The countries whose stock markets are furthest from their previous record highs are Greece and Portugal, two nations that have been at the centre of the eurozone debt crisis. Greece, for example, has seen its economic output fall by a quarter since the financial crisis struck, while deflation is affecting companies' profits.

The Brazilian and Russian markets are also well below their peaks. This is partly because their economies depend heavily on sales of commodities such as iron ore, oil, gas and copper, whose prices have all fallen heavily over the past couple of years.

Another large economy whose stock market has a long way to go is Japan. Its main share index, the Nikkei 225, has soared over the past two years, largely thanks to a major injection of QE. A 62pc rise recently took the market to a 15-year high but it remains well below its peak of December 1989.

The country is still battling the deflation that arose in the aftermath of the bursting of its debt-fuelled property and stock market bubble.

Looking at how a stock market is trading compared with its previous peaks is a useful starting point, but it does not tell investors whether the shares are "expensive" or "cheap".

To shed light on this, Telegraph Money looked at the "Cape" ratios for all 25 countries on the chart, then compared their score today with their long-term average, which for the majority dates back to 1983.

Cape (cyclically adjusted price to earnings ratio), is the aggregate price of a market's shares divided by the profits made by its constituent companies, with those profits averaged over the previous decade to iron out the fluctuations of the economic cycle.

On the chart we have highlighted the two countries trading above their average in red. One, Denmark, is also at a record high, but the other, Indonesia, is 22pc below its peak. The implication is that the market was considerably overvalued at that record level.

In green are the markets that are well below their historical Cape average, suggesting that investors who buy today may be getting a bargain price.

Japan, Russia and China look to be three of the cheapest. Both Japanese and Russian shares are at a 40pc discount to their historical average. Japan scores 26 against 45 for its long-term average, although this includes the bubble years, while Russia has a rating of eight today, compared with an average of 13. China has a rating of 21, a 35pc discount to its average figure of 32.

But the biggest apparent bargains are Greece, 80pc below its long-term average, and Turkey, which is 50pc below.

But some markets that are at or close to record levels also look cheap on the Cape measure. Both Hong Kong and Britain are below their long-term averages, both scoring 15 against 21.

Those that have a score near to their long-term Cape average, shown in yellow, are considered neither expensive nor cheap. Several stock markets that have recently hit new highs, including South Africa, Germany, India and Canada, have a neutral valuation rating.

David Fuller's view

Here is a PDF of The Telegraph article.

Generally, I think investors are more likely to opt for sectors in developed markets.  Whereas with emerging markets the choice is more likely to be a general fund, IT (closed-end fund) or market tracker.  What surprises me, particularly with emerging markets, is that people will spend most of their time looking at data similar to what is provided in the article above.  That is fine but they mostly ignore governance, at least publicly. 

With financial press, from newspapers to TV stations and investment house reports, I can understand why they may be wary of discussing governance.  Critical comment could raise compliance issues or close the door to future business prospects with whatever country or government does not appear to be beyond reproach.  Fear of reprisals can be a big disincentive to commenting on governance issues.  Fortunately, some boutique investment firms and certainly private investors are far less likely to share these concerns.

For me, governance has always been a crucial consideration.  Assessing economic governance, not least in term of whether it is improving or deteriorating within a country, may be somewhat subjective but so is just about everything else.  However, we can draw some commonsense conclusions.

For instance, does anyone think India’s Sensex Index could have tested 30,000 earlier this month if the impressive Narendra Modi had not won a majority victory in last year’s general election?  Does anyone think the UK would be better governed if UK’s Conservative Party does not win the most seats in the General Election on May 6^th?  As for Russia, yes, it is cheap and its many educated people have often distinguished themselves but would you trust the word or deed of its one-man ruler with your capital? 

Subscribers are more than capable of vetting any nation’s governance on both a relative basis with other nations and also whether or not it is actually improving or deteriorating within the country.  That is important, not least as investors have a choice.