Tag Archives: defense

Value Your Wealth – Part Six: Fundamental Factors

In this final article of our Value Your Wealth Series we explore four more fundamental factors. The first four articles in the Series researched what are deemed to be the two most important fundamental factors governing relative stock performance – the trade-off between growth and value. In Part Five, we explored how returns fared over time based on companies market cap. Thus far, we have learned that leaning towards value over growth and smaller market caps is historically an investment style that generates positive alpha. However, there are periods such as now, when these trends fail investors.

The last ten years has generally bucked long-standing trends in many factor/return relationships. This doesn’t mean these factors will not provide an edge in the future, but it does mean we need to adapt to what the market is telling us today and prepare for the day when the historical trend reverts to normal.  When they do, there will likely be abundant opportunities for investors to capture significant alpha.

The five prior articles in the Value Your Wealth series are linked below:

Part One: Introduction

Part Two: Quantifying the Value Proposition

Part Three: Sector Analysis

Part Four: Mutual Fund and ETF Analysis

Part Five: Market Cap

Four Factors

In this section, we explore four well-followed factors to understand how they performed in the past and how we might want to use them within our investment decision-making process.

The graphs in this article are based on data from Kenneth French and can be found HERE.  The data encompasses a wide universe of domestic stocks that trade on the NYSE, Amex, and NASDAQ exchanges.

Earnings to Price

Investors betting on companies with a higher ratio of Earnings to Price (E/P), also known as the earnings yield, have historically outperformed investors betting on companies with lower E/P ratios. Such outperformance of companies priced at relatively cheap valuations should be expected over time.

The following chart compares monthly, ten year annually compounded returns for the highest and lowest E/P deciles. 

The graph of E/P is very similar to what we showed for growth versus value. Other than a period in the 1990s and the current period value outperformed growth and the top E/P companies outperformed the bottom ones. This correlation is not surprising as E/P is a key component that help define value and growth.

Investors buying the top ten percent of the cheapest companies, using E/P, have been docked almost 5% annually or about 50% since the recovery following the financial crisis versus those buying the lowest ten percent of companies using this measure.

Given our fundamental faith in mean reversion, we have no doubt this trend will begin to normalize in due time. To help us gauge the potential return differential of an E/P reversion, we calculate future returns based on what would happen if the ten-year return went back to its average in three years. This is what occurred after the tech bust in 2000. In other words, if the ten year annualized compounded return in late 2022 is average (4.81%) what must the relative outperformance of high E/P to low E/P companies be over the next three years? If this occurs by 2022, investors will earn an annual outperformance premium of 28.1% for each of the next three years. The returns increase if the time to reversion is shorter and declines if longer. If normalization occurs in five years the annual returns drop to (only) 14.75%.

Needless to say, picking out fundamentally solid stocks seems like a no-brainer at this point but there is no saying how much longer speculation will rule over value.

Cash Flow to Price

The graph below charts the top ten percent of companies with the largest ratio of cash flow to price and compares it to the lowest ones. Like E/P, cash flow to price is also a component in value and growth analysis.

Not surprisingly, this graph looks a lot like the E/P and value vs. growth graphs. Again, investors have shunned value stocks in favor of speculative entities meaning they are neglecting high quality companies that pay a healthy dividend and instead chasing the high-flying, over-priced “Hollywood” stocks. Also similar to our potential return analysis with E/P, those electing to receive the most cash flows per dollar of share price will be paid handsomely when this factor reverts to normal.

Dividend Yield

Over the last 100 years, using dividend yields to help gain alpha has not been as helpful as value versus growth, market cap, earnings, and cash flows as the chart below shows.

On average, higher dividend stocks have paid a slight premium versus the lowest dividend stocks.While dividend yields are considered a fundamental factor it is also subject to the level of interest rates and competing yields on corporate bonds.If we expect Treasury yield levels to be low in the future then the case for high dividend stocks may be good as investors look for alternative yield as income. The caveat is that if rates decline or even go negative, the dividend yield may be too low to meet investors’ bogeys and they may chase lower dividend stocks that have offered higher price returns.


Momentum, in this analysis, is calculated by ranking total returns from the prior ten months for each company and then sorting them. Before we created the graph below, we assumed that favoring momentum stocks would be a dependable investment strategy. Our assumption was correct as judged by the average 10.89% annual outperformance. However, we also would have guessed that the last few years would have been good for such a momentum strategy.

Quite to the contrary, momentum has underperformed since 2009. The last time momentum underperformed, albeit to a much a larger degree, was the Great Depression.

Our initial expectation was based on the significant rise of passive investing which favors those companies exhibiting strong momentum. As share prices rise relative to the average share price, the market cap also rises versus the average share and becomes a bigger part of indexes.  If we took the top 1 or 2% of companies using momentum we think the strategy would have greatly outperformed the lower momentum companies, but when the top and bottom ten percent are included momentum has not recently been a good strategy.


Factors give investors an informational edge. However, despite long term trends that offer favorable guidance, there are no sure things in investing. The most durable factors that have supplied decades of cycle guidance go through extended periods of unreliability. The reasons for this vary but certainly a speculative environment encouraged by ultra-low and negative interest rates has influence. Investors must recognize when they are in such periods and account for it. More importantly, though, they must also understand that when the trends are inclined to reverse back to normal. The potential for outsized relative gains at such times are large.

