Skip to main content

Sound Advice: July 27, 2022

Is investing by factor a good idea? 

Stocks can be described in many different ways, but common descriptions include labels such as Value, Quality, Momentum, Small Cap, Defensive, Cyclical, High Dividend, Minimum Volatility, and Multi-Factor.  It should come as no surprise that each of these has a strong following among different groups of investors.

Let’s deal with the definitions first.

Those in the Value group have low price-earnings ratios.  The Quality group leans toward the major companies that are the foundations of the U.S. economy.  Momentum stocks are those with above average price performance over the latest six and 12 months.  Small Cap stocks are those of smaller companies, which tend to grow more quickly, but are more susceptible to downturns in the economy.  Defensive stocks are those of companies whose products and services are essential (think Procter & Gamble).   

Cyclical stocks are those of companies whose progress tends to go through boom-and-bust periods.  High Dividend Yield stocks are those with well above average dividend yields.  Minimum Volatility stocks are the ones that fluctuate least during periods of market weakness and strength.  And Multi-Factor stocks are those that would qualify for more than one of these labels.

The factor that turned in the best performance over the last 15 years was Momentum, which ended up in first place five times with average annual returns of 11.8%, but as one might suspect, this group has been next to last for the first six months of this year.  What’s more, Momentum dropped from the top to the bottom three times in the years following its first-place finish.

Next best were Value stocks, coming in first place four times.  Here, too, the follow-up was problematic.  In 2013 and 2014, Value stocks led the pack.  Then in two of the next four years Value stocks were at the bottom.

Quality stocks were just behind with yearly returns of 11.5%, though they too were among the worst performers through midyear.  In most years, they were somewhere near the middle.

What was the best performing group this year? Defensive stocks, which lost only 3.2%, but that’s after four out of 15 years in which this group was the weakest performer. And in five other years, the returns from these stocks were well below average.

When trying to identify a group of stocks or funds with real advantages over time, it’s essential to concentrate on the consistency and rate of forward progress, financial health, and an economic environment that favors the goods and services they provide.


N. Russell Wayne, CFP®

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: January 3, 2025

2025 Market Forecasts: Stupidity Taken To An Extreme   If you know anything about stock market performance, you can only gag at the nonsense “esteemed forecasters” are now putting forth about the prospective path of stocks in the year ahead.   Our cousins in the UK would call this rubbish.   I would not be as kind. Leading the Ship of Fools is the forecast from the Chief Investment Strategist at Oppenheimer who is looking for a year-end 2025 level for the Standard & Poor’s Index of 7,100, a whopping 21% increase from the most recent standing.   Indeed, most of these folks are looking for double-digit gains.   Only two expect stocks to weaken. In the last 30 years, the market has risen by more than 20% only 15 times.   The exceptional span during that time was 1996-1999, which accounted for four of those jumps.   What followed in 2000 through 2002 was the polar opposite: 2000:      -9.1% 2001:     -11.9% ...
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

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