United States

Over the past few weeks, we have received numerous questions on the interplay between the S&P 500 earnings and the forward P/E multiple. The clients are asking how much earnings need to grow for the S&P 500 forward multiple to come down from the hefty 21.5x towards a historical average of 18x.  To answer this question, we have created a matrix that summarizes permutations of changes in the index price and earnings growth and their effects on the resulting forward multiple. If we assume that the price of the S&P 500 does not budge, and investors get a 0% return over the next 12 months, earnings will have to grow by about 30% over the next 12 months for the multiple to come down to 18x – hardly a realistic scenario. If the S&P 500 returns 5%, then 30% earnings growth will result in the 19.6x multiple.  The sell-side analysts currently expect a 10% earnings growth over the next twelve months: With no change in the price of the index, the resulting multiple will be 21.5x. If the S&P 500 returns 5%, the multiple will move to 23.2x. Bottom Line: Strong earnings growth does not justify elevated valuations, and re-rating is hardly in the cards. Image  

Dear Client, The next two BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy reports will be jointly published with other BCA services, which will impact the publishing dates. Our next report will be a joint Special Report on Australia, published with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy, which you will receive this Friday, November 19. The following report will be a joint Special Report published with European Investment Strategy, which you will receive on November 29. -Rob Robis   Highlights High realized inflation rates are pushing up longer-term inflation expectations toward all-time highs, while also weighing on consumer confidence, in the US and the UK. The inflation overshoot has not been as severe in the euro area, but consumer confidence appears to be rolling over there too. Over the next year, central banks will have to manage around the communications challenges posed by a rise in inflation that is perceived to be more supply-driven than demand-driven and, hence, beyond the full control of monetary policy. Public opinion surveys are showing eroding satisfaction with the Fed and Bank of England, while similar surveys in the euro area show public trust in the ECB remains strong despite higher euro area inflation.  We continue to favor overweights in euro area government bonds (both core and periphery) versus US Treasuries and UK Gilts, given the far greater likelihood of multiple rate hikes in the UK and US in 2022/23, compared to the euro area, in order to restore central bank credibility.  Feature Rapidly accelerating inflation has become front-page news around the world. It is also increasingly becoming a political issue and not just an economic one. After the release of the October US consumer price index (CPI) report, where headline inflation came in at a 30-year high of 6.2%, US President Joe Biden had to issue a formal White House statement acknowledging that inflation “hurts Americans’ pocketbooks, and reversing this trend is a top priority for me.” Biden also pulled off the neat trick of both committing to, and subtly challenging, the Fed’s independence when he noted that “I want to reemphasize my commitment to the independence of the Federal Reserve to monitor inflation, and take necessary steps to combat it.” The Great Inflation Of 2021 (and 2022?) has raised a new risk for both politicians and investors. As long as the high inflation persists, and for as long as central banks seem unwilling or unable to respond to try and bring down inflation with tighter monetary policy, consumer confidence will be negatively impacted – even if job growth remains reasonably healthy. Confidence & Inflation: A Matter Of Trust Chart of the WeekHigh Inflation Weighing On Consumer Confidence High Inflation Weighing On Consumer Confidence High Inflation Weighing On Consumer Confidence The preliminary read on US consumer confidence for November from the University of Michigan survey showed sentiment hitting a ten-year low, largely on worries about the impact of rising inflation on household spending power. This effect of high inflation eroding consumer confidence is not just a US phenomenon (Chart of the Week). UK consumer sentiment is also falling due to what has been described as “a potential cost of living crisis” by consumer research firm GfK. In the euro area, however, consumer sentiment is still relatively elevated, but is starting to roll over as headline inflation reaches a 13-year high of 4.1% in October. From the point of view of financial markets,  surging inflation is still expected to be a short-lived phenomenon, although conviction on that view is starting to wane. Market-based inflation expectations curves for the US, UK and euro area are all currently inverted, with shorter-maturity expectations above longer-maturity ones (Chart 2). Yet the upward momentum of those measures across all maturity points is showing little sign of ebbing, especially in the US. The 2-year TIPS breakeven rate now sits at a 16-year high of 3.51%, the 5-year breakeven is at an all-time high of 3.22%, while the 10-year breakeven