At RIA Advisors, Factor analysis is just one of many tools we use to help us manage our portfolios and select investments. We are currently leaning towards value over growth with the belief that the next market correction will see a revival of the value growth trends of the past. That said, we are not jumping into the trade as we also understand that growth may continue to beat value for months or even years to come.

Patience, discipline, and awareness are essential to good investing. 

Value Your Wealth – Part Five: Market Cap

The first four articles in this series focused on what might be the most important pair of fundamental factors – growth and value. Those factors have provided investors long-standing, dependable above-market returns.  Now, we take the series in a different direction and focus on other factors that may also give us a leg up on the market. 

The term “a leg up” is important to clarify. In general, factor-based investing is used to gain positive alpha or performance that is relatively better than the market. While “better” than market returns are nice, investing based on factor analysis should not be the only protection you have when you fear that markets may decline sharply. The combination of factor investing and adjustments to your total equity exposure is a time-trusted recipe to avoid large drawdowns that impair your ability to compound wealth.

We continue this series with a discussion of market capitalization.

The four prior articles in the Value Your Wealth series are linked below:

Part One: Introduction

Part Two: Quantifying the Value Proposition

Part Three: Sector Analysis

Part Four: Mutual Fund and ETF Analysis

Market Cap

Market capitalization, commonly known as market cap, is a simple calculation that returns the current value or size of publicly traded companies. The formula is the number of shares outstanding times the price per share. For example as we wrote this article, Apple has 4.601 billion shares outstanding and Apple’s stock trades at roughly $210 per share. Apple’s market cap is $966.21 billion. 

Most investors, along with those in the financial media, tend to distinguish companies market caps/size by grouping them into three broad tiers – small-cap, mid-cap, and large-cap. Over most periods, stocks in the three categories are well correlated. However, there are periods when they diverge, and we are currently amidst such a deviation. Since September 1, 2018, the price of the Large Cap S&P 500 Index has risen by 4.1%, while the price of the Small Cap S&P 600 Index is down 12.9%.  Deviations in historical relationships, whether short or long-term in nature, can provide investors an opportunity to capitalize on the normalization of the relationship, but timing is everything. 

Historical Relative Performance

The following graphs are based on data from Kenneth French and can be found HERE.  The data encompasses a wide universe of domestic stocks that trade on the NYSE, Amex, and NASDAQ exchanges.

The data set provides returns based on market cap groupings based on deciles. The first graph compares annualized total return and annualized volatility since 1926 of the top three (High) and bottom three (Low) market cap deciles as well as the average of those six deciles. To be clear, a decile is a discrete range of market caps reflecting the stocks in that group. For example, in a portfolio of 100 stocks, decile 1 is the bottom ten stocks, or the smallest ten market cap stocks, decile two is the next ten smallest cap stocks, etc.

The next graph below uses monthly ten year rolling returns to compare total returns of the highest and lowest deciles. This graph is a barometer of the premium that small-cap investing typically delivers to long term investors.

The takeaway from both graphs is that small-cap stocks tend to outperform large-cap stocks more often than not. However, the historical premium does not come without a price. As shown in the first graph, volatility for the lowest size stocks is almost twice that of the largest. If you have a long time horizon and are able and willing to stay invested through volatile periods, small caps should fare better than large caps. 

Small-cap stocks, in general, have high expected growth rates because they are not limited by the constraints that hamper growth at larger companies. Unfortunately, small-cap earnings are more vulnerable to changes in industry trends, consumer preferences, economic conditions, market conditions, and other factors that larger companies are better equipped and diversified to manage. 

Periods of Divergence

The second graph above shows there are only three periods where large caps outperformed small caps stocks since 1926. Those three exceptions, the 1950’s, 1990’s and, the post-financial crisis-era are worth considering in depth.

The 1950s The Nifty Fifty- The end of World War II coupled with a decade of historically low interest rates disproportionately helped larger companies. These firms, many global, benefited most from the efforts to rebuild Europe and partake in the mass suburbanization of America.

The 1990s Tech Boom- With double-digit inflation a distant memory and the swelling technology boom, larger companies that typically benefited most from lower rates, less inflation, and new technologies prospered. While this new technology benefited all companies in one form or another, larger ones had the investment budgets and borrowing capacity to leverage the movement and profit most. 

The 2010’s Post Financial Crisis Era –The current period of large-cap outperformance is unique as economic growth has been prolonged but below average and productivity growth has been negligible. Despite relatively weak economic factors, massive amounts of monetary stimulus has fueled record low corporate borrowing rates, which in turn have fueled stock buybacks. Further, the mass adaptation of passive cap-weighted investment strategies naturally favors companies with large market caps. Circularly, passive investing feeds on itself as indexed ETFs and mutual funds must increasingly allocate more to large caps which grow in size relative to the other holdings.

To reiterate an important point: the current period of outperformance is not based on solid economic fundamentals and resulting corporate earnings growth as in the two prior periods described. This episode is a byproduct of monetary actions.

The graph below highlights the distinction between the current period and the two prior periods where large caps outperformed.  


