Value Investing

Investing in the Midst of a Pandemic

by

Quiz!

When are stock returns highest on average?

  1. When the world economies are strong, and investment sentiment is positive.
  2. When stock valuations are at an extreme low, reflecting a grim economy.
  3. When stock valuations are high, and uncertainty is high.

Investing in the Midst of a Pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic brings substantial uncertainties. While the instinct is to wait for clarity before investing, the biggest returns tend to come starting at times of greatest uncertainty. This was true in past declines, and the current one is no different. On 3/23/2020, stocks hit a bottom with no clarity on the timeline for the world stopping the spread of the virus, and no clarity on how the world economy would survive social distancing. A moderate reduction of uncertainties led to phenomenal gains in stocks. As additional uncertainties get resolved, there is a chance for additional gains. This article refers to the coronavirus – as always, additional negative and positive surprises may appear, leading for ups and downs, beyond the uncertainties listed below. In addition, investors expect economic pain from the social distancing, and this may be reflected in stock prices too little or too much. Here is the timeline so far and potentially looking forward.

Past:

  1. Around the bottom, central banks and governments announced substantial support for economies, including the Federal Reserve using the term “unlimited support”.
  2. Over time, we saw the number of daily new cases in many countries level off, and in some cases, revert. This gave some comfort that with social distancing, the virus could be contained in a reasonable timeline.

Future:

  1. Additional central bank & government support until the end of the pandemic’s economic impact.
  2. Increased testing, to allow quick isolation of infected people. A lot already happened, but more is needed.
  3. Increased contact tracing, both automated and manual, to isolate people who got in contact with infected people. Automated solutions are being developed. There is currently substantial hiring for contact tracers. My understanding is that a lot more progress is needed on this item. This is a good example of creating reemployment to help with the effort to end the pandemic.
  4. Transition from level and fewer daily new cases, to a worldwide reduction in total cases, so fewer people will be able to spread the disease.
  5. A potential die-off or weakening of the virus, as eventually happens with some viruses.
  6. Treatments to reduce the severity of the disease.
  7. Widespread vaccines.

Key Point: The intuition of many investors is to wait to invest in stocks until uncertainties are removed. This leads them to invest at times with much higher risk of long-lasting declines. If you have enough resources to weather substantial declines that are always a possibility with stock investing, you may be lucky enough to invest at a time that can both help your returns as well as prepare you for future cycles.

Quiz Answer:

When are stock returns highest on average?

  1. When the world economies are strong, and investment sentiment is positive.
  2. When stock valuations are at an extreme low, reflecting a grim economy. [Correct Answer]
  3. When stock valuations are high, and uncertainty is high.

Explanation:

  1. A strong economy with positive sentiment can lead to gains for a long while, but is also reflective of peaks in stocks.
  2. When the economy is in poor shape, and valuations already reached low levels, people already sold a lot. The declines may continue for some time, but eventually a turnaround comes, and some of the strongest stock returns may begin.
  3. High uncertainty along with high stock valuations could sometimes lead to gains and sometimes losses. The high valuations sometimes mean that not enough selling was done to reflect the uncertainty.

See article above for more explanations.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

5 Rules of Thumb to Avoid Making a Painful Investment Change

by

Quiz!

Which are good ways to reduce your risk after 10 years of poor returns for a diversified investment? (There may be multiple answers.)

  1. Diversify and include some lower risk investments that performed well in the past 10 years.
  2. Lower your risk by holding some bonds.
  3. Lower your risk by holding some cash.
  4. Don’t make any change.
  5. Increase your allocation to the investment.

5 Rules of Thumb to Avoid Making a Painful Investment Change

Have you ever seen your diversified investments perform poorly for an extended period of 5-10 years, and felt that it would be prudent to diversify to reduce your risks? Have you moved money to an investment that felt much safer based on those years? In most cases, such activity would increase your risk – the opposite of your intended action. In some cases, the results could be painful.