of 2.77% is now just a single basis point below its all-time high reached in 2005. The story is similar in the UK, where RPI swap rates for the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year maturities are 5.3%, 4.8% and 4.3%, respectively – all hovering near all-time highs (as are breakevens on index-linked Gilts). Euro area inflation expectations are not so historically elevated, and the inflation curve is not as inverted, but the 2-year euro CPI swap rate is still at a 15-year high of 2.4% compared to a 9-year high of 2.0% - right at the ECB’s inflation target - for the 10-year CPI swap rate. In the US, the survey-based measures of inflation expectations are telling a similar story. The New York Fed’s Consumer Survey shows that median 3-year expectations are now at 4.2% with 1-year expectations even higher at 5.7% (Chart 3). Meanwhile, the early November read on inflation expectations from the University of Michigan survey showed that 1-year-ahead expectations climbed to a 13-year high of 4.9%, while the longer-term 5-10 year inflation expectations were unchanged from the October reading of 2.9%. Chart 2Rising Inflation Expectations, Both Short- & Long-Term Rising Inflation Expectations, Both Short- & Long-Term Rising Inflation Expectations, Both Short- & Long-Term Chart 3A Broad-Based Surge In US Inflation A Broad-Based Surge In US Inflation A Broad-Based Surge In US Inflation The latter figure may provide some comfort to the Fed, with surging shorter-term expectations not fully leaking through into longer-term expectations. However, the longer the inflation upturn persists, the more likely it will be that US consumers begin to factor in a higher rate of longer-term inflation, just as TIPS traders are doing. After all, the Michigan 5-10 year measure has still climbed by 0.7 percentage points from the pre-COVID low. Even more worrying from the Fed’s perspective is that inflation expectations are rising for essentially all Americans. The New York Fed Consumer Survey shows that 3-year-ahead inflation expectations are rising across all levels of education (Chart 4) and income cohorts (Chart 5). Chart 4US Inflation Expectations Are Rising For All Education Levels... US Inflation Expectations Are Rising For All Education Levels... US Inflation Expectations Are Rising For All Education Levels... Chart 5...And Income Levels ...And Income Levels ...And Income Levels The New York Fed also compiles a measure of consumer inflation uncertainty (bottom panels of both charts on page 5). Survey participants are asked to provide probabilities of inflation falling within certain ranges, with the gap between the top and bottom quartiles of those expected inflation outcomes representing the “uncertainty” over future US inflation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the dispersion of inflation forecasts is typically much wider for those earning lower incomes and with less education. Yet even highly educated, high earning Americans are reporting wider gaps in possible inflation outcomes, in sharp contrast to the pre-COVID years where their expectations were low and stable. Americans Are Having Second Thoughts About The Fed Any way you cut it – TIPS breakevens or survey-based measures - US inflation uncertainty and volatility have increased. This appears to be starting to erode public confidence with the Fed. Along with its consumer confidence surveys, the University of Michigan also publishes a periodic survey of Confidence In Financial Institutions like commercial banks, asset managers and, most importantly, the Fed. The last survey was just conducted for the September/October 2021 period and showed that 43% of respondents reported a loss of confidence in the Fed compared to five years ago (Chart 6). That is up from 36% reporting a loss of confidence in the last such survey conducted in 2019, and is approaching the +50% levels seen in 2008 (the Financial Crisis) and in 2011 (the Taper Tantrum) – episodes where the Fed had difficulty maintaining economic and financial stability. Chart 6 The University of Michigan also noted that reported consumer confidence was much lower for those claiming to have less confidence in the Fed, and vice versa (Chart 7). Chart 7 Taken at face value, this survey shows that the Great Inflation of 2021 has shaken the public’s faith in the Fed’s ability to maintain economic stability. Combined with the message from the New York Fed Consumer Survey on the growing instability of American inflation expectations, this shows that the Fed may be facing an uphill climb to restore some of the credibility it has lost this year. Much like all aspects of American life these days, political partisanship must be factored in the analysis of US confidence data. The regular monthly University of Michigan sentiment survey for November noted that various measures of US confidence were consistently higher for respondents who reported to be Democrats compared to Republicans since President Biden took office (Chart 8). This is a mirror image of the years under President Trump (pre-pandemic), where Republicans consistently reported greater optimism than Democrats. Chart 8 Chart 9Americans Can Agree On One Thing - High Inflation Is Bad Americans Can Agree On One Thing - High