australiaen
Will Value survive the quant winter?

Will Value survive the quant winter?

01-09-2020 | Insight
The Value factor posted excellent returns over the first decade of the century. In the past few years, however, it has faced its deepest drawdown in history, and its very existence is coming under scrutiny. This raises an important question: will value make a comeback and bring benefits to investors once again?
  • Pim  van Vliet, PhD
    Pim
    van Vliet, PhD
    Head of Conservative Equities
  • Guido  Baltussen
    Guido
    Baltussen
    Head of Quant Allocation

Speed read

  • Value and other premiums could be negative for as long as a decade
  • Allocating to value, even in adverse times, reduces long-term portfolio risk
  • Investors need to be aware of their behavior gap, and keep a strong hand

The current debate about the continued existence of the value premium bears a close resemblance to historical discussions about the equity premium itself, which has been declared dead several times over the years. For example, in 1979, BusinessWeek magazine referred to ‘the death of equities’ as stocks had not earned a premium for over ten years.1

The negative return from equities in the 1970s was explained by high inflation at the time. Companies were not able to grow their net real earnings because of rising costs. This narrative is a useful explanation for disappointing past performance, but is of little use in predicting returns. After that 1979 article, one of the strongest ever bull markets in equities took place.

This shows that the talk about the demise of the equity premium had been highly premature. The bull market ended when the tech bubble burst in 2000, and in 2009, some investors were once again questioning whether the equity premium was dead after another decade of poor returns. Of course, we all know how the 2010s worked out for the stock markets.

One important takeaway from all this is that investors wishing to maximize their chance of successfully harvesting the equity premium need to adopt a long-term horizon and keep a strong hand. If they had gotten nervous and sold when things looked their worst, they could have missed out on huge subsequent returns.

Stay informed on our latest insights with monthly mail updates
Stay informed on our latest insights with monthly mail updates
Subscribe

Valuations suggest above-average future returns

Investors need to think in decades, not in quarters, because stock market returns can swing wildly over short timeframes. This also applies for time-tested factors such as value. For one, our research shows that value returns coming from multiple expansions tend to mean-revert over longer periods of time.

More specifically, when considering holding periods of ten years, we find that value generally becomes cheaper, with multiples expanding, when past returns for value stocks have been low and growth returns have been high. However, we also find that, over the subsequent ten years, value returns tend to be significantly higher than the previous ten years.

From this perspective, current multiples suggest that, over the next ten years, the value premium will probably be substantially higher than its long-term average.

Another important result from our study of long-term investment results is that combining different factors is a good way of reducing a portfolio’s volatility and the probability of prolonged periods of underperformance. Even if value carried no premium at all, it would still help reduce the risk in a multi-factor strategy.

Strong hands needed

Finally, one last consideration is that while investors are often lured into equity styles, based on their past performance, they actually need strong hands in periods of poor performance to bridge the gap between investment return and investor return. This is because poor timing skills or ‘weak hands’ often cancel out the benefits of being exposed to well-rewarded premiums.

Factors carry premiums, but they inevitably involve periods of pain too. Investors need to be careful not to enter or exit at the worst possible moment – for example, by selling equities in 1979. Value rallies tend to be sharp and difficult to predict, so make sure you stay in the game and live through what is undeniably a ‘value winter’.

Logo

Disclaimer

BY CLICKING ON “I AGREE”, I DECLARE I AM A WHOLESALE CLIENT AS DEFINED IN THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001.

What is a Wholesale Client?
A person or entity is a “wholesale client” if they satisfy the requirements of section 761G of the Corporations Act.
This commonly includes a person or entity:

  • who holds an Australian Financial Services License
  • who has or controls at least $10 million (and may include funds held by an associate or under a trust that the person manages)
  • that is a body regulated by APRA other than a trustee of:
    (i) a superannuation fund;
    (ii) an approved deposit fund;
    (iii) a pooled superannuation trust; or
    (iv) a public sector superannuation scheme.
    within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
  • that is a body registered under the Financial Corporations Act 1974.
  • that is a trustee of:
    (i) a superannuation fund; or
    (ii) an approved deposit fund; or
    (iii) a pooled superannuation trust; or
    (iv) a public sector superannuation scheme
    within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the fund, trust or scheme has net assets of at least $10 million.
  • that is a listed entity or a related body corporate of a listed entity
  • that is an exempt public authority
  • that is a body corporate, or an unincorporated body, that:
    (i) carries on a business of investment in financial products, interests in land or other investments; and
    (ii) for those purposes, invests funds received (directly or indirectly) following an offer or invitation to the public, within the meaning of section 82 of the Corporations Act 2001, the terms of which provided for the funds subscribed to be invested for those purposes.
  • that is a foreign entity which, if established or incorporated in Australia, would be covered by one of the preceding paragraphs.
I Disagree