Why are investors hesitant to exploit value?

April 15, 2021

9:55 am

The case for owning value stocks today would seem to be compelling.

1. The gap in valuations versus growth stocks is wider than in 2000
Graph
Source: Morgan Stanley, 31 March 2021.
2. Value sectors offer the greatest earnings growth in the next two years
Graph
Source: Morgan Stanley, 31 March 2021.
And are also getting the greatest earnings upgrades.
Graph
Source: Morgan Stanley, 31 March 2021.
3. Value sectors offer one of the best hedges against inflation and rising bond yields.
Graph
Source: Morgan Stanley, 27 November 2020. The information shown above is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations or advice. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee returns or eliminate risks in any market environment.

Despite this, we are repeatedly told that most investors have no appetite for value stocks and are willing to stick with high quality and growth stocks despite the latter’s lacklustre performance over the last year. Many investors are hence making a deliberate choice to own expensive stocks with slow earnings growth over cheaper stocks with faster earnings growth – something that on the face of it seems hard to explain. In an efficient market, investors would alter their allocation to capture the better risk reward proposition that value stocks seem to offer and the fact that they are not doing this suggests that certain behavioural biases are over-riding logic. We offer some suggestions of what these might be.

Recency bias
The recency effect refers to the fact that people are more likely to recall information that is recent but also that is vivid and well-publicised. For example, when people in the United States are asked whether a shark attack or lightning strike is the more likely cause of death, a large number of people opt for shark attacks since these tend to be well publicised and post the film Jaws are easy to visualise. The reality is that you are 30 times more likely to die from lightning strikes than shark attacks (more people die from coconuts falling on their head than shark attacks!)[1].

Within investing, there is a huge amount of empirical evidence to suggest that growth or quality stocks produce a return below that of a cap weighted benchmark and that value and momentum strategies produce excess returns (see table below for one such study).
Graph

Source: Research Affiliates, LLC, based on data from CRSP and Compustat.

The information shown above is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations or advice.More recently, however, investing in high quality or growth stocks has exceeded the market return and hence that is what investors tend to focus on. This is even though the larger data set showing the poor long run returns of quality and growth encompasses a longer time period and is hence more statistically significant and reliable.On a daily basis, investors will see growth funds topping the performance tables, picking up industry awards and newspapers are full of articles of market beating growth managers explaining why they can continue to earn excess returns and why value investing is dead. Moreover, growth fund managers tend to have enticing stories about how their stocks are going to dominate their exciting industries in the future whilst value fund managers are trying to convince investors why the stock that everyone hates in the industry that most believe is in structural decline could be a worthwhile investment.

When investors hear news stories of department stores closing it creates a form of recency bias that makes it hard for them to understand why a fund manager might be buying a retail stock. The attractions of growth investing are both vivid and well-publicised but so too are the myriad of reasons not to buy a value stock. We believe it is this recency bias which leads investors to ignore the long history of excess returns from value investing in favour of the more recent experience of high quality and growth stocks.
Herding

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that human beings have evolved for social conformity and herding. An experiment by Eisenberger and Lieberman (2004) asked participants to play a computer game with two other players, throwing a ball back and forth. When the other players started to exclude the participant from the game, scientists noted that activity was generated in the anterior cingulate cortex and the insula, the parts of the brain which also feel physical pain.

 

In the world of investing, following a contrarian strategy like value investing generates the pain of social exclusion (as James Montier describes it, following a contrarian strategy is like having your arm broken on a repeated basis![2]). Thus, if you are a wealth manager/fund of funds etc and your competitors own mostly high quality and growth funds it takes an enormous amount of courage to diverge from them and allocate to value funds. As John Maynard Keynes stated, ‘Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally’. Thus, investors may forego the chance of a higher return and accept a lower return if it is likely that their competitors will also experience this lower return.

Loss aversion

Numerous experiments have shown that investors will give up a disproportionate amount of return in the search of predictability – a process known as loss aversion. In one such experiment, the author Shane Frederick asked participants several Cognitive Reflection Tasks[3] (CRT). Those that scored low numbers used the X-system of the brain (fast response) whilst those that scored high numbers tended to use the C-system and were more considered and logical.

 

He then offered participants the choice between a certain gain/loss and a riskier option that had a better expected payoff. For instance, participants were offered a guaranteed $100 or 75% chance of $200 but with 25% chance of nothing (a risk weighted payoff of $150). When offered the choice between two profits, participants overwhelmingly go for the more certain outcome despite its lower expected return although those with low CRT scores showed greater preference for the certain option. When offered the choice between a certain loss of $100 and another option that gives the possibility of avoiding a loss (75% chance of loss of $200 and 25% chance of no loss), they will gamble despite the riskier option having a larger risk adjusted loss of -$150. In this case, their aversion to a loss meant they were willing to take a gamble that might mean they avoid it.

Table
Source: Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making by Shane Frederick 2005. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee returns or eliminate risks in any market environment.