How can a shift to reduce risk end up being painful? Diversified investments tend to be cyclical. The risk of a tough decade following a tough decade is lower than typical, not higher. Furthermore, the risk of a tough decade after an exceptional decade is higher than typical. Here is a case that may be familiar to you: In the late 1990’s US Large Growth stocks seemed like the safest stocks in the world. A switch to these seemingly safe stocks could have led you to losing 30% of your money over the following 10 years (total returns, including dividends, starting 3/1999). If you would have switched away from the seemingly risky Value or Emerging Markets stocks, your pain would have compounded, by missing phenomenal growth.

How can you avoid making a flawed change? Here are a few rules of thumb:

  1. Compare your investment performance in the past 10 years to the long-term performance (ideally 30+ years). If the past 10 years were below average, the investment is likely to be less risky than usual, not more. Don’t make a change!
  2. Do the same for the target investment you want to diversify into. If the past 10 years were above average, the investment is likely to be more risky than usual, not less. Don’t make a change!
  3. Do the same when comparing valuations, as presented by Price/Book. If the change would increase your Price/Book, you would sell low and buy high, something that can hurt you.
  4. Imagine living through a period with the opposite recent performance – would you still feel that you are reducing your risk with the intended change? If not, the alarm bells should be ringing.
  5. Say that someone urges you to diversify your portfolio, given the risk of your current portfolio, as presented by recent performance. Check how diversified your current portfolio is. If it includes 100’s or 1,000’s of stocks, split over many sectors in many countries, you are probably already diversified. The phrase: “You should diversify”, is a disguise for the real intent: “You should buy the recent winners, no matter what it does to your diversification.”

How can you use the information above today?

  1. Just like in the 1990’s, US Large Growth stocks performed far better than their long-term average. They averaged about 13% per year over 10 years, compared to a 10% long-term average. You should realistically expect the returns in the next 10 years to be much lower, not just below 13%, but far below 10%. In addition, the P/B of these stocks is far above average, another warning sign for poor upcoming returns.
  2. The reverse is true for Emerging Markets stocks. They grew far below their average. For example, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index grew by a mere 4.1% per year in the past 10 years, compared to 10.5% nearly 32-year average. Returns above the 10.5% average in the next 10 years are the likely outcome.

A few words of caution: cycles don’t have a fixed length. Returns that are better or worse than average can continue longer or shorter than expected. In addition, long-term averages can fluctuate. While no result is guaranteed, the information above can help you work with the odds, and not against them.

Quiz Answer:

Which are good ways to reduce your risk after 10 years of poor returns for a diversified investment? (There may be multiple answers.)

  1. Diversify and include some lower risk investments that performed unusually well in the past 10 years.
  2. Lower your risk by holding some bonds.
  3. Lower your risk by holding some cash.
  4. Don’t make any change.
  5. Increase your allocation to the investment. [Correct Answer]

Explanations:

  1. Answers 1-3: Diversified investments tend to be cyclical – selling after 10 tough years, is likely selling low. Buying an investment that performed unusually well at the same time, is likely buying high. This will likely increase your risk.
  2. Answer 4: While future returns are likely to be above average, and risks below average, no change will keep your risk profile at the same reduced level.
  3. Answer 5: Buying extra at a very low point may reduce your risk, if valuations (Price/Book) are far below average and the investment is diversified.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

Can you be Happy with your Volatile Stock Portfolio Whether it is Up or Down?

by

Quiz!

Which of the following can make you happy while your investment is low? (There may be multiple answers.)

  1. You hold a company with a strong track record.
  2. You hold a company with market dominance.
  3. You take some risk off, and switch to bonds.
  4. You take some risk off, and switch to cash.
  5. You take some risk off, and switch to a well proven investment that did well over an entire decade.

Can you be Happy with your Volatile Stock Portfolio Whether it is Up or Down?

High investment growth comes with volatility, and is treated as the price for enjoying the high long-term gains. What if you could stay happy even during declines?