Inflation Is Bad Americans Can Agree On One Thing - High Inflation Is Bad The University of Michigan Confidence in Financial Institutions survey also noted that less trust in the Fed was reported more frequently by Republicans (67%) than Democrats (27%) in 2021, the first year under Biden. This compares to 2017, the first year of the Trump Administration, where more Democrats (41%) reported less trust with the Fed compared to Republicans (30%). The Michigan survey described this “partisan identification” as being a “significant correlate of consumer assessments of the Federal Reserve, treating the Fed as part of the administration rather than an independent body.” Consumer confidence among reported Democrats has been falling since April of this year, although there is still room to catch up to the complete collapse of sentiment seen among Republican consumers (Chart 9, top panel). High US inflation is hitting everyone hard. The surge in inflation expectations is overwhelming income expectations for the next year, according to the New York Fed Consumer Survey (middle panel). High realized inflation has also eroded real spending power, with real average hourly earnings having contracted in year-over-year terms since April of this year (bottom panel). Even with that fall in real income growth perceptions, the plunge in the University of Michigan US consumer confidence has not been matched by other measures like the Conference Board US consumer confidence index, which remains well above pandemic era lows. Even more importantly, US consumer spending has held up well, with nominal retail sales expanding by +1.7% in October following a +0.8% gain in September. Some of those increases were due to rising prices, but were still significantly above inflation in both months, suggesting a solid pace of real consumer spending (the headline US CPI index rose +0.9% and +0.4% in October and September, respectively). For the Fed, the case is building to begin preparing Americans for higher interest rates in 2022. This is true both from an economic perspective – the US economy is likely to continue growing above trend next year, further tightening the US labor market – and in response to the high inflation that has caused some damage to the Fed’s credibility. What About The UK And Euro Area? Looking across the Atlantic, survey-based measures of inflation expectations have also climbed steadily higher (Chart 10). The YouGov/Citigroup survey of UK consumer inflation expectations is now at 4.4% for the 1-year-ahead measure and 3.7% for the longer-run 5-10 year ahead measure, both well above the BoE’s 2% inflation target. The European Commission surveys show a rapidly rising share of European Union businesses and consumers expect higher prices in the coming months. Yet while inflation expectations are rising in both the UK and Europe, only the UK shows the sort of deterioration in central bank confidence that is evident in the US. 48% of Europeans expressed confidence in the ECB, according to the Eurobarometer public opinion surveys – the highest share since 2007 and well above the 36% level seen after the Global Financial Crisis and European Debt Crisis (Chart 11). Some of that improvement in perceptions of the ECB mirrors better sentiment over the euro currency itself, as evidenced by that fact that both Germans and Italians now express similar levels of ECB confidence. Chart 10High Inflation Is Also A Problem Outside The US High Inflation Is Also A Problem Outside The US High Inflation Is Also A Problem Outside The US Chart 11Europeans Have Not Lost Confidence In The ECB Europeans Have Not Lost Confidence In The ECB Europeans Have Not Lost Confidence In The ECB High levels of public trust in the ECB play an important role in anchoring European inflation expectations. The ECB introduced its own Consumer Expectations Survey as a pilot project last year, and the latest reading from October 2021 shows that 1-year-ahead inflation expectations are now at 3% and 3-year-ahead expectations are at 2%. Both measures were at 2% a year earlier, and have generally stayed close to ECB’s 2% inflation target since the survey began. Chart 12High Inflation Is Worsening Public Satisfaction With The BoE High Inflation Is Worsening Public Satisfaction With The BoE High Inflation Is Worsening Public Satisfaction With The BoE A recent research report from the Bank of Finland concluded that European consumers who have high trust in the ECB adjust their medium-term inflation expectations more slowly than those with low trust. The high public confidence in the ECB seen in the Eurobarometer surveys, combined with the stability of medium-term inflation expectations (both survey-based and market-based) around the ECB’s 2% target – even with realized euro area inflation now at 3.4% - fits with the conclusions of that report. We read this as a sign that the ECB is not under the same growing pressure to tighten policy in the face of rising inflation as the Fed, which is facing an erosion of public confidence that is showing up in steadily rising inflation expectations. In the UK, the Bank of England (BoE) is facing a situation more akin to that of the Fed. The BoE’s Inflation Attitudes Survey has been showing a steady erosion of UK consumers