Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 211

Value investing from an Australian perspective

While the long-term returns from 'value investing' are strong and well documented, the technique has struggled over the past decade prompting many investors to question its merits.

This article discusses value investing from an Australian perspective. The traditional classifications of ‘value’ include earnings, book value and dividends, but value investing by ‘free cash flow’ (FCF) has performed well through market cycles. FCF value investing has also displayed lower levels of volatility when compared to traditional classifications.

These conclusions support our investment philosophy, which is built around the notion that companies undervalued by FCF and franking will outperform over time.

A long-term perspective

The chart below highlights the performance of value investing in an Australian context using more than four decades of data provided by Professor Kenneth French.

Returns of ‘value’ portfolios relative to ‘glamour’ portfolios (December 1974 to December 2016)

Source: Professor Kenneth French. Portfolios are formed using four valuation ratios: book-to-market (B/M); earnings-price (E/P); cash earnings to price (CE/P); and dividend yield (D/P). The raw data is from Morgan Stanley Capital International for 1975 to 2006 and from Bloomberg for 2007 to 2016.

The ‘value’ portfolios contain firms in the top third of a ratio and the 'glamour’ portfolios contain firms in the bottom third. Portfolios are formed at the end of December each year by sorting on the four ratios and then computing value-weighted returns for the following 12 months.

Over the 42-year period for which data is available, value portfolios outperformed glamour portfolios by between 5% and 9% per annum depending on the way ‘value’ is defined.

15 years of poor performance

The data presented below shows returns to value investors in more recent periods have been less than stellar, prompting some commentators to question its merits.

Average annual returns of ‘value’ portfolios relative to ‘glamour’ portfolios (December 1974 to December 2016)

Source: Professor Kenneth French. The raw data for Australia is from Morgan Stanley Capital International from 1975 to 2006 and from Bloomberg from 2007 to 2013. US data is from CRSP. The chart represents the average of four portfolios.

Traditional ‘value’ has become a crowded trade

Anecdotally, there has been more institutional asset allocation towards value strategies in recent years, focusing on the traditional classifications listed above. In addition, many commonly deployed ‘risk models’ use the mainstream classifications to measure the extent of a portfolio’s value exposure.

The focus of institutional asset allocation towards simple strategies concentrating on the four classifications may have reduced the excess returns available from pursuing such strategies. The growth of ‘smart beta’ strategies, which are usually focused around simple and observable value classifications, accentuates this situation.

Traditional classifications of value are more often based on accounting earnings and management’s manipulation of dividends. The recent ramp up in dividend payout ratios and the growing divergence between statutory and ‘underlying’ earnings are examples of this. Of course, this unsustainable situation can lead investors to mistakenly classifying stocks as ‘cheap’ at particular points in time leading to poor investment outcomes.

This situation will be helped by classifying stocks based on their capacity to generate cash flow above that needed to sustain and grow their businesses (‘FCF’). The use of FCF rather than accounting earnings or dividends is important because management can less readily manipulate the measure.

Returns of ‘value’ portfolios relative to ‘glamour’ portfolios (March 2004 to June 2017)

Source: Merlon Capital Partners. Portfolios are formed using four valuation ratios: FCF-to-price (F/P); enterprise-FCF-to-enterprise-value (EF/EV); earnings-to-price (E/P) and book value-to-market (B/M). Monthly portfolio returns are calculated by equally-weighting all sample companies and sorting from top to bottom by each valuation ratio. The ‘value’ portfolios contain firms in the top one third of a ratio and the ‘glamour’ portfolios contain firms in the bottom third. The analysis is based on S&P/ASX200 constituents, and the raw data is from Bloomberg.

The performance of a value strategy that classifies stocks based on FCF has performed well with lower risk compared with traditional accounting-based alternatives. This finding supports our investment philosophy built around the notion that companies undervalued by FCF and franking will outperform over time.

Why do cash flow-based value strategies outperform?

We do not believe that value stocks outperform simply because they are ‘cheap’ but rather because there are misperceptions in the market about their risk profiles and their growth outlooks. A good investment requires market concerns to be priced in or deemed invalid. We incorporate these aspects with a ‘conviction score’ that feeds into our portfolio construction framework.

In a second paper to be released next quarter, we will explore why value strategies based on FCF outperform the broader market. We will present findings that dismiss the notion that value investing is 'riskier' than passive alternatives and support the presence of persistent behavioural biases in investor expectations.

 

Hamish Carlisle is an Analyst and Portfolio Manager at Merlon Capital Partners, an Australian-based boutique fund manager specialising in equity income strategies. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Have value investors been hindered by this quirk of accounting?

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

Call that disruption? Investors are forgetting

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.

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.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

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.

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.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

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.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

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.