Einhorn: Value is not working

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
Beensabu
Posts: 5503
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by Beensabu »

JimmyJoeMeeker wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:52 am Index funds and exchange-traded funds buy additional shares of a stock as its market capitalization increases or as the share price increases. In other words, as the stock price is rising, these funds purchase more shares at the higher prices; this can be counterintuitive to the investing mantra of buying low and selling high. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ca ... dindex.asp
I'm just gonna link you to the post where I got totally schooled (which is what happens when you are really sure you understand something that you don't actually :D ) on this:

viewtopic.php?p=7193601#p7193601

It's actually super embarrassing for me, but it'll help you out. Take a look.

I think they do have to sell shares when a company does a buyback, though. Although it's entirely possible I'm wrong about that.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
rkhusky
Posts: 17353
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by rkhusky »

JimmyJoeMeeker wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:15 pm Yes, not all indexes are cap-weighted. One of the most popular, the S&P 500, is.

The S&P Index 500 index is structured as a capitalization-weighted index, or “market cap weighted index”, where the individual constituents that comprise the index have a percent contribution based on their total market capitalization.

New inflows of investor $$ into an ETF tracking the SP500, SPY, will allocate based on cap weighting, 29.8% to Information Technology, 6% to Consumer Staples and 2.2% to Utilities. Some stocks benefit more than others from new inflows. The new contribution is nearly 1/3 into one sector. (sector breakdown of SPY: https://www.ssga.com/us/en/intermediary ... y#holdings )

Those that wish more exposure to Utilities might pursue an equal-weighted index, which would spread the dollars more evenly by sector, perhaps favoring underappreciated "value" sectors. Of course, value is a subjective matter and should never interfere with cap weighting.

To Jennifer in marketing who is making her 401(k) contributions into a SP500 tracking fund, she should know what she's buying. Over 7% of her next contribution goes to Microsoft and 1.72% to Berkshire and 0.15% to Phillips 66. If that works, fantastic. :happy
The allocations for a cap-weighted fund are based on the number of outstanding shares that each company has in the market. All the ratios in the fund match the ratios in the market, irrespective of the price of the shares. So, allocations of shares do not change simply when the price changes.

The ratios must also be maintained when shares are purchased or sold due to inflows or outflows of the fund. That is, when shares are purchased, they are in lots of all stocks with the same share ratios between all the stocks.

For example, if company A has 1M shares in the market and company B has 100K shares in the market, then a cap-weighted fund X must maintain a ratio of 10:1 for company A versus company B. And lots of shares bought and sold also have a 10:1 ratio between A and B.

When new shares are issued or shares are bought back, the ratios change and a cap-weighted fund would need to adjust.
Elysium
Posts: 4087
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by Elysium »

abc132 wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:25 am With this methodology, all your have to do is pick whatever works after the fact and declare the value strategy successful. Someone will have invested in anything. You can justify any strategy as successful with this methodology by picking the composition after the fact, and thus it is meaningless to do so.

The value strategy was predominantly SCV because you get stacking of two factors with expected premiums. If you believe in factor premiums you were not selecting LCV as your factor exposure. At best you had exposure to SCV and LCV and quoting LCV is still a big misrepresentation of the returns you would have received.

The performance of the value strategy is not well-represented but something with the word value in it that happened to do okay.
I don't know what you are trying to get here. I read a few exchanges after this which confuses me. Value indexes, whether LCV or SCV, have done surprisingly well enough over past 20+ years or even 25-30 years if you go back to inception of those indexes. Anyone who had the discipline to stay with their investments over long haul did receive those. I am not at all sure what exactly the point of this thread is. Bottomline, these differences do not matter at all, the main driver for returns is US/Intl and Stocks vs Bonds. These sub-classes did not matter, they didn't hurt or help too much, other than within margin of error.
User avatar
SB1234
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:41 pm
Location: Laniakea

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by SB1234 »

rkhusky wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:06 pm
JimmyJoeMeeker wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:15 pm Yes, not all indexes are cap-weighted. One of the most popular, the S&P 500, is.

