Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 4

Outperformance: unique skill or free gift?

In my 25 years in wealth management, the best conference I have ever attended was the FTSE World Investment Forum in May 2011. The main presenters were world leaders and academics from the investment management industry, and in this article, I will be drawing on the findings of two of them: Elroy Dimson of the London Business School and Roger Ibbotson, founder of Ibbotson Associates and Professor at Yale School of Management.

Let’s start with their conclusions. The market commonly measures the outperformance of active fund managers by the extent to which they beat an index, and refers to this as the alpha. The ability to produce alpha is generally attributed to the unique skill set of a fund manager. The presentations suggested this is not necessarily so. There are proven contributors to alpha which are persistent and systematic, and should not be attributed to manager skill, and hence are not alpha in the true sense of the word. These factors include:

  • value
  • dividend yield
  • small companies
  • momentum
  • liquidity

In other words, the ‘alpha’ from these factors can be systematically extracted at low cost without any particular stock-picking skills from the fund manager, and in my observation of markets and fund managers, I agree with the merits of this argument. Let’s briefly examine each of these factors individually.

Value

Without becoming overly technical, a ‘value stock’ has a high ratio of its book value (that is, the net asset value of the company, calculated by total assets less intangibles and liabilities) to its sharemarket value. It is an indication whether a stock is under- or over-priced. A stock with a lower ratio is called a ‘growth stock’. In Australia, similar studies use low P/E ratios to define a value stock.

Dimson reported on his studies based on markets in 22 countries and regions from 1900 to 2011, and showed that in the US, value stocks beat growth stocks by 3.1% per annum, and in the UK by 5.8% per annum. These percentages produce extraordinary return differences over long periods, although it does not occur over all time horizons. For example, the long term outperformance for Australian value stocks is 3% per annum, but a small negative (that is, growth outperformed value) since 2000, as shown below.

Source: ‘111 Years of Stock Market Regularities’, Elroy Dimson, London Business School, May 2011.

Dividend yield

Again, Dimson found systemic outperformance for high dividend-paying stocks. In the USA, high-yielders beat low yielders by 1.9% per annum, in the UK by 2.7% per annum and in Australia by a healthy 5% per annum, although significantly less since 2000. Furthermore, when measured against the volatility of returns, high-yielders had lower risk and therefore delivered a better reward for risk.

Small companies

Dimson reported that small companies beat large companies on average around the world by 0.34% per month, and in Australia by 0.52% per month. Obviously, when the research combined size and value v growth, small-value is a major winner.

Momentum

It’s almost embarrassing for an investment professional to explain momentum. It appears that many investors buy shares or commodities simply because they have recently risen in price, and therefore have their own ‘momentum’. There are overlaps to behavioural theories such as ‘following the herd’ and ignoring one’s own better instincts. Dimson wrote, with colleagues from the London Business School, in a 2007 research paper,

Momentum, or the tendency for stock returns to trend in the same direction, is a major puzzle. In well functioning markets, it should not be possible to make money from the naïve strategy of simply buying winners and selling losers. Yet there is extensive evidence, across time and markets, that momentum profits have been large and pervasive.

Dimon’s research suggested past winners have beaten past losers for over 100 years, in the US by 7.7% per annum, and to a similar extent in Australia, although the returns come at a cost of higher turnover.

Liquidity

Roger Ibbotson argued that more liquid assets are priced at a premium, and less liquid are at a discount and therefore offer a higher return. He noted that liquid securities are easier to trade with lower market costs and are more desirable to high turnover investors, but as a result they are higher priced for the same expected cash flows. Thus, less liquid investments are better for longer term investors.

Ibbotson measured 3,500 US stocks from 1972-2010 and divided their liquidity (measured by daily trading volumes) in quartiles. The lowest quartile liquidity consistently outperformed. He applied the same reasoning to US equity funds and concluded that those with less liquid holdings also outperformed. He argued that as the liquidity (trading activity) of a stock rises, its valuation rises and investors pay too much for it.

His main message was do not pay for liquidity you do not need. Liquidity needs to be managed like any other risk, and changing stock liquidity creates return opportunities.

With trillions of dollars at stake in the investment management business, not to mention a few hundred thousand high-paying careers, these systemic advantages have been trawled over by analysts for decades. Some people devote their entire lives to one factor, and would probably be horrified by my one paragraph summary. In my mind’s eye, I can see a university academic with steam coming out of his ears as he waves around his 100-page thesis on momentum. Anyone is welcome to comment, and we will spend more time on each factor in other editions of Cuffelinks. My report on the conference is not an academic study of the literature, and no doubt an analyst can cut the data any way to produce other results.

The main conclusions I took from the presentations are that:

  • there are highly-researched factors which have, over time, generated outperformance, although not over all time periods
  • you should consider these factors when assessing whether an active fund manager really has any skill, or are they extracting a factor which should be more cheaply available
  • there are some funds that do not need liquidity that may be able to extract a premium (for example, Listed Investment Companies traded on the market are closed-end and do not face redemptions, but do they extract a liquidity premium?).

Other presentations at the Investment Forum focussed on keeping costs low and risk diversification, emphasising the need to access these factors at competitive costs and across many sectors.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

The best opportunities in fixed income right now

Active or passive – it’s time to change the narrative

The biggest rort of all

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Raising the GST to 15%

Treasurer Jim Chalmers aims to tackle tax reform but faces challenges. Previous reviews struggled due to political sensitivities, highlighting the need for comprehensive and politically feasible change.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

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

The Labor government is talking up tax reform to lift Australia’s ailing economic growth. Before any changes are made, it’s important to know who pays tax, who owns assets, and how much people have in their super for retirement.

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Latest Updates

Taxation

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

The Labor government is talking up tax reform to lift Australia’s ailing economic growth. Before any changes are made, it’s important to know who pays tax, who owns assets, and how much people have in their super for retirement.

7 key charts on the state of the Australian property market

The Australian property market stirs fierce debate - often bullish optimism versus crash predictions. But beyond the noise, seven charts reveal what's really driving prices and the outlook for residential real estate.

A simple alternative to the $3 million super tax

Division 296 aims to introduce improved fairness into the superannuation system, yet is overly complex. This scours the world for better ideas and suggests a simpler alternative which can achieve the same goals.

CBA and the index conundrum for super funds

After the hyperbolic rise in CBA shares, super funds are floating the idea of carving out the weightings of ASX bank securities and indexing them within their portfolios. This looks at why that might be a big error.

Strategy

10 policies to drive Australian productivity higher

Here's a comprehensive list of proposed reforms to fix Australia's stagnating economy, including introducing a flat income tax rate, reducing migration, and making childcare tax-deductible.

Interviews

Where to find big winners in Asia

As more money looks for a home outside the US, Asia may soon get some love. Fidelity's Anthony Srom outlines the best places in Asia to invest, including in Chinese consumer names, Indian financials, and Thailand.

Investment strategies

We have trouble understanding the time value of money

We overvalue the present and underestimate the future - it’s a cognitive glitch called hyperbolic discounting. It affects savings, spending, and loans, and it's more common - and costly - than we think. 

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.