reporting satisfaction with how the BoE has been setting policy to fight inflation (Chart 12). The “net satisfied” index fell to +18% in the last survey published in September – similarly low levels of BoE satisfaction coincided with major spikes in longer-term UK inflation expectations in 2008 and 2011 (bottom panel). Our conclusion from the UK consumer surveys, along with measures of inflation expectations that are well above the BoE medium-term target, is similar to that in the US. The UK public is losing faith in the BoE’s ability, or willingness, to tackle the high inflation “problem” – even if much of the inflation is caused by high energy prices and global supply chain disruptions that are beyond the immediate control of monetary policy. The BoE will likely need to follow through on the rate hikes markets expect in 2022 to help restore public trust and credibility, even if realized inflation slows from current elevated levels. This is especially true after the debacle of the November 4 BoE meeting where a widely-signaled rate hike did not occur. If the BoE continues to delay the start of tightening while inflation expectations are accelerating, this will only put more pressure on the central bank to tighten faster, and by more than expected, in a bid to stabilize inflation expectations. Investment Conclusions Chart 13Favor European Government Bonds Over US & UK Equivalents Favor European Government Bonds Over US & UK Equivalents Favor European Government Bonds Over US & UK Equivalents Our read of the various surveys shows that public trust in central banks has deteriorated in the US and UK, but not in Europe, because of surging inflation in 2021. This compounds the existing trends of tightening labor markets and accelerating wage growth in the US and UK that are more traditional reasons to tighten monetary policy. We continue to favor strategic overweights in euro area government bonds (both core and periphery) versus US Treasuries and UK Gilts, given the far greater likelihood of multiple rate hikes in the UK and US in 2022/23 in order to restore public trust in the Fed and BoE (Chart 13). The ECB can continue to be patient on responding to higher euro area inflation, given more stable euro area inflation expectations and with limited evidence that higher realized inflation is boosting European wage growth. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Image The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (November 16 at 10:00 AM EST, 15:00 PM GMT, 16:00 PM CET and November 17 at 9:00 HKT, 11:00 AEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Highlights Why have Value stocks underperformed so much during the past decade? The rise in intangible assets is likely the most important reason since traditional valuation metrics are no longer an accurate measure of intrinsic value. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This has hurt Value due to Quality's outperformance. Value's underperformance is not just the result of the relative performance of a few sectors or industries, although this has played a role. Falling interest rates have not been the main driver of Value’s underperformance as they can only account for a small portion of returns. “Migration”, or mean-reversion in and out of value buckets, has declined since the Great Financial Crisis, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. But even this cannot fully account for the underperformance since 2012. We propose that investors who wish to invest in Value screen for Quality. They should also express their Value tilts in sectors with few intangibles, such as Energy or Materials. More sophisticated stock pickers can adjust earnings and book values for intangibles. Asset allocators who invest only in indices should stay away from a structural allocation to Value. Feature Chart 1No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades Betting on cheap stocks has been a cornerstone of equity investing for decades. The rationale is simple: Stocks which are undervalued, according to some measure of intrinsic value, will eventually converge up to their fair value, on average, while stocks that are overvalued will converge down, on average. Historically, this bet on mean-reversion has proven successful – low price-to-book stocks have outperformed high price-to-book stocks by more than 3% per annum since 1927. However, the recent decades have put Value investing to the test. The Value factor, as defined by Fama and French, has not provided a structural premium in the US large cap space since the late 1970s (Chart 1, panel 1). Commercial Value indices haven’t been any more successful: Value aggregates by MSCI, Russell, and S&P have either underperformed or performed in line with the market benchmark over the same time frame (Chart 1, panel 2). The current situation presents a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, buying Value could be a tremendous opportunity. By several measures, Value stocks are the most undervalued they have been since the end of the tech bubble, right before they went on a historic run (Chart 2). Academic work has argued that these deep value spreads tend to be positively correlated with long-term outperformance of Value stocks.1 In a world of sky-high valuations