Growth Versus Value: An Inflection Point?

Posted On March 30, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management /  

DeathtoStock_Objects9

Over time, Value stocks outperform Growth stocks. There are a number of reasons why this has held true over the history of the market. Value stocks may include sectors which are currently out of favor and inexpensive. Investors, on the other hand, are sometimes willing to pay too much for a sensational growth story rather than a boring, blue chip company. Often, those great sounding stocks flame out rather than shooting higher as hoped. The result is that the long-term benefit of value strategies has persisted.

Although the “Value Anomaly” is a historical fact, it hasn’t worked in all periods, and we’re at such a point in time now. Growth has actually outperformed value over the past decade. Even though growth beat value in only 5 of the past 10 calendar years, the cumulative difference is notable. Over the past 10 years, the Russell 1000 Growth fund (IWF) has returned an annualized 9.18% versus 7.10% for the Russell 1000 Value (IWD). And so far this year, Growth (IWF) is up 5%, whereas Value (IWD) has gained only 0.63%.

The last time growth showed a marked divergence from value was the 90’s. And at that time, we saw the valuations of growth companies rise to unsustainable levels. This largely occurred in the tech sector, where for example, we saw Cicso trade for more than 200 times earnings, and become the most valuable company in the world in 2000. Eventually, growth corrected with the bursting of the tech bubble, and we saw value stocks return to favor. These are the cycles of the market, as inevitable as the seasons, although not as consistent, predictable, or rational!

I don’t think we’re in bubble territory for the market today, but some popular growth names have certainly started to become expensive and value is looking like a relative bargain. Looking at the top 10 stocks in the both indices, the growth stocks have an average PE of 27, versus 17 for the 10 largest value companies. Some of that difference is Facebook, #4 on the Growth list, with a PE of 75. However, the difference in valuation is across the board. Two of the largest value companies, Exxon Mobil and JPMorgan Chase have a PE of only 11.

So, what are the take-aways from the Growth/Value divergence?

  • Growth has outperformed value in recent years. This will not continue forever.
  • Our portfolios are diversified, owning both growth and value segments. We have a slight tilt towards value, which we will continue. When value returns to favor, this will benefit not only pure value funds, but will also likely help dividend strategies, low volatility ETFs, and fundamentally-weighted funds.
  • As the overall market becomes more expensive, I would expect to see that we will move from a unified market, where all stocks move up or down together, to a more segmented market, where stocks move more based on their valuation and fundamentals. Global macro-economics have been the primary driver of stock prices in recent years, but this should abate somewhat as the recovery continues.

We won’t know if we’ve reached an inflection point, where value will overtake growth, until well after the fact. Growth can’t outperform indefinitely, and as investors become more cautious, value stocks will start to look more and more attractive. That’s what we’re seeing in the market today and why we started to increase our value holdings in 2015.

Source of fund data: Morningstar, through 3/27/2015

Read More

Indexing Wins Again in 2014

Posted On February 2, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management /  

100_0169

2014 was another strong year for Index funds. According to the Wall Street Journal, only 13% of actively managed large cap funds exceeded the 13.7% total return of the S&P 500 Index for the year. It seems like each year, when index funds outshine active managers, we hear different excuses why. This time, market breadth was blamed, as a high correlation of returns meant that there were few stand-out stocks for managers to make profitable trades. In previous years, we heard managers complain about a “junk rally”, or that “our style is out of favor this year”. And of course, each year, we also hear why the new year is going to finally be a stock pickers market.

We use index funds as the core of our Good Life Wealth model portfolios. Indexing works. I think the misconception about indexing is that it means settling for average returns or that it’s a lazy approach. The reality is that using index funds actually increases your chances of achieving good performance. Index funds outperform 60-80% of actively managed funds over the long-term.

Of course, some actively managed funds do beat the indices. Why not just select those funds? Unfortunately, past returns are not a reliable indicator of future performance. We know this is true – and not just my opinion – through the Standard and Poors Persistence Scorecard, which rigorously measures the persistence of fund performance. Updated in December, the Persistence Scorecard found that of 421 domestic equity funds in the top quartile (top 25%) over five years, only 20.43% remained in the top quartile for the subsequent five-year period.

Top Quartile funds based on 5-year performance (as of September 2009). Over the next 5 years, through September 2014:

  • 20.43% of the funds remained top quartile
  • 19.95% fell into the second quartile
  • 22.33% dropped into the third quartile
  • 27.09% sunk to the bottom quartile
  • 10.21% of the funds were merged or liquidated

If long-term performance was a reflection of manager skill, why are so few funds able to continue to be above average? The results above suggest that instead of high-performing funds remaining at the top, their subsequent returns are almost randomly distributed. In fact, top quartile funds are more likely to be at the bottom (27%) than to remain at the top (20%). And surprisingly, 10% of those top funds don’t even exist in five years. Unfortunately, buying that 5-star fund that has been killing the market often turns out to be a poor decision in a few years time. Then the investor switches to a new hot fund, and the cycle of hope and disappointment begins again.

Indexing avoids these pitfalls. It’s a smart way to invest. And when you look at the tax efficiency of index funds compared to active funds, indexing looks even smarter. (Don’t even ask about the tax consequences of trading mutual funds every couple of years.) But using index funds isn’t a once and done event. We carefully create our asset allocation each year in consideration of valuations, risks, and potential returns for the year ahead. Even when we don’t make any changes to the portfolio models, we still monitor client portfolios and rebalance annually to make sure your holdings stay in line with our target weightings. Perhaps most importantly, the indexing approach allows investors to focus their energy on saving and planning decisions, rather than monitoring managers or searching for the next hot fund.