Historically, small-cap stocks tend to provide a return premium over large-cap stocks. However, as we pointed out, there are periods where that is not the case. Currently, large-cap stocks are the beneficiaries of overly generous monetary and fiscal policy. We do believe the relationship will return to normal, but that will likely not occur until a bear market begins.

As we wait for a normalization of valuations and traditional relationships that have become so disfigured in this cycle, we consider the current relative valuations on small-cap stocks similar to those we described in value stocks earlier in this series. The time to weight your stock portfolio allocation more heavily toward small-cap opportunities is coming, but every investor must decide on their own or with good counsel from an advisor when to make that adjustment.  When appropriate, a gradual shift to small-cap stocks from large caps depends on an investor’s risk appetite and defensive preference.

More importantly, have a plan in place because when the market does meaningfully correct, the premium small-cap stocks provide will likely help cushion against a stock market correction. 

Value Your Wealth – Part Four: Mutual Fund & ETF Analysis

Parts One through Three of the series are linked below.

Part One: Introduction

Part Two: Quantifying the Value Proposition

Part Three: Sector Analysis

In Part One, the introduction to our Value Your Wealth series, we documented how recent returns for investors focused on growth companies have defied the history books and dwarfed returns of investors focused on value stocks. In particular: “There have only been eight ten-year periods over the last 90 years (total of 90 ten-year periods) when value stocks underperformed growth stocks. Two of these occurred during the Great Depression and one spanned the 1990s leading into the Tech bust of 2001. The other five are recent, representing the years 2014 through 2018.”

In this, the fourth part of the Value Your Wealth series, we focus on growth and value mutual funds and ETFs. Our purpose is to help determine which professional value and growth fund managers are staying true to their stated objectives.

Fund Analysis

A large part of most investor’s investment process starts with the determination of an investment objective. From this starting point, investors can appropriately determine the asset classes and investment strategies that will help them achieve or even exceed their objectives. 

Once an investor decides upon an objective, strategy, and asset class, they must select individual securities or funds. This article focuses singularly on assessing growth and value mutual funds and ETFs. In particular it shows how an investor focused on growth or value can choose funds that are managed properly to meet their goals.

Investors usually key on the following factors when selecting a mutual fund or ETF: 

  • Declared fund strategy (Growth or Value in this case)
  • Prior period returns
  • Fee and expense structure
  • Reputation of the fund family and possibly the manager

These four factors provide valuable information but can be misleading.

For instance, prior returns provide a nice scorecard for the past but can be deceptive. As an example, if we are currently scanning for value funds based on performance, the highest ranking funds will more than likely be those that have leaned most aggressively toward growth stocks. While these funds may seem better, what we believe is more important the fund managers adherence to their objectives.  Given we are looking forward and believe value will outperform growth, we want fund managers that we can trust will stick with value stocks.

It is also important not to shun funds with the highest expenses and/or gravitate towards those with the lowest. We must be willing to pay up, if necessary, to achieve our objectives. For instance, if a fund offers more exposure to value stocks than other comparable value funds, it may be worth the higher fee for said exposure. Conversely, there are many examples where one can gain more exposure to their preferred strategy with cheaper funds. 

Most investors check the fund strategy, but they fail to determine that a fund is being effectively and cost efficiently managed towards their stated strategy. 

We now compare the largest growth and value mutual funds and ETFs to assess which funds offer the most value, so to speak. 

Mutual Fund/ETF Analysis

In order to limit the population of value and growth mutual funds and ETFs to a manageable number, we limited our search to the largest funds within each strategy that had at least 85% exposure to U.S. based companies. We further restricted the population to those funds with a stated strategy of growth or value per Bloomberg.

In prior articles of this series, we have used Bloomberg growth and value factor scores and our own growth and value composite scores. While we would prefer to use our own computations, the large and diverse holdings of the mutual funds and ETFs make it nearly impossible for this exercise. Accordingly, Bloomberg growth and value factor scores provide us the most accurate description of where the respective funds lie on the growth/value spectrum. It is important to note that Bloomberg assigns every fund both a growth and a value score. We consider both scores and not just the score pertinent to growth or value.

We understand most of our readers do not have access to Bloomberg data. As such, we provide a DIY approach for investors to track growth and value exposure amongst mutual funds and ETFs.

Growth and Value Scores

The scatter plot below shows the 54 funds analyzed. Each dot represents a fund and the intersection of its respective growth (x-axis) and value scores (y-axis). The funds most heavily skewed towards value (high value scores and low growth scores) are in the upper left, while heavily growth oriented funds are in the bottom right (high growth score and low value scores).  Information about the funds used in this report and their scores can be found in the tables below the graph. Certain funds are labeled for further discussion.   

A few takeaways:

  • VIVAX (Growth -.60, Value +.37): While this value fund is farthest to the left, there are other funds that offer more value exposure. However, this fund has the lowest growth score among value funds.
  • DFLVX (Growth -.43, Value +.68): This value fund offers an interesting trade off to VIVAX sporting a higher value score but a less negative growth score.
  • AIVSX (Growth +.10, Value -.05): Despite its classification as a value fund, AIVSX has a slight bias towards growth. Not surprisingly, this fund has recently outperformed other value funds but would likely underperform in the event value takes the lead.
  • FDGRX (Growth +.88, Value -.64): This growth fund offers both the highest growth score and lowest value score. For investors looking for an aggressive profile with strong growth exposure and little value exposure, this fund is worth considering.
  • VPMCX (Growth -.04, Value +.16): Despite its classification as a growth fund, VPMCX has a slight bias towards value.
  • In our opinion, the six funds with growth and value scores near zero (+/-.20) in the red box do not currently have a significant growth or strategy orientation, and as such, they are similar to a broad market index like the S&P 500.

