Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.

79
22
Favorite

Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.

Barron's2021-06-23

Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around. That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment（22）

JiaXinQuah
·2021-06-24
Boring
Reply
Like
Report
Amazee
·2021-06-24
Nice
Reply
Like
Report
EHG
·2021-06-24
Like
Reply
Like
Report
investor_zer
·2021-06-24
Nice
Reply
Like
Report
yellowbunny
·2021-06-24
Nice
Reply
Like
Report
ZannFoo
·2021-06-24
Nice
Reply
Like
Report
Wengho
·2021-06-23
Like the comment ty
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- kino318:
  done
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
Droolingking
·2021-06-23
Learning
Reply
Like
Report
kerf
·2021-06-23
Good
Reply
Like
Report
nuxezt
·2021-06-23
Like and comment
Reply
Like
Report
nuxezt
·2021-06-23
Like and comment
Reply
Like
Report
你人好漂啊
·2021-06-23
Nice
Reply
Like
Report
tyng8825
·2021-06-23
Like and comment thanks
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- nuxezt:
  Done
  2021-06-23
  Reply
  Report
heinrik
·2021-06-23
huh
Reply
1
Report
thuiching
·2021-06-23
pls like n comment
Reply
Like
Report
Bananaaa
·2021-06-23
Great
Reply
7
Report
Fold Replies
- Snoopdog:
  Comment
  2021-06-23
  Reply
  Report
Terrants
·2021-06-23
Not easy to beat the index
Reply
4
Report
SunnyBoyz
·2021-06-23
Yes
Reply
6
Report
Fold Replies
- SunnyBoyz:
  Yes
  2021-06-23
  Reply
  Report
- Fiona888:
  good
  2021-06-23
  Reply
  Report
KailashN
·2021-06-23
Good!
Reply
9
Report
Fold Replies
- AtwoZ:
  Thanks
  2021-06-24
  Reply
  Report
Felixpow
·2021-06-23
Cool
Reply
4
Report
Fold Replies
- thuiching:
  [财迷] [财迷]
  2021-06-23
  Reply
  Report