Read More

Three Studies for Smart Investors

Posted On June 1, 2014 By Admin In Portfolio Management /  

Over the last several years, my investment approach has become more systematic and disciplined.  In place of stock picking or manager selection, I believe clients are better served by a focus on strategic asset allocation. Today, we offer investors a series of 5 portfolio models, using ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) and mutual funds. This approach offers a number of benefits, including diversification, low cost, transparency, and tax efficiency.

This evolution in approach occurred gradually as a result of continued research, personal experience, and pursuing the goal of a consistent client experience.  In my previous position, I managed $375 million in client portfolios, performing investment research, designing asset allocation models, rebalancing and implementing trades.  I am grateful for having this experience and want to share the reasons why I believe investors are best served by the approach we’re using today.

My investment approach is underpinned by three academic studies.  These studies look at long-term investment performance, are updated annually, and offer great insight into what is actually working or not working for investors. As an analyst, I am very interested in what data tells us, and how this may differ from what we think will work or what should work in theory.  But even if you aren’t a numbers geek like me, these studies instruct us about investor behavior and where you should focus your efforts and energy.  I’m going to give a very brief summary of each study and include a link if you’d like to read more.

Published semi-annually, SPIVA looks at all actively managed mutual funds and calculates how many active managers outperform their benchmarks. The long-term results are consistently disappointing.  As of December 31, 2013, 72.72% of all large cap funds lagged the S&P 500 Index over the previous five years.

Sometimes, I hear that Small Cap or Emerging Market funds are better suited for active management because they invest in smaller, less efficient markets.  This sounds plausible, but the numbers do not confirm this.  The data from SPIVA shows that 66.77% of small cap funds lagged their benchmark and 80.00% (!) of Emerging Market funds under performed over the past five years.

The lesson from SPIVA is that using an index fund or ETF to track a benchmark is a sensible long-term approach.  Indexing may not be exciting or produce the best performance in any given year, but it has produced good results over time and reduces the risk that we select the wrong fund or manager.  Our approach is to use Index funds as a core component to our portfolio models.

The other conclusion I draw from SPIVA is that if large mutual fund companies, with hundreds of analysts, cannot consistently beat the benchmark, it would be foolish to think that a lone financial advisor picking individual stocks could do better.

After looking at SPIVA, it may occur to investors that 20-35% of funds actually did beat their benchmarks over 5 years.  Why not just pick those funds?  Why settle for average when you can be in a top-performing fund?

The S&P Persistence Scorecard looks at mutual funds over the past 10 years.  At the 5-year mark, the scorecard ranks funds in quartiles by performance and looks at how the funds’ returns were in the subsequent five years. This tells us if a top performing fund is likely to remain a leader.

Looking at all US Equity funds, we start with the funds which were in the top quartile in September 2008. Below is breakdown of how those top quartile funds ranked in the subsequent five years, through September 30, 2013:
1st Quartile:  22.43%
2nd Quartile  27.92%
3rd Quartile:  20.53%
4th Quartile:  16.71%
Merged/Liquidated:  12.41%

Of the funds in the 1st Quartile in 2008, only 22% remained in the top category in the following 5 years.  29%, however, fell to the bottom quartile or were merged or liquidated in the following 5 years.  So, if your method is to go to Morningstar and find the best performing fund, please be warned,past performance is no guarantee of future results.  In fact, the Persistence Scorecard tells us that not only is past performance not a guarantee, it isn’t even a good indicator of future results.  The results above aren’t much different than a random chance of 1 in 4 (25%).  Albeit disappointing and counter-intuitive, the reality is that past performance offers virtually no predictive information.

Now in its 20th year, QAIB compares mutual fund returns to investor returns.  The reason why they differ is because of the timing of investors’ contributions and withdrawals from mutual funds.  For example, people may think that it is safer to invest when the market is doing well and they buy at a high.  Or, investors chase last year’s hot sector and sell out of a fund that is at a low and just about to turn around.  Investor decisions are consistently so poor that we can actually measure the gap between the average investor’s return and the benchmark.  You might want to sit down for this one – over the 20 year period through 2013, the S&P 500 Index returned 9.22% annually, but the average investor return from equity mutual funds was only 5.02%.  The behavior gap cost investors 4.20% a year over two decades.
We can draw three very important conclusions from QAIB:
– We should avoid trying to time the market (buy/sell);
– Chasing performance is more likely to hurt returns than improve returns;
– Without a disciplined approach, including a target asset allocation and monitoring/rebalancing process, what may feel like a good investment decision at the time may ultimately prove to be a poor choice in hindsight.

These three studies are so important that I carry excerpts from the reports with me to discuss with investors. They’re fundamental to my investment approach, and hopefully, their significance can easily be grasped and appreciated by all our clients.

While we’ve focused exclusively on investment philosophy in this post, I would be remiss to not add that the benefits of working with a CFP(R) practitioner are not limited to portfolio management.  A comprehensive financial plan includes many elements, such as savings/debt analysis, risk management, tax strategies, and estate planning.  The investment management component tends to get the greatest attention, but the other elements of a personal financial plan are equally important in creating a foundation for your financial security.

Read More