The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Swaption
The alpha definition has nothing to do with DFA or any firm. It's what left, the unexplained portion, from the regression. It might be skill for example, or it might be explained by another variable, not explained by the factors used in the regression.
I already provided several explanations of why this "anomaly" exists, both risk and mispricing.
As to whether it persists, if you agree with the risk story then you should expect it to persist. If you believe the behavioral story then you still have the simple pricing story, as long as profitability persists (profitability predicts growth) then it's simple math. You don't need any risk story or behavioral story. It's for same valuation you have higher profits and thus higher expected returns.
Best wishes
Larry
The alpha definition has nothing to do with DFA or any firm. It's what left, the unexplained portion, from the regression. It might be skill for example, or it might be explained by another variable, not explained by the factors used in the regression.
I already provided several explanations of why this "anomaly" exists, both risk and mispricing.
As to whether it persists, if you agree with the risk story then you should expect it to persist. If you believe the behavioral story then you still have the simple pricing story, as long as profitability persists (profitability predicts growth) then it's simple math. You don't need any risk story or behavioral story. It's for same valuation you have higher profits and thus higher expected returns.
Best wishes
Larry
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Isn't this saying that P/E should be the favored valuation metric?
1/PE = earnings/market = earnings/book * book/market = "profitability" * Fama-French value factor
Brad
1/PE = earnings/market = earnings/book * book/market = "profitability" * Fama-French value factor
Brad
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Brad
No I would not draw that conclusion
If anything it would be price to CASH FLOW, not earnings. You want to move up the income statement avoiding things like accruals.
Also what works on paper may not work in practice if you have high turnover as result. FF chose BtM because it is more stable, resulting in lower turnover and higher tax efficiency.
But it does look like there is very persuasive evidence that combining a value and profitability metric adds significant value. Again suggest reading both the Novy Marx paper and the book Quantitative Value--a very good book I'll write some blog posts on, coming up
Best wishes
Larry
No I would not draw that conclusion
If anything it would be price to CASH FLOW, not earnings. You want to move up the income statement avoiding things like accruals.
Also what works on paper may not work in practice if you have high turnover as result. FF chose BtM because it is more stable, resulting in lower turnover and higher tax efficiency.
But it does look like there is very persuasive evidence that combining a value and profitability metric adds significant value. Again suggest reading both the Novy Marx paper and the book Quantitative Value--a very good book I'll write some blog posts on, coming up
Best wishes
Larry
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Brad,
I think I see what you are getting at. Let me know if I am wrong...
Holding P/E constant, a lower P/B implies a lower ROE. Holding P/E constant, a higher P/B implies a higher ROE. So, by looking for stocks with a good combination of low P/B and high ROE, you are essentially just getting low P/E stocks. P/E is the interaction of P/B and ROE.
This why I think Joel Greenblatt's "Magic Formula" is superior. It strictly looks at valuation of the firm as a going concern. It only looks at EV/EBIT, and EBIT/Operating Capital. Book value has nothing to do with his formula. The EV/EBIT indicates cheapness, and the EBIT/Operating Capital indicates quality (or organic growth potential).
I think I see what you are getting at. Let me know if I am wrong...
Holding P/E constant, a lower P/B implies a lower ROE. Holding P/E constant, a higher P/B implies a higher ROE. So, by looking for stocks with a good combination of low P/B and high ROE, you are essentially just getting low P/E stocks. P/E is the interaction of P/B and ROE.
This why I think Joel Greenblatt's "Magic Formula" is superior. It strictly looks at valuation of the firm as a going concern. It only looks at EV/EBIT, and EBIT/Operating Capital. Book value has nothing to do with his formula. The EV/EBIT indicates cheapness, and the EBIT/Operating Capital indicates quality (or organic growth potential).
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
rmelvey
Suggest you read Quantitative Value, which looks closely at Greenblatt's formula
Larry
Suggest you read Quantitative Value, which looks closely at Greenblatt's formula
Larry
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
I will add it to my reading list Thanks Larry.
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
rmelvey
Book value is historical long-term while p/e is current. It MIGHT be true over the long term but untrue today.
Larry
Don't think this is true.Holding P/E constant, a lower P/B implies a lower ROE.
Book value is historical long-term while p/e is current. It MIGHT be true over the long term but untrue today.