The S&P Index 500 index is structured as a capitalization-weighted index, or “market cap weighted index”, where the individual constituents that comprise the index have a percent contribution based on their total market capitalization.

New inflows of investor $$ into an ETF tracking the SP500, SPY, will allocate based on cap weighting, 29.8% to Information Technology, 6% to Consumer Staples and 2.2% to Utilities. Some stocks benefit more than others from new inflows. The new contribution is nearly 1/3 into one sector. (sector breakdown of SPY: https://www.ssga.com/us/en/intermediary ... y#holdings )

Those that wish more exposure to Utilities might pursue an equal-weighted index, which would spread the dollars more evenly by sector, perhaps favoring underappreciated "value" sectors. Of course, value is a subjective matter and should never interfere with cap weighting.

To Jennifer in marketing who is making her 401(k) contributions into a SP500 tracking fund, she should know what she's buying. Over 7% of her next contribution goes to Microsoft and 1.72% to Berkshire and 0.15% to Phillips 66. If that works, fantastic. :happy
The allocations for a cap-weighted fund are based on the number of outstanding shares that each company has in the market. All the ratios in the fund match the ratios in the market, irrespective of the price of the shares. So, allocations of shares do not change simply when the price changes.

The ratios must also be maintained when shares are purchased or sold due to inflows or outflows of the fund. That is, when shares are purchased, they are in lots of all stocks with the same share ratios between all the stocks.

For example, if company A has 1M shares in the market and company B has 100K shares in the market, then a cap-weighted fund X must maintain a ratio of 10:1 for company A versus company B. And lots of shares bought and sold also have a 10:1 ratio between A and B.

When new shares are issued or shares are bought back, the ratios change and a cap-weighted fund would need to adjust.
I think both of you are saying the same thing in different ways.
The ratio of float for different stocks is how the fund will maintain its ratio, but the total amount it paid for the stock depends on the price for each stock ( which is also proportional to the current market cap)
So 100 dollar coming into sp500 ETF indeed means approx 7 going to Microsoft and Apple each and rest going to other companies as per their relative market cap.
superstition: belief that market will one day come around to your concept of fair value
abc132
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by abc132 »

Elysium wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:21 pm
abc132 wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:25 am With this methodology, all your have to do is pick whatever works after the fact and declare the value strategy successful. Someone will have invested in anything. You can justify any strategy as successful with this methodology by picking the composition after the fact, and thus it is meaningless to do so.

The value strategy was predominantly SCV because you get stacking of two factors with expected premiums. If you believe in factor premiums you were not selecting LCV as your factor exposure. At best you had exposure to SCV and LCV and quoting LCV is still a big misrepresentation of the returns you would have received.

The performance of the value strategy is not well-represented but something with the word value in it that happened to do okay.
I don't know what you are trying to get here. I read a few exchanges after this which confuses me. Value indexes, whether LCV or SCV, have done surprisingly well enough over past 20+ years or even 25-30 years if you go back to inception of those indexes. Anyone who had the discipline to stay with their investments over long haul did receive those. I am not at all sure what exactly the point of this thread is. Bottomline, these differences do not matter at all, the main driver for returns is US/Intl and Stocks vs Bonds. These sub-classes did not matter, they didn't hurt or help too much, other than within margin of error.
If they don't matter, why bother value investing?

Was everyone here a value investor in 1993? We heard value was difficult to find at that time by a value investor in this thread.

It's a terrible strategy to start with something that has previously outperformed and include that outperformance as if it was part of your own returns. That's what many value investors seem to be doing. I often hear about a premium that is misrepresentative of the premium achieved by the person citing the premium. It's often whatever happens to backtest best from today - as if everyone knew to own that particular value composition.

Value was hard to find in 1993. It was said in this thread by a value investor. 1993 start date is not representative of most value investors here.

Do we know our actual value factor premium that we have obtained? Start there and from there we can consider what we expect value to do. If we don't know our own individual premium we certainly can't estimate how likely value is to have improved our portfolio. We can say it doesn't matter but then why are we investing in value?
Elysium
Posts: 4087
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by Elysium »

abc132 wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:02 am
If they don't matter, why bother value investing?

