Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 316

The value of ‘value’ and Benjamin Graham’s three core beliefs

It’s no secret that ‘value’ based investment strategies have generally underperformed market returns throughout the current bull-market, with this underperformance being particularly acute over the past three years. However, the underperformance of value as a style has not been driven by a failure of value investing to deliver what it sets out to achieve. Rather, in many ways, it has been a function of what value investing sets out to avoid.

The ideas behind value investing today are much broader than those originally envisaged by Benjamin Graham, the academic credited with its birth. Graham’s work heavily influenced some of the world’s most famous investors, notably Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, who have expanded on his ideas and applied his approach to a much wider universe of investing strategies.

Nonetheless, the three core tenets of Graham’s work have remained unchanged in the 85 years since he first published them.

1. The future is unknowable

That the future is unknowable might sound trite but consider the authority that most analysts summon when setting out their forecasts. Much of the published investment research today suggests that economic forecasting enjoys a level of precision normally reserved for hard sciences like physics. Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, referred to this as the ‘Pretence of Knowledge’. Hayek described the task of economics as being:

“to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

In the real-world, both economists and market forecasters have dismal records of predicting things like recessions or major turning points in the share market. In an $80 trillion global economy driven by eight billion individual actors, divining such things is beyond the tools at our disposal.

2. Find a margin of safety

Without prediction, we are confronted with two choices. First, we can fall back on the ideas behind the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). This proposes that investors are rational economic actors, and that all new market information is instantly reflected in security prices. We will earn the return of the ‘market’ and live with the ‘risks’ that this entails. If you invested your retirement savings in February 2009, bully for you. If you instead invested them in February 2008, well, that just reflects the risks that come with investing in the ‘market’.

An alternative approach is an investment strategy where some form of a margin of safety exists. A buffer that can protect us regardless of the economic weather or the broader fortunes of the market is the second of Graham’s key value-investing principles. In many ways it is the defining feature of the investment approach. Most value-based strategies are thus anchored on two equally-important goals, generating investment returns and preserving capital.

3. All securities have an intrinsic value

Graham’s third key principle is the idea that all securities have an intrinsic value. If you can determine this intrinsic value, and then buy the asset at a discount to this price, you have created the buffer you need to protect yourself from the whims of the market.

This final concept is where many value-based strategies fail. Determining the intrinsic value of an asset can too often become a subjective exercise, as is determining a knowable intrinsic value in a world where the future is unknowable.

Regardless of its drawbacks, investors like Warren Buffett apply this method when they talk about their search for stocks with wide ‘economic moats’. Businesses can have structural competitive advantages, either through a business model or brand that cannot be readily replicated. The ‘moat’ ensures a long-term competitive advantage, and if the business is bought at the right price, excess market returns are generated over the long-run.

Beware simple screens and ‘value traps’

As with all investment approaches, value-based investing has its pitfalls. For example, many value investors screen potential investments using metrics like price to book value or price to earnings ratios. It is easy to construct a portfolio of ‘cheap’ stocks using such metrics. Whether they are companies truly trading below intrinsic value is another question.

One of the greatest economic forces of recent times has been the arrival of the ‘disrupter’. Typically, these are technology-based companies with innovative approaches to competing in established industries. A defining feature of the disrupter business model is its low capital intensity. Given this, holding a portfolio of stocks today that look cheap on a price to book value basis may in fact just mean owning a collection of companies in structural decline.

Stocks that look cheap on a price to earnings metric and cheapness relative to near-term earnings can often reflect a company with challenged longer-term prospects. Confusing ‘cheap’ with ‘intrinsic value’ is one of the key predicaments value investors must navigate.

Seeking both a return on capital, and a return of capital

Few of the drivers behind absolute market returns this cycle have demonstrated much in the way of safety for investors. Anyone doubting that markets today are mainly driven by central bank actions need only reflect on the magnitude of the share markets swings between September 2018 and March 2019. Global share markets collapsed 17% (in US dollar terms), and then rallied 19%, as the US Fed shifted from guiding to future rates hikes, to hinting at future rate cuts.

Collectively, central banks have injected US$14 trillion into capital markets since 2008 via quantitative easing. Despite these actions, the recovery since the GFC has been anaemic and characterised by low to non-existent levels of inflation. In the US, the only developed economy to experience a meaningful expansion since the crisis, growth has averaged a mere 2.3%, much lower than the 3.6% average of the past three cycles.

Against this bleak backdrop, investors have craved ‘growth’ of any kind. They have found it most noticeably in a small handful of high-growth technology stocks. Some of these companies have revolutionised entire industries while many more remain a long way from delivering on grand promises. On our analysis, eleven stocks (Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Twitter, Tencent, Alibaba, Baidu and Nvidia) have accounted for 21% of all global share market gains over the past five years. Indeed, four of them, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Facebook, are responsible for 23% of the S&P 500’s total return year-to-date.

The recent winners carry no margin of safety

From early 2000 through to the GFC in 2008, value as a style greatly outperformed growth. From 2000 to 2003 covers the dotcom crash and the ensuing broader market correction, while 2003 to 2008 were periods of solid global economic growth and normal levels of inflation.

The excitement surrounding FAANG stocks today has obvious parallels to the dotcom euphoria of 1999 and early 2000. That does not mean this basket of stocks cannot continue to propel broader markets higher for some time to come. How much longer, of course, is unknowable in the eyes of a grizzled value investor. What is clear, is that – having rallied 238% over the past five years – there seems little in the way of a margin of safety in owning them today.

 

Miles Staude of Staude Capital Limited in London is the Portfolio Manager at the Global Value Fund(ASX:GVF). This article is the opinion of the writer and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Why it's a frothy market but not a bubble

FANMAG: Because FAANGs are so yesterday

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.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

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.