In the investing world, this loss aversion is one of the factors used to explain why value investing generates an excess return and high-quality investing generates a poor return. Investors equate a value stock with the risky option shown above and a blue chip, predictable stock with the guaranteed option but their aversion to losses means that they tend to overpay for certainty and hence reduce the returns of their investments.


Finally, it is important to realise that loss aversion is not a constant but varies over time. In March 2020, news about Covid-19 and associated lockdowns caused loss aversion to soar and meant investors were willing to pay a very high premium for certainty leading to an increase in the valuations of predictable stocks such as food and beverage companies. Conversely, they were willing to accept a huge discount to exit positions in stocks most likely to be impacted by lockdown policies such as banks and retailers.

Inertia/Regret

This refers to the fact that people feel regret about action and inaction in different ways and this is best illustrated with an analogy. Let’s imagine two fund managers, Sue and Jessica, work at the same firm in 2020 and that Sue owns a position in Tesla whilst Jessica owns a position in Exxon. As the news of Covid-19 emerges and the share price of Tesla starts to decline, Sue thinks about switching her Tesla into Exxon and eventually decides to make that trade. Jessica thinks about using the weakness in Tesla to sell Exxon and buy Tesla but eventually decides to take no action. A year later, Tesla has gone up tenfold whilst Exxon is unchanged – who do you think feels worse? The overwhelming likelihood is that Sue feels worse since without her action, she would have had a ten bagger in Tesla.


The fact that people feel deeper regret about taking an action that subsequently proved to be wrong than they do about taking no action leads to inertia and is one of the things that is often used to explain financial bubbles and elongated cycles. It seems reasonable to assume that investors who have been sitting in underperforming quality stocks and missed out on the initial gains of the rotation to value fear that they may switch now just as the value cycle peaks and would suffer huge regret. Knowing this, they opt for no action and stick with their quality stocks whilst hoping that the value rotation runs out of steam soon.

Short term bias and hyperbolic discounting

Not only can value strategies go wrong but they can take a long time to work and this has certainly been the case in the last decade when the underperformance of value has tested the patience of a saint. This means that to invest in a value strategy you need a long-time horizon which does not come naturally to human beings. When we are faced with the possibility of a reward, our brain releases dopamine which stimulates us and makes us feel good. Most of the dopamine receptors are in areas of the brain associated with the X-system (our fast system) and this make us favour instant gratification over a reward which that takes longer to occur.


McClure et al[4] investigated the neural systems that underlie decisions surrounding delayed gratification. For instance, when offered the choice between £10 today and £11 tomorrow, most people choose the immediate option. However, when asked to choose between £10 in a year and £11 in a year and a day, many of those who previously went for the immediate option now go for the second option even though the time difference between the two options is still one day. This effect, known as hyperbolic discounting, is our inclination to choose immediate rewards over rewards that come later, even when these immediate rewards are smaller. Hyperbolic discounting is not consistent across time which means that people might be willing to wait longer for rewards they already expect to receive in the distant future, while assigning a significant discount to small delays in rewards they expected to receive in the near future.


In investment terms, these means that investors are inclined to follow strategies which seem likely to pay off in the short term even at the expense of ones which might have a greater payoff, but which take longer to occur. Yet again, this tends to favour growth strategies which can have a very quick reward over value strategies which typically take longer to reward investors.

Conclusion

Value stocks appear to have most of the attributes that investors desire (cheap, earnings growth and upgrades, inflation hedge) and yet very few seem willing to exploit the opportunity being presented to them. We have suggested several behavioural biases that are plausible explanations for why investors seem unwilling or able to rotate in to value stocks, but we would finish by pointing out that this is not necessarily a low risk option. If professional investors look back in two years’ time and the cheapest stocks with the fastest earnings growth have substantially outperformed expensive stocks with slow earnings growth, they may have to face some very uncomfortable conversations with the clients who have missed out. Given this, taking some sort of position in value now seems like one of the best hedges against this future uncertainty.


Answer: the bat costs $1.05 and the ball costs $0.05. Many respondents answer $1 and $0.1 which is only $0.9 difference.

[1] Behavioural Investing by James Montier. [2] Behavioural Investing by James Montier. [3] An example of the questions might be ‘A bat and a ball together cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost (answer at end of this blog). [4] Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards November 2004 by Samuel M. McClur.
In case you missed it…

The term “RWC” may include any one or more RWC branded entities including RWC Partners Limited and RWC Asset Management LLP, each of which is authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority and, in the case of RWC Asset Management LLP, the US Securities and Exchange Commission; RWC Asset Advisors (US) LLC, which is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; and RWC Singapore (Pte) Limited, which is licensed as a Licensed Fund Management Company by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.


RWC may act as investment manager or adviser, or otherwise provide services, to more than one product pursuing a similar investment strategy or focus to the product detailed in this document. RWC seeks to minimise any conflicts of interest, and endeavours to act at all times in accordance with its legal and regulatory obligations as well as its own policies and codes of conduct.

This document is directed only at professional, institutional, wholesale or qualified investors. The services provided by RWC are available only to such persons. It is not intended for distribution to and should not be relied on by any person who would qualify as a retail or individual investor in any jurisdiction or for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation.


