Value investing is a very long game | 价值投资是一场漫长的游戏 - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT英语电台

Value investing is a very long game
价值投资是一场漫长的游戏

But now might be a good time to start playing
现在是入局的好时机
00:00

Good morning. This week will be rather mad, between a new consumer price index report, a Federal Reserve meeting and a flurry of other key data drops. The market is not braced for hawkish shocks. Rather, it dares to dream, once again, of a soft landing.

Since October, as stocks have rallied and bond yields have fallen, financial conditions have grown looser. This weekly index from the Chicago Fed stirs together 105 financial indicators, from yield spreads and stock prices to lending standards and leverage:

undefined

The Fed can’t look past this. Its whole job right now is to keep financial conditions tight. Goldman Sachs estimates that, starting next year, easier financial conditions since October will reduce the growth drag from monetary policy by a third or more.

Will this provoke Jay Powell to pound the table a bit at this Wednesday’s meeting? Maybe, but he is in a tricky spot. He has said that the lagged effects of monetary policy call for raising interest rates more gradually, even if the ultimate endpoint stays the same. Unless he drops that stance, Powell has limited room for manoeuvre. Markets expect brisk disinflation, and the Fed only has so much ability to dislodge those hopes.

A hot CPI reading on Tuesday, signalling that disinflation will be a slow grind down, would serve to tighten things up. Unhedged is putting our chips on that outcome. What say you? Email us: robert.armstrong@ft.com and ethan.wu@ft.com. 

The value in value stocks, redux 

Last week I wrote about how value stocks have been outperforming growth stocks this year, and made three basic points:

This value run is a reversal of a period of heavy underperformance that lasted from 2008 to 2020. Value and growth outperformance regimes tend to be long, and it looks like we might have passed an inflection point

Despite the recent outperformance, value stocks still look very cheap on the usual metrics (price/earnings, price/book) compared to growth stocks, in historical terms. This is especially true of the very cheapest stocks

Value stocks seem to do pretty well in times of uncertainty — such these times, where inflation is providing uncertainty galore

That letter provoked an illuminating response from Unhedged’s friend Edward Finley, of the University of Virginia, discussing the theory of why value stocks tend to outperform the market over the long run. There are two schools of thought. Risk theories hold that long-term outperformance by value is compensation for value stocks’ riskiness; this is usually cashed out in terms of value stocks being issued, in many cases, by low-quality companies. Behavioural theories propose that a persistent form of irrationality is behind value’s outperformance. Finley writes:

undefined

What I really like about this interpretation is that it ties neatly to something else we have been writing about recently: the fact that revenue growth is not persistent and is therefore not really predictable. Humans are simply wired to extrapolate current growth rates indefinitely into the future (a type of recency bias, perhaps). The universe doesn’t work like that, however.

During good times, when prosperity and expansion are everywhere, our foolish projection of today’s growth rates years into the future seems to be confirmed by experience. But in a crisis or period of instability, the scales fall from our eyes and we are converted, like Paul, to a less speculative investment gospel. Unlike Paul, though, our faith is weak. After a few years, we fall back into sin: the belief that we can see the future. And growth stocks start outperforming again.  

Finley referred me to an excellent paper about balancing the risk and behaviour theories of the value premium, written in 2014 by Clifford Asness and John Liew. It, too, argues that behaviour bias and risk may both play a role in delivering the value premium, but it contains this warning:

undefined

Things that are driven by irrationality behave, well, irrationally. Our tendency to believe, falsely, that growth is predictable is persistent, but not necessarily equally strong through time and probably not easy to predict. The takeaway is that precise timing of turns in the value/growth outperformance cycle is likely foolish. Any time you buy value stocks, load up on patience, too.

This, however, brings us back to Rob Arnott of Research Affiliates, who we quoted last week. In a series of papers, he has argued that a lot of the outperformance that appears to come from factors such as value, momentum or low volatility, is “situational” rather than “structural.” Factors come in and out of favour with investors. This favour entrenches itself over time, as performance-chasing capital flows lead to still further outperformance of a given factor. The relative valuation of a favoured factor therefore rises — this is “situational” outperformance. This is opposed to “structural” outperformance, which is something persistent rather than a reflection of investor fads. But relative valuation, which drives situational outperformance, eventually reverts to the mean.

Historically, investors have been able to take advantage of this mean reversion, when they invest in those factors that are out of favour and cheap — as value is now. But this strategy comes with a warning, too:    

undefined

Unhedged believes that valuations help determine long-term returns, so we are sympathetic to this view. But the key line is “not precisely, nor with any meaningful short-term timing efficacy.” Value investors have to think in terms of decades, not years.

One good read

It is hard to write something considered about Twitter. Ezra Klein has a good stab at it in the New York Times.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

华尔街对大型科技公司2000亿美元的人工智能支出感到担忧

本周,美国四大互联网集团的AI效益初现端倪,但也警告说将增加支出。

地中海已经变成危险的“汽油桶”了吗?

暴雨的部分原因是海水温度的危险上升。

从错失的投资机会中得到的教训

我是如何错过OpenAI、BrewDog和英国电信的?

决定特朗普贸易政策的内部竞争

在这位共和党候选人的第一个总统任期,其政府内部内斗不断。

政府顾问表示,英国应简化人工智能专家的签证程序

马特•克利福德关于促进科技产业发展的建议还包括设立数据中心特区。

为什么卡玛拉•哈里斯会赢

因为这仍然是经济问题,傻瓜。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×