Was everyone here a value investor in 1993? We heard value was difficult to find at that time by a value investor in this thread.

It's a terrible strategy to start with something that has previously outperformed and include that outperformance as if it was part of your own returns. That's what many value investors seem to be doing. I often hear about a premium that is misrepresentative of the premium achieved by the person citing the premium. It's often whatever happens to backtest best from today - as if everyone knew to own that particular value composition.

Value was hard to find in 1993. It was said in this thread by a value investor. 1993 start date is not representative of most value investors here.

Do we know our actual value factor premium that we have obtained? Start there and from there we can consider what we expect value to do. If we don't know our own individual premium we certainly can't estimate how likely value is to have improved our portfolio. We can say it doesn't matter but then why are we investing in value?
It is a personal preference for some investors and it may be of help to them from a behavioral aspect which is very important for success. What works for each individual may be somewhat different, so long as they all lead to similar levels of success then it meets the purpose. For instance, some don't like participating in out of control rising valuations with the market portfolio, such as 1994-1999 period or other such periods in history, they may prefer value investing which allows them some sense of controlled growth. Having your portfolio heavily influenced by one index, S&P 500, may subject you to periods like that followed by periods like lost decade (2000-09). This is a personal preference for some.

I don't care enough to debate value premium or some other market beating approach at this time, there are many, and most of it don't matter unless you take some outsized risk, not enough to make a large difference anyway. There is no need to try anything, other than just investing in broad market portfolio, however we must realize it may not work for all due to behavioral reasons, not matter how much you try to educate someone, they have to get to it themselves. If they can't and they prefer investing in large value and small value along with S&P 500 then so be it, it's not catastrophic is they stay the long haul, they will beat 99% of investors anyway, just because they earned the full returns from those indexes, something most investors don't get to earn. The tell tale charts show there is not significant difference from value, however different periods value and growth tend to outperform each other.

Point is, if someone believes in it, wish to follow it, and it helps them stay the course then nothing wrong with it. One can even try individual stock picking so long as they have a process, they can stay with it for long haul, not be emotionally influenced, and finally not concerned about beating some benchmark. If the idea is to get to your goal and you have a sound approach then it is not a bad approach so long as you can stick to it. Investors fail not because they chose to invest in value portfolio or something else, they fail because they are not able to stay the course. Jack Bogle said repeatedly "stay the course" and I have learned over time that this is one thing that all investors can do to make a difference than anything else.
abc132
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by abc132 »

Elysium wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 7:48 am
abc132 wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:02 am
If they don't matter, why bother value investing?

Was everyone here a value investor in 1993? We heard value was difficult to find at that time by a value investor in this thread.

It's a terrible strategy to start with something that has previously outperformed and include that outperformance as if it was part of your own returns. That's what many value investors seem to be doing. I often hear about a premium that is misrepresentative of the premium achieved by the person citing the premium. It's often whatever happens to backtest best from today - as if everyone knew to own that particular value composition.

Value was hard to find in 1993. It was said in this thread by a value investor. 1993 start date is not representative of most value investors here.

Do we know our actual value factor premium that we have obtained? Start there and from there we can consider what we expect value to do. If we don't know our own individual premium we certainly can't estimate how likely value is to have improved our portfolio. We can say it doesn't matter but then why are we investing in value?
It is a personal preference for some investors and it may be of help to them from a behavioral aspect which is very important for success. What works for each individual may be somewhat different, so long as they all lead to similar levels of success then it meets the purpose. For instance, some don't like participating in out of control rising valuations with the market portfolio, such as 1994-1999 period or other such periods in history, they may prefer value investing which allows them some sense of controlled growth. Having your portfolio heavily influenced by one index, S&P 500, may subject you to periods like that followed by periods like lost decade (2000-09). This is a personal preference for some.

I don't care enough to debate value premium or some other market beating approach at this time, there are many, and most of it don't matter unless you take some outsized risk, not enough to make a large difference anyway. There is no need to try anything, other than just investing in broad market portfolio, however we must realize it may not work for all due to behavioral reasons, not matter how much you try to educate someone, they have to get to it themselves. If they can't and they prefer investing in large value and small value along with S&P 500 then so be it, it's not catastrophic is they stay the long haul, they will beat 99% of investors anyway, just because they earned the full returns from those indexes, something most investors don't get to earn. The tell tale charts show there is not significant difference from value, however different periods value and growth tend to outperform each other.