Conditions:

  1. When working, live according to your income. Don’t spend beyond what you make.
  2. When retired, spend a small percentage of your portfolio every year. Don’t plan on running out of money in your lifetime. 3%-4% is appropriate for most diversified portfolios with a high enough stock allocation.
  3. Invest in a highly diversified stock portfolio, without any specific bets (specific companies, countries, etc.).
  4. Structure the portfolio for high growth (emphasize stocks, value investing, small stocks, fast growing countries).
  5. Maintain iron discipline to stick with your portfolio for life, and never make changes at low points (unless you move to another investment with at least equally low valuations and equally high long-term returns).

If you follow the conditions above, you can be happy in up and down times, as follows:

  1. By nature, you have a fast growing portfolio in the long run, a cause for underlying happiness.
  2. When you enjoyed high past gains, you can be happy with the past results.
  3. When recent returns have been poor and valuations (price/book) are low, you can be happy about the high expected returns.
  4. If you have any new money to invest (savings from work, inheritance, money elsewhere), you can be very happy, because investing this money at a low point turns a temporary decline into a permanent excess gain (the gains on buying low).
  5. Over the cycles, the dollar value of the percent spending can go up as you reach higher peaks, leading to happiness about growing cash flows.

Most people struggle with such a plan, because the media pushes them to think about parts of the cycle, e.g. 5-10 years. This leads investors to be unhappy during downturns, and sometimes even destroy their life’s savings by selling low and buying something else high. Any high-growth investments can go through downturns of 5-10 or more years (e.g. the S&P 500 lost 30% of its value in the 10 years from 3/1999-2/2009), so it takes strength to stay disciplined. The best tool to maintain discipline is to watch valuations (price/book). After your high-growth investment goes through a long tough stretch, you can compare it to another investment that performed very well in recent years, and you are likely to see that your investment is enjoying substantially lower valuations, leading to substantially higher expected returns in upcoming years. While there is no guarantee for a specific turning point, you enjoy the nice combination of lower risk and higher expected returns.

Quiz Answer:

Which of the following can make you happy while your investment is low? (There may be multiple answers.)

  1. You hold a company with a strong track record.
  2. You hold a company with market dominance.
  3. You take some risk off, and switch to bonds.
  4. You take some risk off, and switch to cash.
  5. You take some risk off, and switch to a well proven investment that did well over an entire decade.

Explanations: None of the answers are correct!

  • 1-2 depend on concentrated investments. History taught us repeatedly that single companies aren’t immune to irreversible downturns.
  • 3-4 may feel good at the moment, but they turn a temporary downturn (assuming your investment is diversified and consistent) into a permanent loss.
  • 5 may also feel good at the moment, but investments are cyclical, and the best performer of the past 10 years is likely to underperform your poor performing investment in the next 10 years. A glance at the relative valuations (price/book) of the investments can confirm this risk.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

Value Investing Is Alive and More Appealing Than Typical

by

Quiz!

Which of the following are true about US stocks (multiple answers may be correct)?

  1. Value stocks outperformed growth stocks in the past 90 years.
  2. Value stocks have become more expensive than growth stocks.
  3. Growth stocks grow faster than value stocks.

Value Investing Is Alive and More Appealing Than Typical

I’ve seen a number of articles declaring US value investing dead.

What is Value Investing? Value investing refers to buying companies with low stock prices relative to their intrinsic value, or book value (i.e. low Price/Book or P/B). Over the past 90 years, the collective of US value stocks outperformed growth (high Price/Book) stocks.

Why would people question value investing now? US Value stocks have underperformed US Growth (high Price/Book) stocks for the past 10 years – long enough for people to believe that maybe there is a new normal and value stocks will underperform growth stocks moving forward.

What is the theory for the new normal? The theory is that value investing became more commonplace, and the extra investing in value stocks led to bidding up their prices and eliminating the excess-return benefit compared to growth stocks.

Let’s test the theory. If the theory is right, the prices of value stocks increased all the way to match the prices of growth stocks (by definition, they cannot be any higher), eliminating the pricing benefit. It turns out that the opposite is true: the discount in Price/Book of value stocks increased significantly in the past 10 years.