Larry
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Clearly_Irrational: I too am interesting in this as well as this discussion.Clearly_Irrational wrote:I think you're over-reacting and being excessively harsh. Of course Larry is talking his book, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Frankly I'm rather interested in the findings and I'd like to see more data and evidence. Currently it's not applicable to my portfolio in a low cost way but I'd be open to the idea of making some tweaks if it turns out the research is solid. We know that the basic FF model explains somewhere in the 90%-ish range of results, but I'd be happy to embrace a model that explains more just as I was happy to switch to FF from CAPM. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon until I see a lot more information but classifying it as marketing hype seems a bit too dismissive.OverTheHill wrote:First, if a person believes this [nonsense --admin LadyGeek] and follows it, then they apparently are guaranteed to profit better than anyone else on earth (even after paying fees). Second, if guaranteed isn't the right word, then something higher than 98.6% must be guaranteed. [Snarky comment removed by admin LadyGeek]
My personal interpretation is that beta and small are risk stories while value and momentum are behavioral. Profitability still needs explaining (risk or behavioral) and I'd want some kind of confirmation that it's unlikely to be arbitraged away before I started using it. Currently I don't use momentum directly, but I feel I like I get some exposure through the use of rebalancing bands.
OverTheHill: You've made your point, [rude comment removed by admin LadyGeek]
Larry: Please ignore OverTheHill
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
It is helpful Larry, and what surprises me is that given all that firepower, it took so long.larryswedroe wrote:clearly irrationalWhat I don't understand is why is anyone so surprised that with all the manpower and computer power and profit incentive that we would not eventually come up with a better model, just as FF did.Of course Larry is talking his book
I hope that is helpful
Best wishes
Larry
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
hexdump
I agree. The key was to move UP the income statement to gross profitability--not using earnings.
Larry
I agree. The key was to move UP the income statement to gross profitability--not using earnings.
Larry
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Larry,
Thank you for your patient responses. I own many DFA funds (EM Value, Intl Vector, Global RE, Target Value), it seems like these additional factors will be factored into the fund management. IIRC MOM already was.
Thank you for your patient responses. I own many DFA funds (EM Value, Intl Vector, Global RE, Target Value), it seems like these additional factors will be factored into the fund management. IIRC MOM already was.
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Hi Larry,larryswedroe wrote:rmelveyDon't think this is true.Holding P/E constant, a lower P/B implies a lower ROE.
Book value is historical long-term while p/e is current. It MIGHT be true over the long term but untrue today.
Larry
I am talking about the algebra of the metrics when looking at a single firm.
ROE = E/B.
So P/E = (B/E) * (P/B)
Fundamentally, P/E ratio already reconciles the desire for high ROE and low P/B. It is the perfect distillation of the two metrics. So building a screener or ranking system that looks for both low P/B and high ROE, is kind of silly because P/E already perfectly does that. I know that the researchers moved higher up in the income statement, but the logic still stands true.
I think looking for low P/E and high ROE is more internally consistent (or using similar metrics higher up on the income statement). With this type of screener you are strictly valuing the firm as a going concern, caring about flows accuring to you. So minimal capital backing up the firm implies that it would take little capital to continue to grow the firm, making it attractive to you as an investor.
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
rmelvey
What I can tell you is that if you screen for value first and then GROSS profitability you get signficantly higher returns than if you just screen for p/E,
If it was just p/e we would not be talking about a profitability factor.
Larry
What I can tell you is that if you screen for value first and then GROSS profitability you get signficantly higher returns than if you just screen for p/E,
If it was just p/e we would not be talking about a profitability factor.
Larry
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Well, it would be interesting then to see a screen of just P/GP. Did my earlier logic make sense though?larryswedroe wrote:rmelvey
What I can tell you is that if you screen for value first and then GROSS profitability you get signficantly higher returns than if you just screen for p/E,
If it was just p/e we would not be talking about a profitability factor.
Larry
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
rmelvey
What I can say is that some very smart people have looked at this and they (many independently) concluded that you need multiple screens--Larry
What I can say is that some very smart people have looked at this and they (many independently) concluded that you need multiple screens--Larry
- Clearly_Irrational
- Posts: 3087
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:43 pm
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
That doesn't surprise me, earnings are usually "managed".larryswedroe wrote:hexdump
I agree. The key was to move UP the income statement to gross profitability--not using earnings.
Larry
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
AQR and DFA is only accessible through advisors and require a hefty minimum of ~$1MIL correct? So for the rest of us, momentum and profitability factors are out of reach?
FYI, ETFs-of-the-day that pop up with momentum and profitability in the title do not count as desirable investment products.
FYI, ETFs-of-the-day that pop up with momentum and profitability in the title do not count as desirable investment products.
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
rmelvey and Larry,rmelvey wrote:Hi Larry,larryswedroe wrote:rmelveyDon't think this is true.Holding P/E constant, a lower P/B implies a lower ROE.
Book value is historical long-term while p/e is current. It MIGHT be true over the long term but untrue today.
Larry
I am talking about the algebra of the metrics when looking at a single firm.
