Value Vs Growth, S&P 500, Oil, Treasuries, & Gold

In 2004 Chan and Lakonishok published Value and Growth Investing: Review and Update. In this study they document annual returns to value and growth investing over the period 1969-2001. They conclude that even after taking into account the hyperbolic surge (and crash afterwards) of growth stocks in the period 1997-2000 value investing still generates superior returns. Over the 1969-2001 Chan and Lakonishok document a compound annual return of 16.4% for large cap US companies, where large caps are defined as stocks ranked in the top six deciles of market cap based on NYSE breakpoints. Over the same period the S&P500 generates a compound annual return of 11.4%.

Value Vs Growth, S&P 500, Oil, Treasuries, & Gold

In this contribution we extend the Chan and Lakonishok study:

Warren Buffett: If You Own A Good Business, Keep It

Berkshire Hathaway Warren BuffettBuying private businesses is easier than acquiring public firms, and investors should avoid selling good investments at all costs, according to the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett. Q2 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more In an interview with CNBC in March 2013, Buffett was asked if he was looking at any businesses, in particular, Read More


* we document average annual returns to value and growth investing for large cap US companies over the 1970-2012 period;

* we show the returns to an investment strategy where the value decile is purged from companies with a weak financial position (referred to as value+);

* we compare the returns to value and growth investing with other asset classes such as government bonds, gold and oil, both in nominal and real terms.

-Annual returns

TABLE I and TABLE II show average annual returns for the different investment strategies and asset classes over the 1970-2012 period. Both tables clarify that value+ realizes the highest average annual return. In nominal terms the average annual return to value+ is 16.9%; in real terms the return is 12.5%. Value+ realizes a smaller maximum drop on an annual basis compared to the other investment strategies and asset classes, with the exception of the 10-year Treasury.

TABLE I: AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS AND DOWNSIDE RISK (NOMINAL TERMS) OVER THE 1970-2012 PERIOD

Value

Value+

Growth

S&P500

10-year Treasury

Gold

Oil

16.4%

16.9%

11.9%

11.8%

8.4%

11.9%

11.8%

-28.0%

-23.7%

-38.7%

-31.9%

-11.1%

-25.2%

-46.4%

TABLE II: AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS AND DOWNSIDE RISK (REAL TERMS) OVER THE 1970-2012 PERIOD

Value

Value+

Growth

S&P500

10-year Treasury

Gold

Oil

12.1%

12.5%

7.6%

7.5%

4.0%

7.5%

7.5%

-26.6%

-22.3%

-45.8%

-30.4%

-13.7%

-34.8%

-48.1%


-Ten-year real total returns

In the following five charts we compare ten-year real total returns between value+ on the one hand and growth, S&P500, 10-year Treasury, gold and oil on the other over the 1980-2012 period. At the bottom of the chart we provide the most important results, more specifically:

* the number of times that each investment strategy or asset class realizes a positive ten-year real total return;

* the average ten-year real total return;

* the minimum ten-year real total return.

Value+ stands out as the best and most consistent investment strategy. We find that in all 33 ten-year periods value+ realizes a positive real total return with an average of 219% and a minimum of 65%. This finding also holds for value. All other investment strategies and asset classes are confronted with at least three ten-year periods of negative real total returns, implying a decrease in real wealth for investors. This is notably the case for gold and oil. Both asset classes suffered from a long period of negative ten-year total returns after the commodity boom in the late 1970s.

GRAPH I: VALUE+ VERSUS GROWTH – TEN-YEAR REAL TOTAL RETURNS

Number of times value+ realizes a positive real total return: 33 out of 33
Number of times growth realizes a positive real total return: 30 out of 33

Average real total return for value+: 219%
Average real total return for growth: 80%

Minimum real total return for value+: 65%
Minimum real total return for growth: -49%

GRAPH II: VALUE+ VERSUS S&P500 – TEN-YEAR REAL TOTAL RETURNS

Number of times value+ realizes a positive real total return: 33 out of 33
Number of times S&P500 realizes a positive real total return: 29 out of 33

Average real total return for value+: 219%
Average real total return for S&P500: 120%

Minimum real total return for value+: 65%
Minimum real total return for S&P500: -33%

GRAPH III: VALUE+ VERSUS 10-YEAR TREASURY – TEN-YEAR REAL TOTAL RETURNS

Number of times value+ realizes a positive real total return: 33 out of 33
Number of times 10-year Treasury realizes a positive real total return: 28 out of 33

Average real total return for value+: 219%
Average real total return for 10-year Treasury: 51%

Minimum real total return for value+: 65%
Minimum real total return for 10-year Treasury: -40%

GRAPH IV: VALUE+ VERSUS GOLD – TEN-YEAR REAL TOTAL RETURNS

Number of times value+ realizes a positive real total return: 33 out of 33
Number of times gold realizes a positive real total return: 15 out of 33

Average real total return for value+: 219%
Average real total return for gold: 67%

Minimum real total return for value+: 65%
Minimum real total return for gold: -60%

GRAPH V: VALUE+ VERSUS OIL – TEN-YEAR REAL TOTAL RETURNS

Number of times value+ realizes a positive real total return: 33 out of 33
Number of times oil realizes a positive real total return: 16 out of 33

Average real total return for value+: 219%
Average real total return for oil: 69%

Minimum real total return for value+: 65%
Minimum real total return for oil: -62%

-Total return

Finally we take a look at the total return of the various investment strategies and asset classes over the 1970-2012 period. The results are shown in GRAPH VI. We start with $1 invested at the end of May 1970. At the bottom of the graph again we show the most important figures. Value+ stands out with a total return in nominal terms of $393.35 after a 43-year period, implying a compound annual return of 14.91%. This figure is somewhat lower compared to the results by Chan and Lakonishok (2004).

GRAPH VI: TOTAL NOMINAL RETURN

Total compound return for value: 324.74
Total compound return for value+: 393.35
Total compound return for growth: 41.10
Total compound return for S&P500: 67.96
Total compound return for 10-year Treasury: 24.66
Total compound return for gold: 43.40
Total compound return for oil: 27.44

Compound annual return for value: 14.40%
Compound annual return for value+: 14.91%
Compound annual return for growth: 9.03%
Compound annual return for S&P500: 10.31%
Compound annual return for 10-year Treasury: 7.74%
Compound annual return for gold: 9.16%
Compound annual return for oil: 8.01%

-Conclusion

In this contribution we compared the returns to value+ investing with other investment strategies and asset classes over the 1970-2012 period. Value+ investing – as originally conceived by Benjamin Graham – proves to be the only investment strategy that realizes a positive real return over each ten-year period and consequently actually preserves the capital of investors in real terms. At the same time investors – thanks to the safe fundamental risk profile of value+ – don’t need to be worried about “a permanent loss of capital”.

-References

CPI and S&P500 data by Robert Shiller

10-year Treasury data by Aswath Damodaran

Gold and oil data by Inflation Data