This document has been prepared for general information purposes only and has not been delivered for registration in any jurisdiction nor has its content been reviewed or approved by any regulatory authority in any jurisdiction. The information contained herein does not constitute: (i) a binding legal agreement; (ii) legal, regulatory, tax, accounting or other advice; (iii) an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell shares in any fund, security, commodity, financial instrument or derivative linked to, or otherwise included in a portfolio managed or advised by RWC; or (iv) an offer to enter into any other transaction whatsoever (each a “Transaction”). No representations and/or warranties are made that the information contained herein is either up to date and/or accurate and is not intended to be used or relied upon by any counterparty, investor or any other third party.


RWC uses information from third party vendors, such as statistical and other data, that it believes to be reliable. However, the accuracy of this data, which may be used to calculate results or otherwise compile data that finds its way over time into RWC research data stored on its systems, is not guaranteed. If such information is not accurate, some of the conclusions reached or statements made may be adversely affected. RWC bears no responsibility for your investment research and/or investment decisions and you should consult your own lawyer, accountant, tax adviser or other professional adviser before entering into any Transaction. Any opinion expressed herein, which may be subjective in nature, may not be shared by all directors, officers, employees, or representatives of RWC and may be subject to change without notice. RWC is not liable for any decisions made or actions or inactions taken by you or others based on the contents of this document and neither RWC nor any of its directors, officers, employees, or representatives (including affiliates) accepts any liability whatsoever for any errors and/or omissions or for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential loss, damages, or expenses of any kind howsoever arising from the use of, or reliance on, any information contained herein.


Information contained in this document should not be viewed as indicative of future results. Past performance of any Transaction is not indicative of future results. The value of investments can go down as well as up. Certain assumptions and forward looking statements may have been made either for modelling purposes, to simplify the presentation and/or calculation of any projections or estimates contained herein and RWC does not represent that that any such assumptions or statements will reflect actual future events or that all assumptions have been considered or stated. Forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain, and changing factors such as those affecting the markets generally, or those affecting particular industries or issuers, may cause results to differ from those discussed. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that estimated returns or projections will be realised or that actual returns or performance results will not materially differ from those estimated herein. Some of the information contained in this document may be aggregated data of Transactions executed by RWC that has been compiled so as not to identify the underlying Transactions of any particular customer.


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it has been given and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. In accepting receipt of the information transmitted you agree that you and/or your affiliates, partners, directors, officers and employees, as applicable, will keep all information strictly confidential. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited. The information contained herein is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) to which this document has been provided. Any distribution or reproduction of this document is not authorised and is prohibited without the express written consent of RWC or any of its affiliates.

Changes in rates of exchange may cause the value of such investments to fluctuate. An investor may not be able to get back the amount invested and the loss on realisation may be very high and could result in a substantial or complete loss of the investment. In addition, an investor who realises their investment in a RWC-managed fund after a short period may not realise the amount originally invested as a result of charges made on the issue and/or redemption of such investment. The value of such interests for the purposes of purchases may differ from their value for the purpose of redemptions. No representations or warranties of any kind are intended or should be inferred with respect to the economic return from, or the tax consequences of, an investment in a RWC-managed fund. Current tax levels and reliefs may change. Depending on individual circumstances, this may affect investment returns. Nothing in this document constitutes advice on the merits of buying or selling a particular investment. This document expresses no views as to the suitability or appropriateness of the fund or any other investments described herein to the individual circumstances of any recipient.


AIFMD and Distribution in the European Economic Area (“EEA”)


The Alternative Fund Managers Directive (Directive 2011/61/EU) (“AIFMD”) is a regulatory regime which came into full effect in the EEA on 22 July 2014. RWC Asset Management LLP is an Alternative Investment Fund Manager (an “AIFM”) to certain funds managed by it (each an “AIF”). The AIFM is required to make available to investors certain prescribed information prior to their investment in an AIF. The majority of the prescribed information is contained in the latest Offering Document of the AIF. The remainder of the prescribed information is contained in the relevant AIF’s annual report and accounts. All of the information is provided in accordance with the AIFMD.


In relation to each member state of the EEA (each a “Member State”), this document may only be distributed and shares in a RWC fund (“Shares”) may only be offered and placed to the extent that (a) the relevant RWC fund is permitted to be marketed to professional investors in accordance with the AIFMD (as implemented into the local law/regulation of the relevant Member State); or (b) this document may otherwise be lawfully distributed and the Shares may lawfully offered or placed in that Member State (including at the initiative of the investor).


Information Required for Distribution of Foreign Collective Investment Schemes to Qualified Investors in Switzerland


The representative and paying agent of the RWC-managed funds in Switzerland (the “Representative in Switzerland”) is Société Générale, Paris, Zurich Branch, Talacker 50,

P.O. Box 5070, CH-8021 Zurich. In respect of the units of the RWC-managed funds distributed in Switzerland, the place of performance and jurisdiction is at the registered office of the Representative in Switzerland.

Ready to start talking?