Conclusion. The theory that value investing is dead due to overcrowding fails a simple math test. Based on the test, the opposite seems true, supporting the notion that the underperformance is part of a cycle, and value investing may enjoy greater excess returns than typical in upcoming years.

Implications for other investments. There are 2 other investment categories that show potential promise thanks to a similar simple mathematical test: US Small stocks & Emerging Markets stocks.

Quiz Answer:

Which of the following are true (multiple answers may be correct)?

  1. Value stocks outperformed growth stocks in the past 90 years. [The Correct Answer]
  2. Value stocks have become more expensive than growth stocks.
  3. Growth stocks grow faster than value stocks.

Explanations:

  1. This has been correct in the US for the past 90 years, and in other countries for decades.
  2. The opposite is true: value stocks are enjoying lower valuations (Price/Book, or price relative to the intrinsic value) today than in recent years.
  3. This has been true in the past 10 years in the US, but not in the long run.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

A Vanishing Value Premium?

by

Quiz!

As of March 31, 2000, US value stocks had underperformed growth stocks by 5.61% per year for the previous 10 years. How many years did it take for value stocks to make up for these 10 years of underperformance?

  1. We are still waiting
  2. 10 years
  3. 5 years
  4. 3 years
  5. 1 year
  6. Less than 1 year

A Vanishing Value Premium?

By Weston Wellington, Vice President, Dimensional Fund Advisors

Value stocks underperformed growth stocks by a material margin in the US last year. However, the magnitude and duration of the recent negative value premium are not unprecedented. This column reviews a previous period when challenging performance caused many to question the benefits of value investing. The subsequent results serve as a reminder about the importance of discipline.

Measured by the difference between the Russell 1000 Growth and Russell 1000 Value indices, value stocks delivered the weakest relative performance in seven years. Moreover, as of year-end 2015, value stocks returned less than growth stocks over the past one, three, five, 10, and 13 years.

Unsurprisingly, some investors with a value tilt to their portfolios are finding their patience sorely tested. We suspect at least a few will find these results sufficiently discouraging and may contemplate abandoning value stocks entirely.

Total Return for 12 Months Ending December 31, 2015

Russell 1000 Growth Index 5.67%
Russell 1000 Value Index −3.83%
Value minus Growth −9.49%

Before taking such a big step, let’s review a previous period when value strategies underperformed to gain some perspective.

As many growth stocks and technology-related firms soared in value in the mid- to late 1990s, value strategies delivered positive returns but fell far behind in the relative performance race. At year-end 1998, value stocks had underperformed growth stocks over the previous one, three, five, 10, 15, and 20 years. The inception of the Russell indices was January 1979, so all the available data (20 years) from the most widely followed benchmarks indicated superior performance for growth stocks. To some investors, it seemed foolish for money managers to hold “old economy” stocks like Caterpillar (−3.1% total return for 1998) while “new economy” stocks like Yahoo! Inc. appeared to be the wave of the future (743% total return for 1998).

Many value-oriented managers counseled patience, but for them the worst was yet to come. In 1999, growth stocks shone even brighter as value trailed by the largest calendar year margin in the history of the Russell indices—over 25%.

Total Return for 1999

Russell 1000 Growth Index 33.16%
Russell 1000 Value Index 7.36%
Value minus Growth −25.80%

In the first quarter of 2000, growth stocks bolted out of the gate and streaked to a 7% return while value stocks returned only 0.48%. As of March 31, 2000, value stocks had underperformed growth stocks by 5.61% per year for the previous 10 years and by 1.49% per year since the inception of the Russell indices in 1979. A Wall Street Journal article appearing in January profiled a prominent value-oriented fund manager who regularly received angry letters and email messages; his fund shareholders ridiculed him for avoiding technology-related investments. Two months later he was replaced as portfolio manager amidst persistent shareholder redemptions.

With value stocks falling so far behind in the relative performance race, it seemed plausible that value stocks would need a lifetime to catch up, if they ever could.

It took less than a year.

