Robeco, The Investments Engineers
blue circle

30-05-2023 · インサイト

Indices insights: In the race of returns, factor premiums often win the day

Research shows that some market segments, like undervalued or high-quality companies, consistently yield higher returns. But how do these factors, like Value and Quality, really perform over time? In this Indices Insight, we'll let the data speak for itself and shed light on how these factors stack up against their counterparts. Spoiler alert: while their returns can be a roller coaster ride, factors often cross the finish line ahead of their counterparts.

    執筆者

  • Joop Huij - インデックス責任者

    Joop Huij

    インデックス責任者

  • Jean-Paul van Brakel - Researcher

    Jean-Paul van Brakel

    Researcher

Past studies reveal a range of factor premiums that go beyond just the equity premium. Here, we’re talking about the value premium, momentum premium, quality premium, low-risk premium, and the size (or small-cap) premium.

Let’s briefly look at each factor one by one. The value effect is like backing the underdog. Stocks that seem underpriced or cheap, as measured for example by the book-to-price ratio, tend to outpace their more expensive (growth) counterparts.1 The momentum effect, on the other hand, is all about betting on a winning horse. Stocks that have been doing well lately (winners) are likely to keep up the good work2 more than the losers.

Then there’s the quality effect: trusting in strong performers. Stocks with high profitability and low investments (high quality) usually outdo those with low profitability and high investments (low quality or junk)3. The low-risk effect4 is the financial version of ‘slow and steady wins the race’. Low-risk stocks have a knack for yielding higher risk-adjusted returns than high-risk stocks. Finally, the size effect, though not as prominent as the others, shows that small-cap stocks often outperform their large-cap counterparts.5

These factor premiums, though their exact definitions6 spark quite some debate, are backed by evidence from extensive periods. This includes US data going back to the 60s or even the 20s, and international data from the 90s. In our visualization below, we stick with generic definitions7 and base our data on US stock returns.

What's clear from our analysis is that since 1967, the majority of factors consistently win out over their counterparts in almost all three-year spans. This is evident from the fact that most of the time, most of the factors (be it three, four, or all five) yield a higher return than their alternatives. But this isn't to say that factors always have a smooth ride. They can underperform at times, like during the dotcom boom when IT-centric growth stocks outdid value stocks from more conventional businesses. Even as recently as between 2017 and 2020, several factors lagged behind their counterparts over a three-year period. But factors have a history of bouncing back, and that's exactly what they've been doing from 2021 onwards.

Data and methodology

Our visual is based on monthly US stock returns courtesy of Professor Kenneth French.8 Our results are based on portfolios sorted according to market capitalization quintiles and other quintiles, which look at book-to-price ratios (value vs growth); return over the prior twelve months excluding the last month (winners and losers); univariate market beta over the preceding five years (low beta and high beta); operating profitability (high profitability vs low profitability), or change in assets between the last two fiscal years (low investments and high investments). We then average the top and bottom quintiles across all size groups to determine the final factors and their counterparts.

For example, the value factor is based on averaging over the five size-sorted portfolios with the highest book-to-market ratio. Similarly, for the growth counterpart, we average the five size-sorted portfolios with the lowest book-to-market ratio. This same procedure is repeated for the other factors and their counterparts. We then calculate the high-quality factor and its low-quality counterpart by equally weighting the resulting high profitability and low investment portfolios and low profitability and high investment portfolios respectively. The small-cap factor is based on the lowest market capitalization quintile and its large-cap counterpart is based on the highest market capitalization quintile.

Returns are the annualized three-year returns, denoted in USD from January 1969 to March 2023, updated every three years and interpolated between observations.

Subscribe - Indices Insights

Receive an update as soon as a new article is available with insights about sustainability, factors or markets.

Subscribe
Read more about Robeco Indices


Conclusion

The proof is in the pudding for the existence of factor premiums. Our analysis shows that despite some ups and downs over a three-year period, factor premiums more often than not pull ahead.

