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

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.