It is important to stress that the data represents a snapshot of the fund portfolios for one day. The portfolio managers are always shifting portfolios toward a value or growth bias based on their market views.

 (CLICK on the tables to enlarge)

Data Courtesy Bloomberg

The data above gives us potential funds to meet our strategic needs. However, we also need to consider fees.  


The scatter plots below isolate growth and value funds based on their respective growth or value score and fees charged.

We circled three groupings of the growth funds to help point out the interaction of fees and growth scores. The four funds in the blue circle have average or above average fees versus other growth funds yet provide a minimal bias towards growth. The yellow circle represents a sweet spot between low fees and a good exposure to growth stocks. Lastly, the red circle shows funds where  heavy exposure to growth comes with above average fees.

This graph circles three groupings of value funds to help point out the interaction of fees and growth scores. The blue circle contains funds with little to no bias towards value. The yellow circle represents a good mix of value and cheap fees. The red circle, our sweet spot in this graph, shows that heavy exposure to value can be had with fees near the group average.

Alpha and Bad Incentives 

Alpha is a measure that calculates how much a portfolio manager, trader, or strategy over or underperforms an index or benchmark. From a career perspective, alpha is what separates good fund managers from average or bad ones.

We mention alpha as we believe the current prolonged outperformance of growth over value is pushing professional fund managers to stray from their stated objectives. As an example, a value based fund manager can add exposure to growth stocks to help beat the value index he or she is measured against.

Adding growth to a value fund may have proven to be alpha positive in the past, but we must concern ourselves with how well the fund manager is adhering to the fund’s objective Simply put, we are trying to find managers that are staying true to their objectives not those who have benefited from a deviation from stated strategy in the past.

It is important to note that positive alpha can be attained by sticking to the stated objective and finding stocks that outperform the index. This is the type of alpha that we seek.


As discussed, growth and value factors can change for funds based on the whims of the portfolio manager. Therefore, the data provided in this article will not age well. If you do not have access to Bloomberg to track value and growth scores we offer another approach.

Morningstar provides a blunt but effective style analysis tool.  To access it, go to www.morningstar.com and select your favorite fund. Then click on the tab labeled Portfolio and scroll down to Style Details.

The following screen print shows Morningstar’s style analysis for value fund DFLVX.

The box in the top right separates the fund’s holdings by market capitalization and value growth classifications. We can use this data to come up with our own scores. For instance, 59% (46+13) of DFLVX is biased toward value (red circle) while only 6% (5+1) is in growth companies (blue circle). To further demonstrate how a fund compares to its peers, the Value & Growth Measures table on the bottom left, compares key fundamental statistics. As shown by three of the first four valuation ratios, DFLVX has more value stocks than the average for funds with similar objectives.


The word “Value” in a fund name does not mean the fund takes on a value bias at all times. As investors, we must not rely on naming conventions. This means investors must do some extra homework and seek the funds that are truly investing in a manner consistent with the funds, and ultimately the investor’s, objective.

As we have mentioned, we are at a point in the economic and market cycles where investors should consider slowly rotating towards value stocks. Not only is the style historically out of favor, many of the names within that style are unjustifiably beaten down and due for mean reversion to more favorable levels. We hope this article provides some guidance to ensure that those who heed our advice are actually adding value exposure and not value in name only.

Yes, The Yield Curve Matters

Recently several subscribers asked us why an inverted yield curve is a strong predictor of a coming recession. We will address the question in this article but first, we provide current context with two graphs that update you on the status of yield curves, and in the process help explain why this question is being asked with increasing frequency.

The first graph below, courtesy of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, clearly shows why the yield curve is becoming more and more of a concern for the Federal Reserve, along with many economists and the media. Since 1976, the last five recessions, denoted by gray bars, were preceded by a flattening and inversion of the 2yr/10yr Treasury yield curve. Currently, the curve is sitting at a mere 17 basis points (0.17%) and threatening inversion.

While the 2yr/10yr curve is the most popular yield curve to follow, it can be somewhat limiting as it only applies to those that borrow and lend in the two and ten-year maturity sectors. For example, the 2yr/10yr curve is not as important for a bank considering using customer deposits to make five-year auto loans. In this case, the bank’s chief concern is likely the 3-month/5yr curve.

The next graph steps beyond the 2yr/10yr curve to examine many variations of Treasury curves and provide a broader perspective of the entire Treasury yield curve.

As shown, 70% of 10 important yield curves are inverted, up from 40% in early April.

With an understanding of the current state of the yield curves, we examine the profitability of lending to explain better why the yield curve has such a big effect on the economy.

