Skip to main content

Sound Advice: May 26, 2021

Growth vs. Value?

One of the longest-running dichotomies in investing is the ongoing tug of war between growth stocks and value stocks.  Growth stocks are generally seen as companies that are growing consistently and, typically, at above average rates.  Value stocks, on the other hand, are companies whose progress is less consistent and often relatively slow. 

At first glance, one wonders why investors would look beyond growth stocks to fill out their portfolios, but there’s more to the task of portfolio construction than just picking market stars such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and the like.

Here’s the hitch.  Over time, most growth stocks will turn in better returns than most value stocks.  The key word here is most.  A portfolio of diversified growth stocks will usually be selling at significantly higher valuations (price-earnings ratios) than a portfolio of diversified value stocks.  Why?  Because more rapid and more consistent growth rates give investors greater confidence that these patterns will continue.  That confidence is the reason why they will pay more.

The problem is the tendency of growth stock valuations to get stretched beyond reasonable levels.  In Wall Street parlance, that situation is referred to as “priced for perfection”.  These rich valuations lead to the risk of major, rapid price plunges if there are earnings shortfalls or other negative business developments within companies.  In these cases, the impact of even one such drop will markedly bring down the average performance of the entire portfolio. 

Value stocks demonstrate the flip side of this equation.  In reflection of their relatively mediocre financial and market performances, their valuations tend to be quite lean.  Investors don’t expect much from them and exhibit that expectation by buying only when they are relatively cheap.  When earnings are weak or there’s disappointing news, not much happens . . . unlike the case with growth stocks.

Yet every now and then these companies announce results that are well above what had been expected and their shares rise dramatically.  Not surprisingly, when this happens in a diversified portfolio of value stocks, the average performance jumps, often beyond that of growth stock portfolios.

In many ways, this is a mirror image of what’s known as the Dogs of the Dow Theory, which is based upon annual portfolio rebalancing and concentration on the highest yielding stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  It’s also akin to the popular high dividend yield approach (using a broader universe than the Dow).  

The common denominator for all of these is the importance of having a broadly diversified portfolio to increase the opportunity for positive surprises and limit the exposure to downside disappointments.

N. Russell Wayne, CFP®

Sound Asset Management Inc.

Weston, CT  06883

203-222-9370

www.soundasset.com

www.soundasset.blogspot.com

 

Any questions? Please contact me at nrwayne@soundasset.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: July 16, 2025

Fixed annuities are poor investments Fixed annuities are often criticized as poor investments for several reasons, despite their reputation for providing stable, predictable income.  Here are the key drawbacks and concerns:   High Fees and Commissions Internal Fees:  Fixed annuities can carry a range of fees, including administrative charges, mortality expense risk fees, and rider fees. These can add up to 2%–4% per year, significantly eroding returns over time. Commissions:  Sales agents and financial advisors often receive high commissions for selling annuities—sometimes as much as 5%–8% of the invested amount. This creates a financial incentive for advisers to recommend them, even when they may not be the best fit for the client. Comparison to Other Investments:  Mutual funds and ETFs typically have much lower fees and commissions, making them more cost-effective for long-term growth. Limited Growth a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: October 8, 2025

How many investors have outperformed the stock market over the last 20 years? Very few investors have outperformed the stock market over the past 20 years.   Data shows that only about 6% to 8% of actively managed equity funds in the U.S. beat the market over this period, with the vast majority—over 90%—underperforming the S&P 500 or equivalent broad indexes. Percentage of Investors Beating the Market Only 8% of equity funds investing in large companies managed to outperform the market over a recent 20-year span. About 94% of all domestic funds underperformed the S&P 1500 Composite Index from 2005-2024. Over shorter timeframes (5-10 years), typically fewer than 15-20% of fund managers beat the S&P 500, and performance persistence is rare. Why It Is Rare The S&P 500’s high returns have proven immensely difficult to beat, especially as indexing has become popular and markets have ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: January 15, 2025

Why investors shouldn't pay attention to Wall Street forecasts   Investors shouldn't pay attention to Wall Street forecasts for several compelling reasons: Poor accuracy Wall Street forecasts have a terrible track record of accuracy. Studies show that their predictions are often no better than random chance, with accuracy rates as low as 47%   Some prominent analysts even perform worse, with accuracy ratings as low as 35% Consistent overestimation Analysts consistently overestimate earnings growth, predicting 10-12%                 annual growth when the reality is closer to 6%.   This overoptimism can                 lead investors to make overly aggressive bets in the market. Inability to predict unpredictable events The stock market is influenced by numerous unpredictable factors, including geopolitical events, technological changes, and company-specific news.   Anal...
Post a Comment
Read more