By November 2000, value stocks had delivered modestly higher returns than growth stocks since index inception (21 years, 11 months). By month-end February 2001, value stocks had outperformed growth over the previous one, three, five, 10, and 20 years and since-inception periods.

The reversal was dramatic. Over the period April 2000 to November, value stocks outperformed growth stocks by 26.7% and by 39.7% from April 2000 to February 2001.

This type of result is not confined to the technology boom-and-bust experience of the late 1990s. Although less pronounced, a similar reversal took place following a lengthy period of value stock underperformance ending in December 1991.

We can find similar evidence with other premiums:

  • From January 1995 to December 1999, the annualized size premium was negative by approximately 963 basis points (bps), amounting to a cumulative total return difference of approximately 113%. Within the next 18 months, the entire cumulative difference had been made up.
  • From January 1995 to December 2001, the annualized size premium was positive by approximately 157 bps.

The moral of the story?

Prices are difficult to predict at either the individual security level or the asset class level, and dramatic changes in relative performance can take place in a short period of time.

While there is a sound economic rationale and empirical evidence to support our expectation that value stocks will outperform growth stocks and small caps will outperform large caps over longer periods, we know that value and small caps can underperform over any given period. Results from previous periods reinforce the importance of discipline in pursuing these premiums.

Quiz Answer

As of March 31, 2000, US value stocks had underperformed growth stocks by 5.61% per year for the previous 10 years. How many years did it take for value stocks to make up for these 10 years of underperformance?

  1. We are still waiting
  2. 10 years
  3. 5 years
  4. 3 years
  5. 1 year
  6. Less than 1 year [The Correct Answer]

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

Why doesn’t Everyone Benefit from the Value Premium?

by

It is well established that value stocks (stocks with low price/book value, or price relative to the company’s liquidation value) earn a higher return than the general market. The effect is very meaningful – potentially 2% excess annualized return. It was tested through long time periods, retested through new periods, and retested in many different countries (out of sample testing). It is also logical – if the price is low relative to the value of the company assets, it has room to grow to reach the valuations (P/B) of other companies.

So, why doesn’t everyone focus on owning them? Value stocks tend to be less known and less glamorous. They often have low price relative to their book value as a result of poor recent returns. People like to see that the stock “proved itself” before investing in it. They also like to imitate others’ success. To make matters much worse, value stocks don’t always do better. They can do worse for long stretches of 5+ years. I have seen people think logically about investments, and stick through tough periods. But, as the period gets longer, they lose faith in the long-term success.

A strong example from recent years is Emerging Markets Value. This asset class suffered in multiple ways – both emerging markets and value suffered poor performance for the past 5 years. To add insult to injury, the more known US market had unusually high returns. This led people to think that the US is a better investment and to sell from emerging markets to buy US investments.

US stocks reached high valuations (P/B), and emerging markets reached low valuations (P/B). The relative valuations between the S&P 500 and emerging markets value almost doubled in the past 5 years. Your emerging markets investments would not reach the S&P 500’s P/B, until they approximately triple in value – that is about 200% gain. An observation of the past 17 years of emerging markets value returns, shows how surges emerge from low valuations. Here are distinct 12-month periods with ~100% gains in this timeframe:

Period starting at 12-month return
9/1998 120%
4/2003 97%
3/2009 117%

These returns occurred approximately every 6 years. The value premium is greatest when having big gains that stem from low valuations. For example, in the recent 2009 surge, emerging markets value outperformed the general emerging markets by more than 20%.

What is the logic for these surges? As explained above, the past selling results in poor performance, leading for more people to sell, and propagates the poor returns. This is a snowball that can go on for a while. As valuations reach very low points, any bit of marginally good news can lead to a surge – whether it is a reduction in interest rates, government spending, or economic results that are not bad enough to justify the very low valuations.

Your strong value tilt means that you buy the unloved companies that people sell. When people are completely desperate and lose all faith in these companies, you buy low, and when the turnaround comes, you reap the greatest benefits – life changing benefits. This focus on value stocks is one big thing you have in common with Warren Buffett, one of the greatest investors of all times.Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data