Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 367

Five principles from the lost decade of value investing

The decade to 30 June 2020 may be remembered as the ‘lost decade’ for investors who favour a value style of Australian equity investing. Value investing targets companies priced below what their net assets (book values) or other financial fundamentals suggest the companies are worth.

The investment thesis is that markets are efficient and will eventually push the stock price up to fair value (‘mean reversion’) prompting investors to buy the stock while cheap and sell once fair value is restored. Benjamin Graham established the first principles of value investing in 1928 and – of particular interest to large, fee-constrained institutional investors – academics Fama and French famously identified in 1992 that the value (‘high minus low’) style factor could be captured in an equity portfolio in a low-cost, rules-based way using quantitative techniques.

Value investing has become a painful experience

Targeting risk premia (outperformance) from style factor risks in this way has come to be known as ‘factor investing’. Since the release of the Fama-French factor investing framework, the three stand-out factor performers in the Australian equity market have been momentum, low volatility (low beta or ‘safety’) and value.

Leading into the last decade, value, with its intuitive thesis and empirical support, seemed to follow the script in Australia. Before fees and taxes, a hypothetical value portfolio of Australian equities (nominal returns) would have grown by 31.9% over the decade to 30 June 2010, easily outstripping a momentum portfolio (17.9% compound growth) or a diversified portfolio spread equally between these two style factors (25.2% compound growth).

But the past decade to 30 June 2020 has proven extremely painful for value investors, and not just in Australia. The performance rankings of these three strategies, in fact, reversed: it has been momentum’s decade (72.1% compound growth), with the diversified style portfolio growing 46.3% and value bringing up the (distant) rear at 23.9% compound growth. This ranking has not changed through the coronavirus crisis period (measured from March-June 2020).

Value is known to be a long-cycle play, but a decade (and counting) of waiting for value’s expected mean reversion to eventuate has tested the faith of even long-horizon investors. There is even speculation that Warren Buffett, an exponent of value investing, has abandoned the approach.

What should we make of all this, especially during the financial market stress brought on by the coronavirus? Historically, value stocks have not benefited from ‘flight to safety’ market environments, but they tend to rebound strongly from recessions. So, value’s long-awaited recovery can’t be ruled out and plenty of institutional money is flowing into value again … but plenty, of course, is not.

A reminder of five basic principles

There are, at least, some principles we can remind ourselves of as we reflect on the experience of value investing over the past two decades.

First, value investing can require a long time horizon for its thesis to play out. For large institutional super funds, many stakeholders (trustees, investment committees, product teams) need to commit to this journey and not panic or abandon value’s investment thesis during protracted periods of under-performance. A fund can pursue other well-supported equity factor risk premia with shorter payoff cycles (like momentum) if it doesn’t have the fortitude to persevere with value investing.

Second, a good factor investing strategy should not rely on getting the timing right. Like timing markets in general, factor timing is tricky at best. Over the two decades of our analysis, a value strategy that made a contrarian switch into momentum just before the ‘lost decade’ of value commenced would have experienced compound growth over the two-decade period of 127%. Sounds good, but a momentum strategy that switched to value at that time (lured by value’s stellar record during the 2000s) would have forgone 2/3 of this portfolio value at period end (46% compound growth), making factor timing a high-stakes game.

Third, as our hypothetical 50-50 portfolio’s performance shows, tried-and-true principles of diversification provide a safe course between these portfolio outcome extremes. If the investor’s conviction is in the idea of factor investing in general, then a well-constructed multi-factor ‘core’ portfolio which does not rely on timing may be the portfolio-of-least-regret.

Fourth, whether we have really just experienced the ‘lost decade’ of value depends on the investor’s objectives and the role the value portfolio is designed to play. For example, comparing our hypothetical portfolios over the decade, momentum delivered higher volatility; and, intuitively, value as a style is thought to lower drawdown risk (loss of capital) because stocks are already cheap to begin with. Those who use risk-adjusted return metrics, or custom risk definitions, may have a different view of value entirely.

Fifth, and finally, we counsel investors to evaluate their factor investing options with an after-tax investing lens. In 2017 research for funds, we estimated the long-term annual capital gains tax drag on a value factor portfolio to be 84 basis points (0.84%), versus 69 basis points (0.69%) for a momentum factor portfolio. The value of franking credits widens this gap.

The longer it takes for an investment thesis like value investing to play out, the more it makes sense for an investor to ‘control what can be controlled’ (implementation frictions like taxes and transaction costs) in the meantime. This allows the investor to take the small, steady wins until the big investment bets pay off.

 

Raewyn Williams is Managing Director of Research at Parametric Australia, a US-based investment adviser. This material is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. Additional information is available at parametricportfolio.com.au.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Is currency exposure an unwanted risk or source of returns?

The role of financial markets when earnings are falling

After 30 years of investing, I prefer to skip this party

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.