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

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

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.