As a follow-up to our article on winning investment styles during the COVID-19 crisis, this piece explores why value as a style has fallen out of favour, and explores some circumstances that might engender a renaissance.
Growth continues to trounce value, and the fear of a deep recession resulting from the pandemic has only reinforced the belief that economic growth remains elusive and that, therefore, corporate earnings will be scarce. It is no coincidence that in recent weeks, several fund managers who invest with a value-driven approach have left the industry or changed firms. Those value managers who persist – and there are relatively few of them – face a daunting challenge given the longevity of underperformance from the value style.
Back to basics
The classic description of a value equity strategy would be “an investment strategy that involves picking stocks that appear to be trading below their intrinsic or book value”. To take that a step further – where a fund manager believes that the market is undervaluing either the assets or cash flows of a business.
For many decades, value and growth strategies competed for investors’ attention and the swings between them were dictated by the rhythm of the economic cycle and asset valuations. Typically, when economic growth was plentiful, value strategies would outperform, while in tougher times, growth stocks would dominate.
Within these two definitions, further distinctions can be made: defensive growth (e.g. consumer staples); secular growth (e.g. technology); defensive value (e.g. utilities); and, cyclical value (e.g. industrials). A manager’s approach to these different business types also influences the pattern of the outcome. However, it is also important to note that these definitions are fluid. Twenty years ago, banks were regarded as growth stocks but nowadays, they are more commonly held by value managers.
Why have value strategies been struggling?
Value strategies have been struggling since the global financial crisis. Below we put forward some possible explanations for this extended trend:
The consistent decline in nominal GDP for the last twenty years has resulted in significant structural changes in the economic landscape. As baby boomers have moved into retirement, their desire to spend has waned but at the same time, the emerging markets are still geared up to sate the appetite of developed market consumers. As such, a challenging mix of reasonable (but not spectacular) demand growth with very limited pricing power means that GDP growth has been, in aggregate, sub-par and company earnings scarcer. As such, those with stable earnings profiles (consumer staples) are highly prized, as are the secular growth stocks (technology disrupters). Any business deemed to be highly economically sensitive is avoided by most investors. Anyone questioning this point might like to ponder why interest rates are at or close to zero in global developed markets…
The equity market is no longer representative of the economy as a whole and we would argue that its main role is to provide a grand savings vehicle for retirees as the baby boomers move into older age. In other words, an increasing number of investors are motivated by the cashflow available from companies to fund their retirements, either directly or through their pension schemes. With this in mind, central bankers are acutely aware of the dangers of an asset price collapse, hence their strenuous efforts to keep valuations elevated.
Although ESG considerations are high on the investment agenda, we think that too little attention is being paid to the consequences of this trend on the growth/value dynamic. Specifically, the disinvestment of companies with lower ESG scores is clearly a factor in directing investment flow towards growth stocks, where the bulk of sustainable equities sit. Equally, carbon-intensive companies and the “sin” stocks are increasingly being shunned as they fail to pass muster.
Growth companies are perceived to be disrupting every business, in every sector, and to have an unstoppable path to growth based on very high cashflows, no debt and dominant market share. We have heard more than one fund manager argue that Apple is now a utility-like company.
What are the possible catalysts for a value comeback?
Read more articles like this via our insights page
About the author
Peter launched The Adviser Centre in May 2014, whilst employed by City Financial He was co-founder of the original Forsyth-OBSR Ratings Service in 2002. He joined OBSR in 2008 and was responsible for establishing the firm’s fund advisory business as well as continuing to conduct manager research.
The information, materials or opinions contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on treated as a substitute for specific advice of any kind.
We make no warranties, representatives or undertakings about any of the content of this website (including without limitation any representations as to the quality, accuracy, completeness or fitness of any particular purpose of such content, or in relation to any content of articles provided by third parties and displayed on this website or any website referred to or accessed by hyperlinks through this website.
Although we make reasonable efforts to update the information on this site, we make no representation warranties or guarantees whether express or implied that the content on our site is accurate complete or up to date.
Our emails are designed to be topical and engaging, however if you don’t like what we send, you can unsubscribe at any time. We promise never to pass your details on to a third party.