The Profitability of Lending

There are essentially two ways that a bank or lender makes money lending. They can arbitrage time or credit, and most frequently they do both at the same time. Lenders employ time arbitrage when they borrow for short periods and lend that same money out for longer periods. Credit arbitrage occurs when a higher rated entity with a lower cost of capital borrows and then lends to a borrower with a lower credit standing and higher cost of capital.

Time Arbitrage: This is the oldest money-making trick in the book. It is frequently referred to as borrowing short and lending long. The risk to the lender of using time arbitrage is that short term borrowing rates rise in the future and effectively reduce or eliminate profits. An inverted yield curve, coupled with poor lending practices was the cause of the Savings and Loan crisis of 1987-1989.

The steeper the yield curve, the more potential profit, and the more incentive for a bank to borrow short and lend long. Conversely, the flatter the curve the less incentive. An inverted curve can lead to losses for lenders employing this strategy.

The key takeaway is that in an economy heavily dependent on the creation and refunding of debt, anything that detracts from a willingness to lend money causes economic weakness.

Credit Arbitrage: The riskier a borrower, the higher the interest rate to borrow money. Banks tend to be highly rated, thus allowing them to borrow at lower rates and then turn around and lend the money to lesser rated borrowers at higher rates. As the shape of the yield curve greatly affects time arbitrage, credit spreads play a big role in credit arbitrage. When spreads are tight, as they are now, the potential profit of lending is reduced, and therefore lenders are less incentivized to lend. Currently, credit spreads, as quantified by BBB-rated corporate bonds, are historically tight. Once default expectations are factored in the incentive to lend is minimal. 

Quantifying Profitability

With an understanding of the two predominant types of lender arbitrages, we now provide a rough estimate of banking profitability based on the 2yr/10yr yield curve as a proxy for time arbitrage and BBB-rated corporate OAS spreads as a proxy for credit arbitrage. The following graph combines the two measures of probability to quantify the incentive for banks to lend.

Not surprisingly, the most recent recessions occurred when profitability, using these measures collapsed. The current reading is at levels seen before the 2001 recession and slightly above those preceding the financial crisis of 2008.

Data Courtesy St. Louis Federal Reserve


Tax reform, hurricane/fire disaster relief and a surge in the government’s deficit all provided an economic boost over the last few years. As we have written in the past, these economic tailwinds will no longer meaningfully contribute to economic growth. Real gross domestic production (GDP) will likely shrink to its natural growth rate of 1.5-2.0%. However, flat to inverted yields curves and tight credit spreads are becoming a headwind to growth.

If the yield curves stay flat and/or flattens or inverts further and credit spreads remain tight, it is highly likely lending will be curtailed. Assuming this were to happen, we could be staring down the barrel of another recession, which is what the bond markets appear to be telegraphing. That is why the yield curve matters!

Value Your Wealth – Part Three: Sector Analysis

When we embarked on our Value Your Wealth series, we decided to present it using a top-down approach. In Parts One and Two, we started with basic definitions and broad analysis to help readers better define growth and value investment styles from a fundamental and performance perspective. With this basic but essential knowledge, we now drill down and present investment opportunities based on the two styles of investing.

This article focuses on where the eleven S&P sectors sit on the growth-value spectrum. For those that invest at a sector level, this article provides insight that allows you to gauge your exposure to growth and value better. For those that look at more specialized funds or individual stocks, this research provides a foundation to take that analysis to the next level.

Parts One and Two of the series are linked below.

Part One: Introduction

Part Two: Quantifying the Value Proposition

Sector Analysis

The 505 companies in the S&P 500 are classified into eleven sectors or industry types. While very broad, they help categorize the S&P companies by their main source of revenue. Because there are only eleven sectors used to define thousands of business lines, we must be acutely aware that many S&P 500 companies can easily be classified into several different sectors.

Costco (COST), for instance, is defined by S&P as a consumer staple. While they sell necessities like typical consumer staples companies, they also sell pharmaceuticals (health care), clothes, TVs and cars (discretionary), gasoline (energy), computers (information technology), and they own much of the property (real-estate) upon which their stores sit.

Additionally, there is no such thing as a pure growth or value sector. The sectors are comprised of many individual companies, some of which tend to be more representative of value and others growth.

As we discussed in Part Two, we created a composite growth/value score for each S&P 500 company based on their respective z-scores for six fundamental factors (Price to Sales, Price to Book, Price to Cash Flow, Price to Earnings, Dividend Yield, and Earnings Per Share). We then ranked the composite scores to allow for comparison among companies and to identify each company’s position on the S&P 500 growth-value spectrum. The higher the composite score, the more a company is growth oriented and the more negative the score, the more value-oriented they are.  

The table below summarizes the composite z-scores by sector.  To calculate this, we grouped each company based on its sector classification and weighted each company’s z-score by its market cap. Given that most indexes and ETFs/Mutual funds are market cap weighted, we believe this is the best way to arrange the sector index scores on the growth-value spectrum. 

Data courtesy Bloomberg

As shown, the Financial, Energy, and Utility sectors are the three most heavily weighted towards value.  Real-estate, Information Technology, and Consumer Discretionary represent the highest weighted growth sectors.

While it might be tempting to select sectors based on your growth-value preferences solely using the data in the table, there lies a risk. Some sectors have a large cross-section of both growth and value companies.  Therefore they may not provide you the growth or value that you think you are buying. As an example, we explore the communications sector.

