theglobeandmail.com
Low-Growth Stocks Outperform High-Growth Stocks: Evidence and Implications
A Darden School study (1968-2007) found low-growth firms had a 26% average annual return vs. high-growth firms' 4%, highlighting the risk of overpaying for high-growth stocks; this is further supported by current market conditions mirroring the dot-com bubble.
- How does market sentiment regarding growth rates affect the valuation of companies, and what are the implications for investors?
- Market overoptimism about high-growth firms' sustained growth rates inflates their valuations, while pessimism undervalues low-growth firms. This is supported by academic studies showing low P/E stocks consistently outperforming high P/E stocks across various markets and timeframes. The inherent risk of overpaying for high-growth stocks outweighs the potential returns.
- What is the primary risk associated with investing in high-growth, high-multiple stocks, and what historical evidence supports this risk?
- Historically, low P/E stocks have outperformed high P/E stocks over long periods, in various markets. A Darden School study (1968-2007) showed low-growth firms returned 26% annually, while high-growth firms returned only 4%. This suggests that high valuations, driven by overly optimistic growth forecasts, lead to lower returns.
- Considering the current market environment and historical performance, what are the potential future consequences of investing in highly valued growth stocks?
- Current market conditions, reminiscent of the dot-com bubble, show investors chasing high-growth stocks with inflated valuations. This trend, exemplified by 858 money-losing U.S. companies seeing share prices increase by at least 200% since April 9th, signals significant valuation risk. Future underperformance of these stocks is highly probable given historical trends.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently favors value investing, portraying it as the superior and safer approach. The headline and introduction emphasize the risks of growth investing and the historical outperformance of value stocks. The selection and sequencing of evidence reinforce this perspective, potentially leading readers to undervalue growth investment strategies.
Language Bias
The author uses loaded language such as "sky-high price-to-earnings multiples," "stretched," "overoptimistic," "overpessimistic," and "meagre." These terms carry negative connotations and suggest a predetermined bias against growth investing. More neutral terms such as "high price-to-earnings multiples," "high valuations," "positive growth expectations," and "negative growth expectations" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the author's value investing perspective, potentially omitting counterarguments or perspectives from growth investors beyond acknowledging their existence. The lack of detailed analysis of specific growth stocks and their performance could lead to an incomplete picture. While acknowledging limitations due to space is understandable, more diverse viewpoints would strengthen the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between value and growth investing, oversimplifying a complex investment landscape. It suggests that only value investing is a sound strategy, ignoring the potential for success in growth investing, especially in specific market conditions. The simplistic contrast ignores the existence of blended approaches or other investment styles.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the tendency of markets to overvalue high-growth companies and undervalue low-growth companies. Value investing, by focusing on undervalued companies, can potentially mitigate this inequality by providing better returns for investors who may not have access to high-growth opportunities. Historically, low P/E stocks have outperformed high P/E stocks, suggesting that market inefficiencies can create opportunities for less affluent investors to achieve better returns.