Point is, if someone believes in it, wish to follow it, and it helps them stay the course then nothing wrong with it. One can even try individual stock picking so long as they have a process, they can stay with it for long haul, not be emotionally influenced, and finally not concerned about beating some benchmark. If the idea is to get to your goal and you have a sound approach then it is not a bad approach so long as you can stick to it. Investors fail not because they chose to invest in value portfolio or something else, they fail because they are not able to stay the course. Jack Bogle said repeatedly "stay the course" and I have learned over time that this is one thing that all investors can do to make a difference than anything else.
Personal investing is always personal so people are of course free to do whatever they want for whatever reason they want. If you are arguing value investing is behavioral I would say that this is exactly opposite of the argument made for the value premium. If both value and growth choices are behavioral then factor investors may be in for some disappointment.
Elysium
Posts: 4087
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by Elysium »

All investing success is tied to behavioral aspects to a large extend, not just value, if you don't have control over it to stay the course then it doesn't matter what you invest in, you are not going to be successful. As for value premium/factor investing there are a thousand threads on this, if someone wants to debate it then go on and debate all day. Regardless, value has not been poor choice at all if someone followed it for the long haul they did just as well. If they did it as a market beating strategy and that hasn't worked out then keep waiting for longer is the only answer, or try something different. There are many ways to beat the market and it's not at all impossible, just very hard that's all.
abc132
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by abc132 »

Elysium wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:09 am All investing success is tied to behavioral aspects to a large extend, not just value, if you don't have control over it to stay the course then it doesn't matter what you invest in, you are not going to be successful. As for value premium/factor investing there are a thousand threads on this, if someone wants to debate it then go on and debate all day. Regardless, value has not been poor choice at all if someone followed it for the long haul they did just as well. If they did it as a market beating strategy and that hasn't worked out then keep waiting for longer is the only answer, or try something different. There are many ways to beat the market and it's not at all impossible, just very hard that's all.
Of course. It may be the title you are reacting to which is there to generate clicks.

Value is working if we expected no premium and not working (within the last decade or two) if we expected a premium. Those past (10, 20, 30+) year returns may or may not tell us about whether value will make sense in the future. We have to decide individually what makes sense for ourselves.
Elysium
Posts: 4087
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by Elysium »

abc132 wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:26 am Of course. It may be the title you are reacting to which is there to generate clicks.

Value is working if we expected no premium and not working (within the last decade or two) if we expected a premium. Those past (10, 20, 30+) year returns may or may not tell us about whether value will make sense in the future. We have to decide individually what makes sense for ourselves.
I was never sold on factor investing/value premium as a way to achieve excess returns. If it's that simple as buying a SCV index fund and get market beating excess then everyone would do it. That said, DFA SV fund did provide excess returns over S&P 500 by a full percentage point annualized over it's existence from 1993, 11% vs. 10%. Whether an investor did stay that long to get it is another question, but not out of the realm of possibilities. I have for instance held my longest standing funds for over 20 years now and is very likely to keep them for 30 or more, so if someone were 100% convinced on that SCV to hold it that long then they did get that excess return. Given that there is no reason to believe it is impossible to achieve the same from a SCV fund by holding for the long haul, if one were totally sold on a value premium. We can't say it doesn't exist or not based on anything we know now. I mean, there is evidence of outperformance, although it is not a guarantee it will continue or have stopped working. At same time it is also not evidence against it.
abc132
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by abc132 »

Elysium wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:07 am
abc132 wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:26 am Of course. It may be the title you are reacting to which is there to generate clicks.

