Over the last few years, quantitative value investing has been denigrated relentlessly. The main criticism is that in an intangibles-heavy world, using book value as a measure of a company's worth is misguided. That is true! But these criticisms make one flawed assumption.
They assume that quant practitioners build value portfolios they way Fama and French first described them in 1992. No actual portfolios today hold stocks simply because of low p/b ratio. Why? Because accounting rules don't correctly capture the value of intellectual property.
Consider this. Facebook's 2020 balance sheet shows intangible assets of just $623 million. This is after FB spent a staggering $40+ billion on R&D in the last 3 years. Surely, FB's intangible assets are considerably higher than the listed $623 million.
The flip side is that not all R&D spend creates intangible assets of permanent value. Given the nature of tech, these assets also lose value quickly. It's not as if FB can stop R&D spending and still continue to make as much money as it does. R&D can't be capitalized forever.
But here's the thing. Quant investors understand all this. And they spend a lot of time and energy figuring out the best ways to measure value. One way is to combine several different measures of value. If done well, this makes strategies quite robust.
The other thing is that quant value is not the same as Buffett's value. Neither is it an attempt to find the next Google or Facebook. It is simply an assertion that buying earnings or assets for lower than average prices tends to generate higher than average returns.
Quant value works because people periodically lose their collective minds and chase dreams instead of earnings. Some of those dreams do come true. But on average, having paid the price they pay, the returns from chasing these dreams are not that high after all.
On the other hand, when some company begins to do poorly, people assume the worst. Prices collapse far more than the fundamentals ever do. And some do go down to zero. But on average, most businesses bounce back to reasonable levels of performance. And so do their prices.
So quant value is simply an expression of an age old saying - nothing is as good or as bad as it seems at first. Sounds like a good idea to invest in.
Investors talk a lot about their investment process. Some of them are very good. But few ever break down their investment process into what I think are five major steps. As an investor, it is worth articulating what your process is for each of those five steps.
An investment starts with "idea generation". Where do you get your ideas from? Screens...magazine articles...cloning? There are many possible sources and you don't have to choose just one. Having a well-defined list helps focus and also tracking where your best ideas come from.
The next step is "analysis". It can range from checking technical indicators to a feet-on-the-ground scuttlebutt process. This depends on what kind of investor you are. But define exactly what you do, and what you look at. It helps avoid biases and mistakes due to missed steps.
Of late, there has been a lot of chatter that "value" is making a comeback after a decade of underperformance. While this is broadly true, there is a large amount of nuance that such a statement glosses over.
In most circumstances, it doesn't matter. But if you are a quant investor, or an investor in a quant fund, understanding these nuances matters a lot. After all, not all large cap funds are the same. Why should all value strategies be the same?
The textbook definition of value in the quant sense is the p/b ratio. Fama and French, the duo that proposed this idea, sorted the investment universe based on price to book. Roughly speaking, 1/3rd of the stocks with the lowest p/b ratios were considered value stocks.
Finally finished reading Kochland by @CLeonardNews. Took me 2 weeks to get through it but totally unputdownable. If I'd realised it was a 700 page tome before I picked it up, I might have shied away. Thank God I didn't.
1/n
For one thing, it's brilliantly written. There's an excellent balance between giving us details about the various characters' history and sticking to the main points. This is in contrast to Ron Chernow - a brilliant writer in his own right. 2/n
More importantly though, it has incredible detail about so many things that have happened both in in American politics as well as American business. From a far clearer explanation of what happened during the California electricity... 3/n
After having read so much about how Amazon does not really lose money but constantly grows without reporting too much of a profit, I decided to finally take a dive into its financials over the last 15 years. In only about 20 minutes, my mind is already blown. 1/n #amazon
I started at 2003. Their financial statements start with cash flows. I'm not sure if that's the US GAAP convention but if it isn't, right out of the gate it says something about management's priorities. 2/n
In 2003, Amazon reported a net income of $35m. But operating cash flows of an incredible $392m. Two important bits stand out for me in there. Stock based comp. of $87.7m and an increase in accounts payables of $167m. That's ~$254m of cash you get to expense. 3/n