ROE = E/B.
So P/E = (B/E) * (P/B)
Fundamentally, P/E ratio already reconciles the desire for high ROE and low P/B. It is the perfect distillation of the two metrics. So building a screener or ranking system that looks for both low P/B and high ROE, is kind of silly because P/E already perfectly does that. I know that the researchers moved higher up in the income statement, but the logic still stands true.
I think looking for low P/E and high ROE is more internally consistent (or using similar metrics higher up on the income statement). With this type of screener you are strictly valuing the firm as a going concern, caring about flows accuring to you. So minimal capital backing up the firm implies that it would take little capital to continue to grow the firm, making it attractive to you as an investor.
The mathematical identity is indeed what I was referring to. Larry, thanks for pointing out that "profitability" tends to refer more to gross earnings than bottom line (even though Charlie Munger likes to call EBITDA "bull**** earnings"). If profitability and BtM are distinct factors which correlate with returns, then perhaps P/E is best viewed as a hybrid screen which captures some combination of the two.
Brad
Last edited by baw703916 on Sun May 26, 2013 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Now that I think more about, separating the two factors does make sense for attribution analysis (how much of returns came from cheapness, and how much from quality). However, recognizing that the two factors combine to basically become P/E is still useful IMO.baw703916 wrote:rmelvey and Larry,rmelvey wrote:Hi Larry,larryswedroe wrote:rmelveyDon't think this is true.Holding P/E constant, a lower P/B implies a lower ROE.
Book value is historical long-term while p/e is current. It MIGHT be true over the long term but untrue today.
Larry
I am talking about the algebra of the metrics when looking at a single firm.
ROE = E/B.
So P/E = (B/E) * (P/B)
Fundamentally, P/E ratio already reconciles the desire for high ROE and low P/B. It is the perfect distillation of the two metrics. So building a screener or ranking system that looks for both low P/B and high ROE, is kind of silly because P/E already perfectly does that. I know that the researchers moved higher up in the income statement, but the logic still stands true.
I think looking for low P/E and high ROE is more internally consistent (or using similar metrics higher up on the income statement). With this type of screener you are strictly valuing the firm as a going concern, caring about flows accuring to you. So minimal capital backing up the firm implies that it would take little capital to continue to grow the firm, making it attractive to you as an investor.
The mathematical identity is indeed what I was referring to. Larry, thanks for pointing out that "profitability" tends to refer more to gross earnings than bottom line (even though Charlie Munger likes to call EBITDA "bull**** earnings"). If profitability and BtM are distinct factors which correlate with returns, the perhaps P/E is best viewed as a hybrid screen which captures some combination of the two.
Brad
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Reviving an old thread because at the time the only way to play with the new research were to get an advisor to gain access to AQR or DFA funds. However, after perusing a bit, I am wondering if some non-advisors have launched funds that may suffice?
I found these:
QUAL - iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
QWLD - SPDR® MSCI World Quality Mix ETF
SPHQ - PowerShares S&P 500® High Quality Portfolio
Does anyone know if these ETFs follow Swedroes initial post of value and profitability? Are there others? Any that include momentum as well? Or do these funds not follow the research Swedroe showed where we can potentially get better returns from these strategies?
At a glance it appears QUAL is handily beating the S&P 500 since inception.
I found these:
QUAL - iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
QWLD - SPDR® MSCI World Quality Mix ETF
SPHQ - PowerShares S&P 500® High Quality Portfolio
Does anyone know if these ETFs follow Swedroes initial post of value and profitability? Are there others? Any that include momentum as well? Or do these funds not follow the research Swedroe showed where we can potentially get better returns from these strategies?
At a glance it appears QUAL is handily beating the S&P 500 since inception.
BH Contests: 23 #89 of 607 | 22 #512 of 674 | 21 #66 of 636 |20 #253/664 |19 #233/645 |18 #150/493 |17 #516/647 |16 #121/610 |15 #18/552 |14 #225/503 |13 #383/433 |12 #366/410 |11 #113/369 |10 #53/282
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Profitability/quality is widely available now. A multi-factor approach is more appealing to me than component funds. I personally use AQR, but there are less expensive alternatives. For example, iShares FactorSelect and Enhanced ETFs https://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/s ... -beta-etfs
Regarding recent performance of quality, note that Large Growth has beaten S&P 500 as well. Value is out of favor.
Regarding recent performance of quality, note that Large Growth has beaten S&P 500 as well. Value is out of favor.
Re: The new profitability factor, US and int'l evidence
Here's the scorecard: Callan periodic table of investment returnsSammy_M wrote:Regarding recent performance of quality, note that Large Growth has beaten S&P 500 as well. Value is out of favor.