Value is working if we expected no premium and not working (within the last decade or two) if we expected a premium. Those past (10, 20, 30+) year returns may or may not tell us about whether value will make sense in the future. We have to decide individually what makes sense for ourselves.
I was never sold on factor investing/value premium as a way to achieve excess returns. If it's that simple as buying a SCV index fund and get market beating excess then everyone would do it. That said, DFA SV fund did provide excess returns over S&P 500 by a full percentage point annualized over it's existence from 1993, 11% vs. 10%. Whether an investor did stay that long to get it is another question, but not out of the realm of possibilities. I have for instance held my longest standing funds for over 20 years now and is very likely to keep them for 30 or more, so if someone were 100% convinced on that SCV to hold it that long then they did get that excess return. Given that there is no reason to believe it is impossible to achieve the same from a SCV fund by holding for the long haul, if one were totally sold on a value premium. We can't say it doesn't exist or not based on anything we know now. I mean, there is evidence of outperformance, although it is not a guarantee it will continue or have stopped working. At same time it is also not evidence against it.
Sure, but the same is true for the growth premium. We have gotten a growth premium for the past decade or two and we can't say it hasn't stopped working.

I don't find either of these statements as convincing arguments - nobody should have to disprove a strategy based on beating the market. Strategies like trading only on Tuesday's are tough to disprove - that's an unreasonable burden of proof that can be used to justify most any strategy. The strategy has to be the one to prove it can continue to beat the market. We want to know there is a high probability of this outcome if we choose a strategy for the premium.

The "proof" looks pretty weak so far for value investors. It could be something like the majority of Arkk investors that lost money by investing too late into the sequence - despite pointing to those higher past returns. Past performance does not guarantee future performance. We all know value will come roaring back at some point in time - we just don't know if we individually will get an overall premium for doing so.
Elysium
Posts: 4087
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by Elysium »

abc132 wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:59 am Sure, but the same is true for the growth premium. We have gotten a growth premium for the past decade or two and we can't say it hasn't stopped working.

I don't find either of these statements as convincing arguments - nobody should have to disprove a strategy based on beating the market. Strategies like trading only on Tuesday's are tough to disprove - that's an unreasonable burden of proof that can be used to justify most any strategy. The strategy has to be the one to prove it can continue to beat the market. We want to know there is a high probability of this outcome if we choose a strategy for the premium.

The "proof" looks pretty weak so far for value investors. It could be something like the majority of Arkk investors that lost money by investing too late into the sequence - despite pointing to those higher past returns. Past performance does not guarantee future performance. We all know value will come roaring back at some point in time - we just don't know if we individually will get an overall premium for doing so.
Growth premium is not a thing, there's no such thing, no academic research to back it. Value premium is a thing, backed by academic research. I am not interested in an argument over value premium, there are proponents of it here and a thousand threads on it, feel free to join any of that. My point which I made it was clear, if someone did invest in value they did well, and depending on specific situations may be even better than market, so your original assertion was not correct that investing in value was a poor idea. Some investors did well. It' was not a poor approach for them. This is my last comment on this thread.
abc132
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by abc132 »

Elysium wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:08 am
abc132 wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:59 am Sure, but the same is true for the growth premium. We have gotten a growth premium for the past decade or two and we can't say it hasn't stopped working.

I don't find either of these statements as convincing arguments - nobody should have to disprove a strategy based on beating the market. Strategies like trading only on Tuesday's are tough to disprove - that's an unreasonable burden of proof that can be used to justify most any strategy. The strategy has to be the one to prove it can continue to beat the market. We want to know there is a high probability of this outcome if we choose a strategy for the premium.

The "proof" looks pretty weak so far for value investors. It could be something like the majority of Arkk investors that lost money by investing too late into the sequence - despite pointing to those higher past returns. Past performance does not guarantee future performance. We all know value will come roaring back at some point in time - we just don't know if we individually will get an overall premium for doing so.
Growth premium is not a thing, there's no such thing, no academic research to back it. Value premium is a thing, backed by academic research. I am not interested in an argument over value premium, there are proponents of it here and a thousand threads on it, feel free to join any of that. My point which I made it was clear, if someone did invest in value they did well, and depending on specific situations may be even better than market, so your original assertion was not correct that investing in value was a poor idea. Some investors did well. It' was not a poor approach for them. This is my last comment on this thread.
I suppose you can argue we had a negative value premium over the last 20 years instead of calling this a growth premium. The academic research say the premiums vary over time and can be negative. There is literally nothing in the literature that says we have to have a positive value premium. Factors explain past performance.
pascalwager
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by pascalwager »

