And why is that? Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't counting the direct and indirect holdings together give you a more accurate picture of your exposure to foreign markets?
Because they are two unique and distinct types of investing, so I like to keep these separate.
For one, with direct holdings you have direct currency exposure (which can work both ways), and you're also directly involved in the local socioeconomic environment, as well as the local stock markets, which is exposure you would not have if you just invested in domestic companies that do some of their business overseas.
If it was the same to invest in domestic stocks that do business globally, then there would probably be no need for a dedicated international fund to begin with.
However, this subject has become moot, as I have decided that 4% in emerging markets is quite enough for my portfolio. Many popular 'lazy portfolios' do not overweight emerging markets, and just hold a total international (ex-US) index fund, like me.