The communications sector (represented by the ETF XLC) is a stark combination of old and new economy stocks. The old economy stocks are traditional media companies such as Verizon, Fox, CBS and News Corp. New economy stocks that depend on newer, cutting edge technologies include companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Trip Advisor. 

As one might expect, the older media companies with more reliable earnings and cash flows are priced at lower valuations and tend to be defined as value stocks by our analysis. Conversely, the new economy companies have much higher valuations, are short on earnings, but come with the prospect of much higher growth potential.

The scatter plot below offers an illustration of the differences between growth, value and market capitalization within the communications sector. Each dot represents the intersection of market capitalization and the composite z-score for each company. The table below the scatter plot provides fundamental and performance data on the top three value and growth companies.

Data courtesy Bloomberg

As shown in the graph, the weighted average z-score (the orange circle) for the communications sector leans towards growth at +0.19. Despite the growth orientation, we deem 58% of the companies in the communications sector as value companies.

The following table compares the weighted average z-score for each S&P sector along with the variance of the underlying companies within the sector and the percentage of companies that are considered value and growth. We use standard deviation on the associated composite z-scores to determine whether companies are close together or far apart on the growth/value spectrum.  The lower the standard deviation, the more similar the companies are in terms of growth or value

Data courtesy Bloomberg

Again here, weightings, market capitalization, and the influence of individual stocks within a sector are important to understand The industrial sector, as shown above, has a score of +0.232, which puts it firmly in growth territory. However, Boeing (BA), due to its large market cap and significant individual growth score skews this sector immensely. Excluding BA, the weighted average composite score of the industrial sector registers as a value sector at -0.07. Again this highlights the importance of understanding where the growth and or value in any particular sector comes from.


The graph below shows the clear outperformance of the three most heavily growth-oriented sectors versus the three most heavily value-oriented. Since the beginning of the post-financial crisis, the three growth companies grew by an average of 480%, almost three times the 166% average of the three value companies.

This analysis provides you a basis to consider your portfolio in a new light. If you think the market has a few more innings left in the current expansion cycle, odds continue to favor a growth-oriented strategy. If you think the economy is late-cycle and the market is topping, shifting towards value may provide much-needed protection.  

While we believe the economic and market cycles are late stage, they have not ended. We have yet to receive a clear signal that value will outperform growth going forward. At RIA Advisors, growth versus value is a daily conversation, whether applied to sector ETF’s, mutual funds or individual stocks.  While we know it’s early, we also know that history has been generous to holders of value, especially after the rare instances when growth outperformed it over a ten-year period as it has recently.

Quick Take: IPO Surge

Pinterest, Zoom, Lyft and a host of other companies led a surge in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) over the first four months of 2019. Totaling nearly $1 trillion in new offerings, 2019 is already closing in on the annual record set in 2000.  

The gray line in the chart above, courtesy Sentiment Trader, compares the S&P 500 to the annual amount of IPOs. The easy takeaway, given that two of the three prior high water marks in IPO issuance were 2000 and 2007, is that the current surge in IPOs bodes poorly for the stock market. Such logic follows that IPO’s, especially for companies with little to no earnings yet high growth expectations, are easiest to bring to market when investor complacency is high.

Comparing today’s IPO issuance to prior examples may prove wrong as it did in 2014. Investors must consider the overall supply of shares outstanding in the entire market before jumping to conclusions. The graph below, courtesy Ed Yardeni, shows net stock issuance, IPOs and share repurchases included, have been in decline over the past decade. It is possible that IPO issuance is just a small offset to the massive number of shares that corporations have bought back over the last few years and therefore it is not the warning sign some market prognosticators make it out to be.

Value Your Wealth – Part Two: Quantifying the Value Proposition

This article is the second in a series focused on growth versus value investment styles and its significance to managing your wealth in the current environment. If you have not read Part One, we urge you to read it first as it provides a foundation upon which this article builds. If you already read Part One, it may be helpful to go back and review the fundamental definitions of growth and value.

Human behavior has demonstrated the willingness of investors to get caught up in the euphoria of financial bubbles. The history books are chock full of tales about investors chasing the prices of tulips, technology stocks, and real estate to stratospheric levels. The collective enthusiasm of such periods has a hypnotic way of lulling even the most astute investors into the belief that stocks have reached “a permanently high plateau” (prominent economist Irving Fisher, 1929).

Like seasons and tides, however, markets and human behavioral patterns are cyclical. Mean reversion, like change, is one thing we can all count on. As the analysis below will illustrate, we appear to be in another one of those euphoric periods.

In time, euphoria will turn to despair. It is with this knowledge that we continue to expose the current paradigm between growth and value stocks so that you can prepare for this inevitability. Those who seek to compound wealth are well-served to understand the current circumstances and the nature of the contrast between the two investment approaches.

Currently, the differences in their valuations and performance are extreme in both magnitude and duration. If we are to believe that the realities of the world in which we live have been permanently suspended and there will be no mean reversion, then we should proceed to do what we did yesterday. If we believe that this cycle too will end, then we need to understand what is at risk and strategize on how to protect ourselves.

The data which follows puts a much finer point on the extremes we are currently observing and therefore the risks we assume by failing to acknowledge them.

