Value Premium

Value and momentum are two very different equity investing styles, both with many adherents. Neither outperforms the overall market all the time. Is there some systematic way of combining these two approaches to enhance consistency of outperformance in global equity markets? In their March 2006 paper entitled “Generating Excess Returns through Global Industry Rotation”, Geoffrey Loudon and John Okunev examine different investing styles (momentum, value, combination of value and momentum, and growth) to exploit cyclic industry returns, with the U.S. yield curve as the critical economic indicator. Using monthly global prices, dividends, earnings and returns data for 36 industries for 1973-2005, they conclude that: Keep Reading

Do long-term value investors outperform? In their paper entitled “Do Investors Capture the Value Premium?”, Todd Houge and Tim Loughran seek the answer to this question by examining groups of value and growth equity indexes, mutual funds and individual stocks over long periods. They conclude that: Keep Reading

Current research on the value premium, the outperformance of value stocks in comparison with other (growth) stocks, mostly involves explaining it through either behavioral or efficient-market mechanisms. However, in their November 2005 paper entitled “Does the Value Premium Really Exist in the UK Equity Market?”, Panagiotis Andrikopoulos, Arief Daynes, David Latimer and Paraskevas Pagas challenge its existence. Their study focuses on eliminating any possible effects of survivorship bias, look-ahead bias and the method of calculating returns in comparing the performance of value and growth stocks of United Kingdom firms. They classify value versus growth via four selection factors (low for value, high for growth): book-to-market value, earnings-to-price ratio, dividend yield and weighted average sales growth. Using a new database of 2006 UK equity issues fully listed at any time during 1987-1996, they find that: Keep Reading

Does value beat growth because: (1) investors/traders irrationally overreact to recent bad (good) news about value (growth) stocks; or, (2) they rationally recognize that value stocks are inherently more risky than growth stocks? In their March 2005 paper entitled “Value versus Growth: Movements in Economic Fundamentals”, Yuhang Xing and Lu Zhang seek to clarify the value-growth contest by examining how the fundamentals (earnings growth, dividend growth, sales growth, investment growth, profitability and investment rate) of value and growth companies behave during different parts of the business cycle. Using two samples for manufacturing companies for 1963-2002 and 1928-2002 and defining “value” (“growth”) as the top (bottom) 20% in book-value-to-market capitalization, they find that: Keep Reading

In the September 2005 version of their paper entitled “The Anatomy of Value and Growth Stock Returns”, Eugene Fama and Kenneth French separate the average returns on both value and growth portfolios into dividends and three sources of capital gains: (1) reinvestment of earnings (growth in book value); (2) change in price-to-book ratios (P/B) due to mean reversion in profitability, and (3) a secular upward drift in P/B. Using data spanning 1926-2003 for NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ stocks, they find that: Keep Reading

In their August 2005 paper entitled “Value Versus Growth: Stochastic Dominance Criteria”, Abhay Abhyankar, Keng-Yu Ho and Huainan Zhao apply stochastic dominance techniques to assess the relative performance of value and growth investment strategies in U.S. equity markets over the past half century. These techniques: (1) compare entire return distributions (not just means or medians); (2) are independent of specific asset pricing models; and, (3) require only minimal assumptions about investor preferences. In this application, the assumptions are that investors always want more wealth, are risk-averse and accept small high-probability losses in exchange for huge low-probability returns. With these assumptions, stochastic dominance implies generation of greater wealth. Using a full sample covering 1951-2003 and a sub-sample covering 1963-1990 from the Kenneth French database, they find that: Keep Reading