TimeIsYourFriend wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:59 am Vanguard VTV LARGE CAP VALUE has a real return of 8.6% (nominal 11.3%) since 2010, supposedly a bad period for value. Since 2018, supposedly a terrible time for value, it has had a 4.9% real return (nominal 8.7%). I'll take either of those returns any decade for stocks. Yes, the growth stocks have shot to the moon and historically value outperforms growth but it isn't like a value index portfolio is just plain dying. It has good returns just not relative to an explosion in tech growth.
My DFUVX large value fund beat the market from 1995 to 2019, the last year I checked. Also, my DFSCX microcap (right on the border between value and blend) beat both of them.
absolute zero
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:59 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by absolute zero »

pascalwager wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:05 pm
TimeIsYourFriend wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:59 am Vanguard VTV LARGE CAP VALUE has a real return of 8.6% (nominal 11.3%) since 2010, supposedly a bad period for value. Since 2018, supposedly a terrible time for value, it has had a 4.9% real return (nominal 8.7%). I'll take either of those returns any decade for stocks. Yes, the growth stocks have shot to the moon and historically value outperforms growth but it isn't like a value index portfolio is just plain dying. It has good returns just not relative to an explosion in tech growth.
My DFUVX large value fund beat the market from 1995 to 2019, the last year I checked. Also, my DFSCX microcap (right on the border between value and blend) beat both of them.
I suggest that you refrain from checking to see how those funds (and value in general) has done from 2019 to present. It hasn’t been pretty.
pascalwager
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by pascalwager »

absolute zero wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2024 8:27 am
pascalwager wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:05 pm
TimeIsYourFriend wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:59 am Vanguard VTV LARGE CAP VALUE has a real return of 8.6% (nominal 11.3%) since 2010, supposedly a bad period for value. Since 2018, supposedly a terrible time for value, it has had a 4.9% real return (nominal 8.7%). I'll take either of those returns any decade for stocks. Yes, the growth stocks have shot to the moon and historically value outperforms growth but it isn't like a value index portfolio is just plain dying. It has good returns just not relative to an explosion in tech growth.
My DFUVX large value fund beat the market from 1995 to 2019, the last year I checked. Also, my DFSCX microcap (right on the border between value and blend) beat both of them.
I suggest that you refrain from checking to see how those funds (and value in general) has done from 2019 to present. It hasn’t been pretty.
Not surprised. I'm not really a factor believer in the sense of beating the market over time. I bought those DFA funds in 1995 when I had an advisor. Maybe they have some diversification value.
pascalwager
Posts: 2266
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Einhorn: Value is not working

Post by pascalwager »

absolute zero wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2024 8:27 am
pascalwager wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:05 pm
TimeIsYourFriend wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:59 am Vanguard VTV LARGE CAP VALUE has a real return of 8.6% (nominal 11.3%) since 2010, supposedly a bad period for value. Since 2018, supposedly a terrible time for value, it has had a 4.9% real return (nominal 8.7%). I'll take either of those returns any decade for stocks. Yes, the growth stocks have shot to the moon and historically value outperforms growth but it isn't like a value index portfolio is just plain dying. It has good returns just not relative to an explosion in tech growth.
My DFUVX large value fund beat the market from 1995 to 2019, the last year I checked. Also, my DFSCX microcap (right on the border between value and blend) beat both of them.
I suggest that you refrain from checking to see how those funds (and value in general) has done from 2019 to present. It hasn’t been pretty.
Using M* charting for NAV growth:

From 2/12/2019 to 2/13/2024

DFUVX 54.34%
DFSCX 52.33%
VTSAX 88.58%

From 6/30/1995 to 2/13/2024

DFUVX 1546.89%
DFSCX 1770.04%
VTSAX 1599.87%

So, long term, my DFA microcap has outperformed the market and my DFA large value has underperformed the market. (I just recently withdrew from DFUVX to replace my crumbling driveway.)
Post Reply