The sources of the images in the visualization, in order of appearance:

AP Photo/Horst Faas (CC BY 2.0), Library of Congress/Thomas J. O'Halloran (Wikimedia Commons), White House Photographic Collection (Wikimedia Commons), Library of Congress/Bernard Gotfryd (public domain), Unsplash/Jose Francisco Fernandez Saura (public domain), Library of Congress/Carol Highsmith (public domain), Unsplash/Breno Assis (public domain), Urban~commonswiki (Wikimedia Commons), InvadingInvader (Wikimedia Commons), Unsplash/Markus Spiske (public domain), Pexels/Mathias Reding (public domain).

Footnotes

1 See, e.g., Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross‐section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427-465.
2 See, e.g., Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. Journal of Finance, 48(1), 65-91.
3 See, e.g., Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2015). A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(1), 1-22.
4 See, e.g., Black, F., Jensen, M.C., and Scholes, M. (1972), The capital asset pricing model: some empirical tests. Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets, Praeger. Or, more recently, Blitz, D.C., and van Vliet, P. (2007), The volatility effect. Journal of Portfolio Management, 34(1), 102-113.
5 See, e.g., Banz, R.W. (1981), The relationship between return and market value of common stocks. Journal of Financial Economics, 9(1), 3-18.
6 For an overview on different quality definitions used, see, e.g., Kyosev, G., Hanauer, M.X., Huij, J., and Lansdorp, S. (2020), Does earnings growth drive the quality premium?. Journal of Banking and Finance, 114, 105785.
7 It is not in scope of this Indices Insights article to have a discussion about how factors are best defined or how factor strategies are best implemented in practice. For the interested reader, we have a lot of research available upon request.
8 See https://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html

Indices Insights

重要事項

当資料は情報提供を目的として、Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.が作成した英文資料、もしくはその英文資料をロベコ・ジャパン株式会社が翻訳したものです。資料中の個別の金融商品の売買の勧誘や推奨等を目的とするものではありません。記載された情報は十分信頼できるものであると考えておりますが、その正確性、完全性を保証するものではありません。意見や見通しはあくまで作成日における弊社の判断に基づくものであり、今後予告なしに変更されることがあります。運用状況、市場動向、意見等は、過去の一時点あるいは過去の一定期間についてのものであり、過去の実績は将来の運用成果を保証または示唆するものではありません。また、記載された投資方針・戦略等は全ての投資家の皆様に適合するとは限りません。当資料は法律、税務、会計面での助言の提供を意図するものではありません。 ご契約に際しては、必要に応じ専門家にご相談の上、最終的なご判断はお客様ご自身でなさるようお願い致します。 運用を行う資産の評価額は、組入有価証券等の価格、金融市場の相場や金利等の変動、及び組入有価証券の発行体の財務状況による信用力等の影響を受けて変動します。また、外貨建資産に投資する場合は為替変動の影響も受けます。運用によって生じた損益は、全て投資家の皆様に帰属します。したがって投資元本や一定の運用成果が保証されているものではなく、投資元本を上回る損失を被ることがあります。弊社が行う金融商品取引業に係る手数料または報酬は、締結される契約の種類や契約資産額により異なるため、当資料において記載せず別途ご提示させて頂く場合があります。具体的な手数料または報酬の金額・計算方法につきましては弊社担当者へお問合せください。 当資料及び記載されている情報、商品に関する権利は弊社に帰属します。したがって、弊社の書面による同意なくしてその全部もしくは一部を複製またはその他の方法で配布することはご遠慮ください。 商号等: ロベコ・ジャパン株式会社  金融商品取引業者 関東財務局長(金商)第2780号 加入協会: 一般社団法人 日本投資顧問業協会

重要なお知らせ 当社や当社役職員を装ったSNSアカウントやウェブサイト等を使った投資勧誘にご注意ください さらに表示