Equities
Conventional wisdom has it that superior GDP growth in EMs will produce superior EPS growth. Yet, over the last decade real EPS in India has fallen by almost 60% while real GDP has grown at over 7% p.a. We explain this ‘growth gap’ and debunk the EM growth fallacy. The... Show More
Utilities are often seen as a ‘port in a storm’, a defensive sector during periods of market stress. Is this where investors should be looking to take shelter should 2019 present another year of challenging equity markets? We give four reasons why the utility sector’s safety is overrated. Show More
The terms ‘growth’ and ‘value’ are used in ways that suggest you can divide stocks and investors into two opposing tribes, like Democrats and Republicans or the Montagues and Capulets. We show that as popularly used, these are flawed concepts. We demonstrate why, and offer an alternative. Show More
Market timing is a seductive idea - theoretically appealing and wonderful in hindsight. But it works poorly in practice – for most people most of the time. This wire provides four reasons why and also offers a simple approach to protecting against the inevitable nasty times. Show More
Business profitability does not revert to the mean. The opposite is true, but only for the best, most profitable businesses. Aversion to the mean is asymmetric. Why? Improvements in productivity have accrued almost exclusively to the most productive businesses. Our conclusion – own only the best and forget the rest. Show More
While equity index returns over time broadly match a normal distribution, returns from individual stocks are highly positively skewed. Skewness increases with the length of holding period - held for a decade two-thirds of stocks underperform the index. Search for the extreme winners? Our conclusion – avoid the losers. Show More
hi Peter, thanks for your comments and question. I look forward to posting a wire on our approach in a more constructive sense ie what we look for, how we think about value creation, and where we have found it. Cheers, Stephen
James - thanks for your thoughtful question. Bessembinder does not examine the characteristics of the left tail of the distribution. I share your observation that low-PE multiples are often associated with businesses in trouble and offer no protection to capital destruction. Retailers and media companies over the last five years come to mind. My own work using Factset data over the last ten years shows that stocks in the top quintile by PE multiple are 49% more likely to be in the bottom 20% of share price outcomes, while stocks in the least expensive quintile are 37% less likely to be in the worst 20% of outcomes. Taking it further, one variable only deals with one dimension, and to your point profitability matters, as does capital structure and management capital allocation. Stocks with the lowest quintile of ROIC are 44% more likely to be in the bottom 20% of outcomes; stocks in the most profitable quintile are 45% less likely. Lastly, this only tells you what's in the rear view mirror - a judgement about the durability of that ROIC is critical, which is why I don't believe in factor investing/ smart beta. That's a topic for another time! Stephen
On Most stocks underperform, and why this is an argument for conservative active management -
Excellent article Stuart
On Wesfarmers’ UK debacle shows the risks of acquisition-based growth -