Our global markets watchlist tracks nine prominent indexes from economies around the world. The list includes the S&P 500 from the United States, TSX from Canada, the FTSE 100 from England, the DAXK from Germany, the CAC 40 from France, the Nikkei 225 from Japan, the Shanghai from China, the Hang Seng from Hong Kong, and the BSE SENSEX from India. For a look at how some emerging markets across the globe stack up against each other, read our emerging markets update.
Through August 24, 2026, six of the nine indexes on our watchlist remain in positive territory. Japan’s Nikkei 225 leads the pack with a 30.2% year-to-date gain, followed by Canada’s TSX (+15.8%) and the United States’s S&P 500 (+11.8%). Conversely, India’s BSE SENSEX has struggled the most, down 9.2% for the year, while China’s Shanghai has a loss of 2.2%.
To provide additional context on where these indexes stand relative to their historical peaks, the table below shows each index’s current value, all-time peak, the date of that peak, and how far it is from that record level.
World Indexes and Recent Recessions
Let’s start with a very recent chart with the latest recession. We’ve used February 3, 2020 for our start date (this is the official NBER recession start).
The chart below illustrates the comparative performance of world markets since March 9, 2009. The start date is arbitrary: The S&P 500, TSX, CAC 40 and BSE SENSEX hit their lows on March 9th, the Nikkei 225 on March 10th, the DAXK on March 6th, the FTSE on March 3rd, the Shanghai Composite on November 4, 2008, and the Hang Seng even earlier on October 27, 2008. However, by aligning on the same day and using a log-scale vertical axis, we get an excellent visualization of the relative performance. I’ve indexed each of the eight to 800 on the March 9th start date. The callout in the upper left corner shows the percent change from the start date to the latest weekly close.
Here is the same visualization, this time starting on October 9, 2007, a previous closing high for the S&P 500. This date is also approximately the mid-point of the range of market peaks, which started on June 1st for the CAC 40 and ended on January 8, 2008 for the SENSEX.
For a longer look at the relative performance, our final chart starts at the turn of the century, again indexing each at 800 for the start date.
Examples of single country ETFs:
- WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Fund (DXJ)
- WisdomTree Europe Hedged Equity Fund (HEDJ)
- KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB)
- iShares MSCI India ETF (INDA)
- iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF (EWH)
- iShares MSCI Canada ETF (EWC)
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY)
Note: I track Germany’s DAXK a price-only index, instead of the more familiar DAX index (which includes dividends), for consistency with the other indexes, which do not include dividends.
Originally published at Advisor Perspectives
For more news, information, and strategy, visit the China Insights Content Hub.
Facts Only
* The watchlist tracks nine indexes: S&P 500 (US), TSX (Canada), FTSE 100 (England), DAXK (Germany), CAC 40 (France), Nikkei 225 (Japan), Shanghai (China), Hang Seng (Hong Kong), and BSE SENSEX (India).
* As of August 24, 2026, six of the nine indexes are in positive territory.
* The Nikkei 225 leads with a 30.2% year-to-date gain.
* The TSX is up 15.8%.
* The S&P 500 is up 11.8%.
* The BSE SENSEX is down 9.2% for the year.
* The Shanghai index has a loss of 2.2%.
* Historical charts reference start dates ranging from March 9, 2009, to October 9, 2007, and feature indexing at 800 for the start date.
* Examples of single country ETFs mentioned are DXJ, HEDJ, KWEB, INDA, EWH, EWC, and SPY.
Executive Summary
Six of the nine global market indexes tracked, which include the S&P 500, TSX, FTSE 100, DAXK, CAC 40, Nikkei 225, Shanghai, Hang Seng, and BSE SENSEX, remain in positive territory as of August 24, 2026. Japan’s Nikkei 225 leads the group with a year-to-date gain of 30.2%. Canada’s TSX is second with a 15.8% gain, followed by the United States’s S&P 500 at 11.8%. Conversely, India’s BSE SENSEX has declined by 9.2% for the year, and China’s Shanghai has seen a loss of 2.2%.
The provided data allows for a comparative view across these diverse markets. Historical performance visualizations are available spanning from March 9, 2009, to later periods, using specific start dates and log-scale vertical axes to illustrate relative market performance. The analysis also notes that the DAXK index is tracked as a price-only index for consistency with other indexes not including dividends.
Full Take
The presentation of market performance alongside historical context across multiple, geographically distinct indexes immediately prompts an examination of what constitutes a "global" performance metric. The focus on relative performance—comparing year-to-date gains among these specific economies—reveals a tendency toward divergence rather than unified global trends. For instance, while the Nikkei 225 leads, the significant underperformance in the Indian and Chinese markets suggests that localized economic dynamics are powerfully overriding any overarching global narrative.
The methodology of visualizing performance across varying historical baselines (starting dates like March 9th versus October 9th) forces the reader to confront how easily context is manufactured or shifted depending on the chosen starting point. The act of indexing multiple entities at a standard value (800) across different eras highlights an inherent tension between tracking absolute movement and relative position against historical peaks. This structure suggests that defining success requires acknowledging not just current gains but the specific history each market has traversed, demanding a focus on internal resilience rather than external benchmarks.
The implicit pattern here is the framing of divergence as normalcy. When presented with stark contrasts in growth (Japan leading, India lagging), the system risks validating regional anomalies as the primary story, potentially obscuring systemic risks that affect all markets simultaneously. The implication for agency is that understanding sovereignty requires prioritizing the analysis of internal mechanisms—why specific countries are performing as they are—rather than passively accepting relative rankings provided by a single dashboard.
Bridge Questions: How do the current diverging performance metrics correlate with external economic indicators not mentioned, and what assumptions about market convergence should be suspended when viewing these disparate results? What structural frameworks could be employed to assess systemic risk across these indexes rather than individual trajectory? What happens to cognitive sovereignty when relying on comparative indexing based on potentially arbitrary historical alignments?