What Constitutes Growth and Value

After coming across compelling work articulated on Bloomberg by Nir Kaisser, we decided to look deeper into the contrast between growth and value stocks. In taking on this project, we had two problems. The first problem was deciding how to quantitatively define growth and value. The second problem was retrieving and processing the data required to fairly analyze these two broad categories.

To keep this analysis both simple and applicable, we chose to limit our analysis to the constituents of the S&P 500. We also decided to use the six fundamentals listed below to quantitatively define and screen between value and growth.

  • Price-to-Sales (P/S)
  • Price-to-Book (P/B)
  • Price-to-Cash Flow (P/CF)
  • Price-to-Earnings (P/E)
  • Dividend Yield (DY)
  • Earnings per Share (Trailing 12-Months) (EPS)

Growth companies tend to have higher price-to-sales, price-to-book, price-to-cash flow and earnings per share and lower (often zero) dividend yield. Value companies are the opposite.

Keep in mind, the S&P 500 accounts for roughly 80% of U.S. stock market capitalization and within that index, 100 of the largest companies in the United States reside firmly in either the growth or value category. They are the top 50 in growth and the top 50 in value (by our definition) selected based on the fundamentals as described above.

Growth vs. Value Analysis

Identifying companies within the S&P 500 that properly fit into either the growth or value category was done by evaluating the valuation metrics referenced above, ranking companies based on a standard deviation (z-score) for each metric, and then aggregating data to compute a composite z-score.

The z-score, which tells us how many standard deviations from the mean a specific number is, can be calculated by taking the company-specific reading in one category, subtracting it from the average for the S&P 500, and then dividing that number by the standard deviation for the total S&P 500. One standard deviation includes approximately 68% of the data.  To clarify, we provide the example below.

  • The price-to-sales (P/S) for Boston Scientific (BSX) is 4.94
  • The average P/S for the S&P 500 is 3.60
  • The standard deviation for P/S for the S&P 500 is 3.25 (~68% of the data has a P/S of 3.60 +/-3.25)
  • Therefore, BSX has a P/S z-score of 0.413 calculated as (4.94-3.60)/3.25
  • This tells us that BSX’s P/S is 0.413 standard deviations above the average (conversely, if the z-score had been -0.413 then BSX P/S would have been 0.413 below the average)
  • Based solely on its positive P/S z-score and above average P/S ratio, BSX can be defined as a growth company.

We performed the same analysis for each S&P 500 company and each of the six fundamental metrics listed above.  We then created a composite based on the six z-scores for each company and ranked them.

Of the 500 companies in the S&P 500, we selected the 50 companies with the highest z-score composite, those clearly demonstrating the characteristics of a growth company, and the 50 lowest z-score composites, which are companies that fit the characteristics of a value company.

Using the results of the z-score analysis, we also looked at the total rate of return over various time frames for those stocks in our growth and value identified sectors. Return figures are inclusive of dividends.

Results – Fundamentals

The data below shows the sharp contrast between the average metrics for the 50 growth stocks and the 50 value stocks.

Data courtesy Bloomberg

The next table contrasts this data in a z-score format for each metric. The z-score analysis provides the ability to compare the two styles and understand how the growth and value companies compare to the entire S&P 500. As a reminder, the higher or lower the z-score, the more it varies from the average.

Data courtesy Bloomberg

Results – Total Returns

To calculate returns for the top and bottom 50 stocks, we stretch a bit and assume that the 50 growth and value stocks identified today have been in that realm for the past ten years. While we know that is not entirely the case; it is not unreasonable to think both groups have been in the ballpark. The table below highlights the total returns of each group across various timeframes.

Data courtesy Bloomberg


The contrast in metrics between growth stocks and value stocks could not be starker. The differentials are incredibly large, which indicates one is either paying eye-watering prices for growth, or they are truly finding value in the value category. The total return performance over each time frame highlights the chasm between investor preferences for growth over value since the financial crisis.

Growth stocks have rewarded investors for taking risk and punished those with a tried and true value approach. While memories are nice, we remind you that as investors we must look forward. Value stocks provide a large cushion for error, whereas growth stocks are priced for a level of perfection not since the technology bubble. As long as the market remains euphoric, growth will likely continue to outperform value. However, when rationality strikes the market over the head, the ridiculous prices the market assigns to growth stocks will normalize. At the same time, investors will seek out boring companies with steady earnings and relatively cheap valuations that constitute the value sector.

Value Your Wealth – Part One Introduction

In this article and a series of others to follow, we explore the distinction between growth and value investment styles. Those looking in their rearview mirror will likely laugh at our analysis and focus on what worked yesterday. Those aware of the inevitable turns in the road ahead will understand the unique worth that a value-focused investment style offers.

We believe the market is on the precipice of a monumental shift, and one that will blindside most investors. Through this series of articles, we aim to provide research and investment ideas that will allow you to protect your wealth when the investment cycles shift and thrive when most investors suffer.    

Discipline, Process, and an Appreciation for Cycles

Spring has sprung, flowers are blooming, and pollen is swirling through the air. It’s time to put away our winter boots, scarves, and bulky jackets and replace them with swimming trunks, baseballs gloves and the promise of afternoon naps on the beach.