and with equities and bonds projected to deliver very low returns over the next decade, a cheap return stream would be a fantastic addition to most portfolios. Chart 2Value Stocks Are Really Cheap Value Stocks Are Really Cheap Value Stocks Are Really Cheap Chart 3   And yet, Value has become so popular, that many investors are now worried that the Value premium may no longer exist. This worry is not without merit. Several studies have shown that factors lose a sizable portion of their premium once they appear in academic literature2  (Chart 3). Other issues, such as the inability of valuation metrics to properly account for intrinsic value in the modern economy, have also led some investors to seriously question whether buying Value indices will deliver excess returns in the future. So what is the right answer? Why has Value underperformed so much? Is the beaten down Value factor a generational buying opportunity? Or will it continue its decline going forward? In this report we try to answer these questions. Using a company-level dataset from our BCA Research Equity Analyzer (EA), as well as drawing on the latest academic research, we assess the evidence behind Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance. Once we determine which explanations have merit and which do not, we conclude by providing some guidelines on how investors should consider the Value factor going forward in our Investment Implications section. A word of caution: We have constructed our sample of companies to roughly resemble the sample used by MSCI World. Thus, the conclusions from our analysis based on the EA dataset should be relevant to Value indices in general. However, be advised that the methodology that EA uses is different from other commercial Value indices. Specifically, the EA methodology is more aggressive in its positioning and uses a wider array of metrics. For clarity, Table 1 shows the metrics used by EA compared to other Value indices. If you wish to know more on how the methodology works, please refer to the Appendix. Table 1Value Factor Methodologies Mythbusting The Value Factor Mythbusting The Value Factor Also, please note that our report will not deal with the cyclical outlook for Value. While it is entirely possible that a period of cyclical growth could help Value stocks outperform, the question we are trying to answer is whether buying cheap versus expensive stocks still provides a structural premium over the long term. While the Global Asset Allocation service does not use the Value versus Growth framework for equity allocation, our colleagues from our Global Investment Strategy service have written extensively on why they believe investors should pivot to Value on a cyclical basis.3 Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance Chart 4More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts Theory #1: The underperformance of Value indices is purely a result of their sector composition Some investors suggest that Value stocks’ large underweight of mega-cap tech, as well as their overweight in Financials and Energy, have been responsible for Value’s woes over the past decade. However, our research suggests that this theory is not entirely correct. A Value index with the same sector and industry weightings as the Developed Markets (DM) benchmark has still underperformed by more than 15% since 2010 (Chart 4, panel 1). Sector and industry composition have been responsible for about a third of the underperformance of the DM Value index. What about excluding the FAANGM stocks? Again, the story is similar. Even when omitting these stocks from our investment universe, Value stocks have still underperformed by almost the same amount as a regular Value composite (Chart 4, panel 2). Finally, we can also look at the performance of cheap versus expensive stocks within each industry. Chart 5A shows that cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in 18 and 17 out the 24 GICS Level 2 industries in DM and in the US, respectively, since 2012 (roughly corresponding to the peak in relative performance in the EA Value index). Even on an equally-weighted basis, which eliminates the effects of large companies, cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in both the average and median industry (Chart 5B). Chart 5 Chart 5 Verdict: Myth. The underperformance of cheap versus expensive stocks has been broad. While sector and industry dynamics have certainly been an important factor, Value's underperformance is not just the result of a few companies, sectors, or industries. Chart 6Value Likes Rising Yields... Value Likes Rising Yields... Value Likes Rising Yields... Theory #2: The decline in interest rates is to blame for the underperformance of Value Another reason used to explain the underperformance of Value is the secular decline in interest rates. The reasoning goes as follows: Cash flows from growth stocks are set to be received further into the future, while cash flows from Value stocks are closer to the present. Using a Discounted Cash Flow model, one can show that all else being equal, a decline in the discount rate should result in a relatively higher increase in the present value for Growth stocks versus Value stocks. There is some evidence in support of this