showing signs of losing momentum, with lower-quality names starting to lag

Don’t hate the player, hate the game

Now that we’ve defined what junk rallies look like, let’s examine how they affect active management. As noted above, the post-Liberation Day period – when the MSCI World Small Cap Index surged 34.3% (CAD) between April 8 and October 31, 2025 – marked one of the strongest low-quality rallies of the past decade. During this time, market leadership – particularly in the United States – was dominated by lower-quality companies across a range of sectors. The AI and data centre trade became the theme of the year, driving performance regardless of valuations or ROE.

What you’ll almost never hear an investor say is that they’re overweight “junk.” It’s rare for anyone to deliberately focus on low-quality companies. As a result, low-quality rallies usually lead to short-term periods where active managers struggle to generate alpha. Looking at year-to-date and one-year returns, we’re seeing exactly that type of environment. With the MSCI World Small Cap Index ranking in the middle-to-high second quartile, about 60% of active global small-cap managers haven’t added alpha over the past year. Additionally, these periods usually come with a wide dispersion in manager returns, as portfolios with even modest exposure to the most speculative names tend to outperform sharply, while quality-focused strategies are left behind.

As we can see below, over the 7- and 10-year periods, global small caps remains an inefficient asset class – with more than 50% of active managers outperforming the MSCI World Small Cap Index.

What we’re trying to argue is that when these short periods of low quality take over, don’t hate the player, hate the game. The small cap market can be dysfunctional for short stretches, but over the long run, high-ROE companies almost always outperform their low-ROE peers.

Our Emerging Markets team attended a series of corporate meetings at a technology conference in Taipei last week. During these meetings, one topic kept emerging: as semiconductors become more advanced and complex, the importance of testing them is growing rapidly. This theme appeared consistently across our meetings, including with companies involved in probe cards, system-level testing and metrology. As the current AI-driven arms race accelerates investment in high-performance computing, testing has become a foundation for semiconductor reliability.

For many decades, progress in semiconductors came from shrinking transistor size and fitting more of them onto each chip. But as Moore’s Law approaches its physical limits, chip designers are increasingly turning to advanced packaging to continue pushing performance forward. This approach helps sustain technological momentum but also introduces new challenges and more potential points of failure. That is why semiconductor testing matters more than ever.

Modern semiconductors must now be tested at several points during a complex fabrication process. At the wafer level, testing examines individual dies (individual chips on a wafer) to determine which are viable before sending the wafer to subsequent steps. This is critical because the packaging stage adds significant dollar value, and if a defective die is mislabeled as good, the cost of assembling it into an advanced package can be substantial.

Once a chip enters packaging, it undergoes final electrical and functional testing, which confirms that the packaged device is assembled correctly and works as intended. A growing number of AI accelerators also require burn-in testing, where devices are stressed under elevated temperature and voltage to screen for early-life failures.

Finally, system-level testing validates each device under real-world operating conditions. As AI processors draw more power and generate more heat, system-level testing has become one of the most critical stages of the entire test flow.

In a sense, modern chips now go through the semiconductor equivalent of an endurance triathlon: wafer-level tests, post-packaging reliability tests (including burn-in) and finally system-level verification. Each stage is designed to catch a different type of failure and skipping even one dramatically increases the risk of defects later in the cycle.

Importantly, the most advanced AI accelerators require far more testing, nearly doubling test time and test content relative to previous generations. It is also why AI chips are now 100% tested, unlike many consumer electronics where sample testing remains common. As one management team noted in a meeting, “reliability can no longer be assumed; it must be verified.”

The economics of chip failure have also changed dramatically. Today’s AI accelerators are among the most expensive devices ever produced. A single AI server rack powered by NVIDIA chips can cost around USD3.5 million. One faulty component can compromise the entire system. Meanwhile, testing typically represents only about 2-3% of total chip cost, yet it protects assets worth millions. This asymmetry also explains why switching test solution providers mid-generation is rare: the potential savings are small, while the risks are substantial. Robust testing has therefore become a form of value protection.

Taiwanese testing companies are uniquely positioned because they operate in close proximity to TSMC, which today manufactures virtually all of the world’s most advanced chips, and within a rich ecosystem of its partners. Supported by deep engineering expertise, this environment enables tight co-development of testing solutions aligned with the industry’s most advanced semiconductor processes.

Among the firms we met at the conference were two companies we own in our Emerging Markets portfolio, both of which illustrate how we leverage this theme in practice.

MPI Corporation (6223 TT)

MPI provides tools used for wafer-level testing, particularly probe cards with fine needle-like contacts that touch each die on a wafer to verify it functions before packaging. The company is a key supplier of customized, high-performance probe cards for ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits) used by hyperscalers.

As AI and advanced packaging increase chip complexity, wafer-level testing now requires more precise and specialized probe card designs. This is contributing to rising unit sales and higher prices for MPI’s solutions. The company has also been enjoying sustained market share gains, supported by its ability to offer superior customization, short lead times and close integration with customers early in the chip design process. These strengths position MPI well for structurally rising test intensity across next-generation logic and AI devices.

Chroma ATE Inc. (2360 TT)

Chroma complements the theme at the opposite end of the test flow. The company is a global leader in system-level testing, power-testing equipment and metrology tools. As chips become more power-hungry and thermally constrained, ensuring reliable performance under real operating conditions becomes essential. Chroma’s solutions support both the growing energy demands of data centres and the precision requirements of advanced packaging.

As semiconductor complexity rises and Moore’s Law slows, innovation is increasingly shifting to packaging, integration and system design. Testing is what bridges that complexity with reliable performance. MPI and Chroma play important roles in this ecosystem. As fundamental investors focused on quality and growth durability, we view testing as a structurally growing and increasingly critical part of the semiconductor landscape.

In our view, testing matters.