Investing also has its seasons. Economic and investment cycles alternate between periods where risk-taking and speculating is preferred and periods where conservatism and discrimination are essential. Unlike the seasons, there is no calendar that tells us when these investing cycles begin and end. Nevertheless, an appreciation for history along with an understanding of economic trends, valuations, demographics, and monetary and fiscal policy provides helpful clues.

Awareness of potential changes in economic and market cycles, however vague the timing is, allow us to strategize on how to reposition our portfolios when the change in season appears imminent. Because of vastly different investing environments and associated outcomes, success in building wealth over long time frames requires discipline and a durable investment process. It is important to ride the market higher in the good times, but we can’t stress enough the value of avoiding the inevitable large market drawdowns that erase wealth and the precious time you have to compound it. 

Value vs. Growth

The market’s surge higher since the financial crisis and the governmental and corporate policies used to sustain economic and market growth have been nothing short of extraordinary. In many articles, we discussed topics such as the unparalleled use of monetary policy to prop markets higher, massive fiscal spending designed to keep economic growth positive, how corporations have shunned future growth to buy-back stock, and the substantial shift towards passive investment styles.

As a result of these behaviors and actions, we have witnessed an anomaly in what has historically spelled success for investors. Stronger companies with predictable income generation and solid balance sheets have grossly underperformed companies with unreliable earnings and over-burdened balance sheets. The prospect of majestic future growth has trumped dependable growth. Companies with little to no income and massive debts have been the winners.

Over the past decade, investors have favored passive instruments that track a market or a large swath of the market. By doing so, they have easily outperformed active investors that are doing their homework and applying time-tested fundamental analysis to their investment selection process. This passive behavior is circular in nature and has magnified the growth/value imbalance. The investment world has been turned on its head.

The underperformance of value stocks relative to growth stocks is not unique, but the current duration and magnitude of underperformance are unprecedented. Before embarking on a more detailed discussion, a clear definition of what is meant by growth and value is important.

Growth- Growth stocks represent companies that have demonstrated better-than-average gains in sales and/or earnings in recent years and are expected to continue delivering high levels of profit growth. They are generally higher priced than the broad market in terms of their price-to-earnings and price-to-sales, and their stock prices tend to be more volatile. To help fuel earnings, growth stocks often do not pay out a dividend.

Growth stocks generally perform better when interest rates are falling and corporate earnings are robust. On the other hand, they are also most at risk of losses when the economy is cooling.

Value- A value stock tends to include companies that have fallen out of favor but still have good fundamentals such as dividends, earnings, and sales. Value stocks are lower priced than the broader market, are often priced below similar companies in their industry, and are perceived to carry less risk than the market.

Value stocks generally hold their value better in an economic slowdown, tend to do well early in an economic recovery, and frequently lag in a prolonged bull market. In general they pay above market dividends.

Historical Context – Growth vs. Value

It is important to understand which investment styles have been successful during the post-financial crisis era. Given that we are statistically and logically very likely nearing the end of the cycle, it is even more crucial to grasp what decades of investment experience through all sorts of economic and market climates, not just the last ten years, tells us should be successful in the future. 

The graph below charts ten year annualized total returns (dividends included) for value stocks versus growth stocks. The most recent data point representing 2018, covering the years 2009 through 2018, stands at negative 2.86%. This indicates value stocks have underperformed growth stocks by 2.86% on average in each of the last ten years.

The data for this analysis comes from Kenneth French and Dartmouth University.

There are two important takeaways from the graph above:

  • Over the last 90 years, value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by an average of 4.44% per year (orange dotted line).
  • There have only been eight ten-year periods over the last 90 years (total of 90 ten-year periods) when value stocks underperformed growth stocks. Two of these occurred during the Great Depression and one spanned the 1990s leading into the Tech bust of 2001. The other five are recent, representing the years 2014 through 2018.

To say the post-financial crisis era has been an anomaly is an understatement. The current five-year string of a negative trailing 10-year annualized return differential is the longest on record, and the most recent ten-year return ending last year is the lowest on record at NEGATIVE 2.86%.

When the cycle turns, we have little doubt the value-growth relationship will revert. As the graph above shows, seldom does such reversion stop at the average. To better understand why this is so important, consider what happens if the investment cycle turns and the relationship of value versus growth returns to the average over the next two years. In such a case value would outperform growth by nearly 30% in just two years. Anything beyond the average would increase the outperformance even more.


This article and the others to follow are not intended to implore you to immediately buy value and sell growth. They will, however, provide you with a road map that allows you to plan, strategize and use discipline in moving to a more conservative, value-based strategy if you so choose.

As mentioned, we will explore this topic in much more depth in coming articles. Already in the works are the following analyses: 

  • A stock screen that discerns between value and growth stocks.
  • A tool to help find funds and ETF’s that provide value versus those that use Value in their name but provide little value.
  • Sector analysis to steer you toward specific industries that tend to have more value stocks than growth stocks.

Value and growth are just two of the many factors to explore. In the future, we will also introduce and discuss others such as momentum and size.

We want to be astute stewards of wealth and safeguard our portfolios so that when the investing cycle comes to an end, we are prepared to take advantage of what the next season has in store. This will help ensure those naps on the beach are not dreams but reality.