theory. While prior to 2010, Value and interest rates had an inconsistent relationship, the beta of cheap stocks to the monthly change in the 10-year US Treasury yield has increased markedly over the past 10 years (Chart 6, panel 1). On the other hand, the beta of expensive stocks to yields has become increasingly more negative. A similar situation occurs when we use the yield curve. Cheap stocks tend to exhibit higher excess returns whenever it steepens, while expensive stocks do so when it flattens (Chart 6, panel 2). Importantly, these relationships are not purely a result of Value’s exposure to banks. Value stocks excluding financials also show a strong positive relationship to both the 10-year yield and yield curve slope versus their growth counterparts (Chart 7). But while this relationship is statistically significant, it fails to be economically significant. Our analysis shows that the betas to either interest rates or the slope of the yield curve only explain a small fraction of the performance of cheap or expensive stocks (Chart 8). This result is in line with the research from Maloney and Moskowitz, which showed that the vast majority of the decline in Value in recent years could not be explained by interest rates.4 Chart 7...Even When Excluding Financials... ...Even When Excluding Financials... ...Even When Excluding Financials... Chart 8...But Yields Don't Explain Much ...But Yields Don't Explain Much ...But Yields Don't Explain Much   Verdict: Myth. Cheap stocks have an increasingly positive beta to both the 10-year yield and the slope of the yield curve, whereas expensive stocks have an increasingly negative beta. However, while these betas are statistically significant, they can only account for a small portion of Value's underperformance. Theory #3: A decline in market mean-reversion is responsible for the underperformance of Value In a seminal paper, Fama and French describe the process of migration.5 Migration is when stocks move across different value buckets: For example, when stocks in the cheap bucket migrate to the neutral and expensive buckets, and when stocks in the expensive bucket migrate to the neutral or cheap buckets. Historically, this process of mean-reversion has provided a significant share of the Value premium. However, migration has declined significantly over the past decade (Chart 9, panel 1). The amount of market cap migrating each month as a percentage of total market cap has declined from over 12% before the GFC to less than 8% currently. Importantly, this decline in migration has been broad-based. Neither cheap, neutral, nor expensive stocks are moving to other valuation cohorts at the same rates that prevailed in the past (Chart 9, panel 2). The market has become much more ossified: Value stocks remain Value stocks, Neutral stocks remain Neutral stocks, and Growth stocks remain Growth stocks.5 Chart 9What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value Chart 10Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Why has migration declined? One theory is that industries have increasingly become more monopolistic, which means that it has become harder for new entrants to gain market share (Chart 10). Meanwhile market leaders are able to grow at an above-average pace thanks to their large network effects.6 What has been the role of this decreased migration in the performance of Value? A paper written by Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that while the returns attributable to migration have decreased over the past 15 years, this change is still not strong enough to explain the deep underperformance in Value.7 Our own research assigns it a relatively larger weight, with migration accounting for a little less than half of the underperformance of Value since 20128 (Table 2). Table 2Return Attribution Of Cheap And Expensive Stocks Mythbusting The Value Factor Mythbusting The Value Factor Verdict: Somewhat True. Migration has declined since the GFC, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. While this decline has certainly played a role in the underperformance of Value, it explains, at most, less than half of the drawdown since 2012. Theory #4: Value has underperformed because it is increasingly a play on junk stocks Chart 11 It is a well-known empirical fact that cheap stocks tend to have lower Quality than expensive stocks. Conceptually this makes sense: Companies with higher profitability, more stability, and less leverage should trade at a valuation premium, whereas low income, high-debt companies should trade at a discount. However, this gap in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks is not always the same. Consider the composition of cheap and expensive stocks in 2000 – the eve of the tech bubble crash. About a third of expensive stocks were also junk (low quality), whereas 36% were quality stocks (Chart 11). Today, this composition is much different: Only about a fifth of the market capitalization of expensive stocks is junk, whereas quality stocks now make up 44% of the overall expensive cohort. On the other hand, the Quality of cheap stocks has deteriorated: Cheap junk stocks are now 37% of the cheap cohort versus 29% in 2000. Importantly, the difference in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks tends to be a good predictor for value returns (Chart 12). A big gap in the Quality factor often implies lower returns of cheap versus expensive stocks, whereas a small gap implies higher returns. These results are in line with similar research which has shown that Quality, or Quality proxies like profitability, can be used to enhance the Value factor.9 Chart 12Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Why is this the case? As we have discussed in the past, Quality has been one of the best performing factors over the past 30 years - likely driven by powerful behavioral biases as well as by the incentives in the money management industry.10 As a result, taking an overly negative position on this factor over a long enough period eventually eats away at the Value premium. Verdict: True. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This negative tilt has hurt Value as excess returns of cheap stocks tend to be dependent on their Quality gap to expensive stocks. Theory #5: Value has underperformed because traditional valuation metrics are no longer a reliable indicator of intrinsic value How exactly to measure whether a company is cheap or expensive has been a matter of debate since the very beginnings of Value investing. Benjamin Graham famously cautioned against using book value as a measure of intrinsic value, preferring a more holistic approach. Today most index providers use a combination of traditional valuation metrics like price-to-book and price-to-earnings to build Value indices. It is fair to ask if these measures are still relevant for today’s companies. Intangible investment has become a much larger part of the economy, having surpassed tangible investment in the US in the late 1990s (Chart 13). However, both US GAAP and IFRS are very restrictive on the capitalization of R&D activities, which are known to originate valuable intangible assets.11 Other types of intangible capital such as unique production processes or customer lists are normally also expensed within SG&A expenses and are never capitalized unless there is an acquisition. This means that both the book value and earnings of intangible-heavy companies could be inadequate estimates of their true intrinsic value. Chart 13 Is there any evidence that this is the case? Using our EA dataset, we confirm that expensive companies generally have higher R&D expenditures as a percent of sales than cheap companies (Chart 14). Importantly, we see that the performance of Value within low R&D stocks is much better than the performance within high R&D stocks (Chart 15). This is line with the work of Dugar and Pozharny, who found that the value relevance for both earnings and book values has declined for high intangible companies, while it has stayed stable for low-intangible companies.12 This suggests that traditional valuation measures are losing their relevance as intangible-heavy companies become a larger part of the economy.13 Chart 14Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Chart 15Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? The effect of intangibles on traditional valuation metrics can also give us a clue as to why Value has performed well in some industries but not in others. Using a measure of intangible intensity derived by Dugar and Pozharny14 – which includes identifiable intangible assets, intellectual capital (as proxied by R&D spending), and organizational capital (as proxied by SG&A spending) – we can see that Value has done relatively better in industries with lower intangible intensity while it has performed relatively worse in industries with higher intangible intensity (Chart 16). Chart 16 Verdict: True. Value performs better when considering only companies with low R&D expenses or industries with low-intangible intensity. This suggests that the rise in intangible assets might be responsible for the underperformance of cheap stocks, as traditional valuation metrics may no longer be an accurate measure of intrinsic value in intangible-heavy companies or industries. Investment Implications Chart 17Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors What does our analysis mean for investors? Aside from the most well-known practices to improve the performance of Value – for example, using a wide array of valuation metrics, exploiting value in small stocks, or using equal-weighted indices to avoid the effect of sector weightings or large companies15 – we would recommend investors first screen cheap stocks for quality to avoid Value traps. Investors should also account for the failure of traditional metrics to measure intangible assets. This can be done in two ways: The first is to take Value tilts only on intangible-light sectors such as Energy and Materials – for example, allocating only to the cheapest oil and materials stocks. For the last decade, the cheapest Energy and Materials companies have outperformed their respective sectors, even while overall Value has cratered (Chart 17). Alternatively, more sophisticated stock pickers can adjust valuation ratios to account for intangibles. There is some promise to this approach. Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that even a crude adjustment to the HML (High-Minus-Low) index consistently outperforms the regular value factor16 (Chart 18). What about asset allocators who invest only in broad indices? We would recommend that they stay away from structural allocations to commercial Value indices altogether. While it is true that sector rotations or interest-rate movements could benefit value on a short-term basis, in the long term, the negative Quality tilt of Value stocks should be a drag on returns. Additionally, it remains a big risk that indices based on traditional measures are underestimating intangible value. This underestimation will only get worse as the economy becomes more digitalized. Investors who wish to take advantage of trends like higher inflation or rising interest rates should just bet on cyclical sectors. So far this has been the right approach. Just this year, even though interest rates have increased by more than 60 basis points, and both Financials and Energy have outperformed IT by 13% and 30% respectively, Value stocks have underperformed Growth stocks (Chart 19). Chart 18Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Chart 19Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Appendix A Note On Methodology The Equity Analyzer service is a stock picking tool that applies a top-down approach to bottom-up stock picking. The crux of the platform is the BCA Score, which is a weighted composite of 30 cross sectionally percentile ranked factors. Within this report we focus on the value (price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-cash, price-to-cash flow and price-to-sales) and quality (accruals, profitability, asset growth, and return on equity) factors used in the BCA Score model. Each of the factors are cross sectionally-percentile ranked, within the specified universe, where a score of 100% is best ranked stock according to that particular score. From here, we create the value and quality scores used in this report by equal-weighting and combining the scores from each value and quality factors. It is important to note that a high score does not mean the underlying value is high, but that it exhibits a better characteristic for forecasting future excess returns. For example, the stock with the highest value score would be considered the cheapest. The scores are re-calculated each period and applied on a one-period forward basis when calculating returns. To keep the analysis comparable the MSCI Data and relevant to our clients, we limit the universe of stocks to only those with a market capitalization greater than 1 billion USD. Also, unless otherwise specified, the scores are market-cap weighted when aggregated and all returns are in US dollars.   Juan Correa-Ossa, CFA Editor/Strategist juanc@bcaresearch.com Lucas Laskey Senior Quantitative Analyst lucasl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Clifford Asness, John M. Liew, Lasse Heje Pedersen, and Ashwin K Thapar, “Deep Value,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-64 (11-40), 2021.2   2  Please see Andrew Y. Chen and Mihail Velikov, “Zeroing in on the Expected Returns of Anomalies,” Finance and Economic Discussion Series 2020-039, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Report, “Pivot To Value,” dated September 18, 2020. 4 Please see Thomas Maloney and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “Value and Interest Rates: Are Rates to Blame for Value’s Torments?” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-6 (65-87), 2021. 5 Please see Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, “Migration,” Financial Analyst Journal, 63-3 (48-58), 2007. 6 Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa, “Reports of Value’s death May Be Greatly Exaggerated,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-1 (44-67), 2021. 7  Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021). 8  Much like us, Lev and Srivastava assign a relatively bigger role to the decline in migration. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava, “Explaining the Recent Failure of Value Investing,” NYU Stern School of Business (2019). 9  Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 42-1 (34-52), 2015. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Junk Disposal: The Quality Factor In Equity Markets,” dated September 8, 2020. 11 US GAAP requires both Research and Development costs to be expensed. IFRS prohibits capitalization of Research cost but allows it for Development costs provided that some conditions are met. For a further discussion on the accounting treatment of intangibles, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny, “Equity Investing in the Age of Intangibles,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-2 (21-42), 2021. 12 Please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 13This also follows from research from Lev and Srivastava which showed that while capitalizing intangibles did not improve the value factor in the 1970s, it increased returns substantially after the 1990s. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava (2019). 14This measure excludes Banks, Diversified Financials, and Insurance. For more details, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 15Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz (2015). 16Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021).