Most Discussed

7x24

All

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1155637149","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","media":"Barron's","content":"<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1610680873436","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"SPY","symbol_name":"标普500ETF","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","article_id":"1155637149","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1610680873436","name":"Barron's"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"barrons.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"translate_title":"价值正在超过增长速度。但价值经理人还是跑不过指数。","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"SPY":0.9},"content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":128348342,"gmtCreate":1624503235086,"gmtModify":1703838604326,"author":{"id":"3566379110750623","authorId":"3566379110750623","name":"JiaXinQuah","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/14c9c00d447438791324d9f268a48407","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3566379110750623","authorIdStr":"3566379110750623"},"htmlText":"Boring","listText":"Boring","text":"Boring","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/128348342","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121753658,"gmtCreate":1624493410774,"gmtModify":1703838156966,"author":{"id":"3571867491614273","authorId":"3571867491614273","name":"Amazee","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3571867491614273","authorIdStr":"3571867491614273"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121753658","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121461446,"gmtCreate":1624489795485,"gmtModify":1703837994087,"author":{"id":"3586941861951066","authorId":"3586941861951066","name":"EHG","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/28e4734e50f795c3218330cbb6c3e9a0","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3586941861951066","authorIdStr":"3586941861951066"},"htmlText":"Like&nbsp;","listText":"Like&nbsp;","text":"Like","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121461446","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121582805,"gmtCreate":1624476902307,"gmtModify":1703837845564,"author":{"id":"3587082672087005","authorId":"3587082672087005","name":"investor_zer","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b073a07f77dbe6b3bec6b12311fde6bd","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3587082672087005","authorIdStr":"3587082672087005"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121582805","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121225586,"gmtCreate":1624466603445,"gmtModify":1703837735268,"author":{"id":"3577853640817618","authorId":"3577853640817618","name":"yellowbunny","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/094bb4526c85c5b6ade1fef7274ae82b","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3577853640817618","authorIdStr":"3577853640817618"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121225586","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121228349,"gmtCreate":1624466414681,"gmtModify":1703837730255,"author":{"id":"3577187134191659","authorId":"3577187134191659","name":"ZannFoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/745b0797f48f595f3b79dce1c3fe055b","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3577187134191659","authorIdStr":"3577187134191659"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121228349","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121811479,"gmtCreate":1624458435391,"gmtModify":1703837405357,"author":{"id":"3586915753992855","authorId":"3586915753992855","name":"Wengho","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3586915753992855","authorIdStr":"3586915753992855"},"htmlText":"Like the comment ty","listText":"Like the comment ty","text":"Like the comment ty","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121811479","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4983196,"gmtCreate":1624490547014,"gmtModify":1663229852727,"authorId":3578134255896974,"author":{"id":3578134255896974,"idStr":"3578134255896974","authorId":3578134255896974,"name":"kino318","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e983f44b7853b7b8c10f1b3f6e19dc68","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121811479,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>done</u>","text":"<u>done</u>","html":"<u>done</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121116988,"gmtCreate":1624456495244,"gmtModify":1703837262945,"author":{"id":"3585981723267031","authorId":"3585981723267031","name":"Droolingking","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0725572fa8101e15839f715f0b5e9e53","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3585981723267031","authorIdStr":"3585981723267031"},"htmlText":"Learning","listText":"Learning","text":"Learning","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121116988","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121351879,"gmtCreate":1624455098791,"gmtModify":1703837178743,"author":{"id":"3565513771977477","authorId":"3565513771977477","name":"kerf","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b70eaede73cc13bbe471f75919d91137","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3565513771977477","authorIdStr":"3565513771977477"},"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121351879","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121332016,"gmtCreate":1624453238935,"gmtModify":1703837114667,"author":{"id":"3581714447881138","authorId":"3581714447881138","name":"nuxezt","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/59377d9d4868bc55b936ae5d44ea9d14","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3581714447881138","authorIdStr":"3581714447881138"},"htmlText":"Like and comment&nbsp;","listText":"Like and comment&nbsp;","text":"Like and comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121332016","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121336216,"gmtCreate":1624453218935,"gmtModify":1703837114341,"author":{"id":"3581714447881138","authorId":"3581714447881138","name":"nuxezt","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/59377d9d4868bc55b936ae5d44ea9d14","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3581714447881138","authorIdStr":"3581714447881138"},"htmlText":"Like and comment&nbsp;","listText":"Like and comment&nbsp;","text":"Like and comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121336216","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121339416,"gmtCreate":1624453080835,"gmtModify":1703837108800,"author":{"id":"3579400062409717","authorId":"3579400062409717","name":"你人好漂啊","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/19c00b9762c1e1d114c526a49118c0a5","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579400062409717","authorIdStr":"3579400062409717"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121339416","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121975153,"gmtCreate":1624452032772,"gmtModify":1703837073505,"author":{"id":"3570852047190387","authorId":"3570852047190387","name":"tyng8825","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96881c116505f25bd9b7404b76c5e06d","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3570852047190387","authorIdStr":"3570852047190387"},"htmlText":"Like and comment thanks&nbsp;","listText":"Like and comment thanks&nbsp;","text":"Like and comment thanks","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121975153","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4975913,"gmtCreate":1624453224422,"gmtModify":1663229819443,"authorId":3581714447881138,"author":{"id":3581714447881138,"idStr":"3581714447881138","authorId":3581714447881138,"name":"nuxezt","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/59377d9d4868bc55b936ae5d44ea9d14","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121975153,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>Done</u>","text":"<u>Done</u>","html":"<u>Done</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121950777,"gmtCreate":1624450955599,"gmtModify":1703837035898,"author":{"id":"3582152278068318","authorId":"3582152278068318","name":"heinrik","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b5455d60e9f3ae88b4fb01e8d3d60b6b","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3582152278068318","authorIdStr":"3582152278068318"},"htmlText":"huh","listText":"huh","text":"huh","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121950777","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121927226,"gmtCreate":1624450904465,"gmtModify":1703837035253,"author":{"id":"3581585794734271","authorId":"3581585794734271","name":"thuiching","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9dc8e63d946079f8f710c092c90f6aa4","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3581585794734271","authorIdStr":"3581585794734271"},"htmlText":"pls like n comment","listText":"pls like n comment","text":"pls like n comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121927226","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121962458,"gmtCreate":1624450209974,"gmtModify":1703837017049,"author":{"id":"3583547585995707","authorId":"3583547585995707","name":"Bananaaa","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3583547585995707","authorIdStr":"3583547585995707"},"htmlText":"Great","listText":"Great","text":"Great","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121962458","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4975150,"gmtCreate":1624450375628,"gmtModify":1631894017271,"authorId":3567748507194894,"author":{"id":3567748507194894,"idStr":"3567748507194894","authorId":3567748507194894,"name":"Snoopdog","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8620e2cb2714470a199bcb823c9be5ed","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-2","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":"Senior Tiger","description":"Join the tiger community for 1000 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0063fb68ea29c9ae6858c58630e182d5","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96c699a93be4214d4b49aea6a5a5d1a4","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/35b0e542a9ff77046ed69ef602bc105d","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.08.04","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121962458,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Comment","text":"Comment","html":"Comment"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121962568,"gmtCreate":1624450204154,"gmtModify":1703837016888,"author":{"id":"3579393656854528","authorId":"3579393656854528","name":"Terrants","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579393656854528","authorIdStr":"3579393656854528"},"htmlText":"Not easy to beat the index","listText":"Not easy to beat the index","text":"Not easy to beat the index","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121962568","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121961883,"gmtCreate":1624450008242,"gmtModify":1703837012521,"author":{"id":"3581761553455766","authorId":"3581761553455766","name":"SunnyBoyz","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/08065fda7a858dc38bec2e41d6acaf71","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3581761553455766","authorIdStr":"3581761553455766"},"htmlText":"Yes","listText":"Yes","text":"Yes","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121961883","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4975421,"gmtCreate":1624451554315,"gmtModify":1663229813339,"authorId":3581761553455766,"author":{"id":3581761553455766,"idStr":"3581761553455766","authorId":3581761553455766,"name":"SunnyBoyz","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/08065fda7a858dc38bec2e41d6acaf71","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121961883,"type":1,"supId":4975065,"prevId":0,"content":"Yes","text":"Yes","html":"Yes"},{"id":4975065,"gmtCreate":1624450038131,"gmtModify":1635250169710,"authorId":3581675432544786,"author":{"id":3581675432544786,"idStr":"3581675432544786","authorId":3581675432544786,"name":"Fiona888","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/42688ec73bb74970876cdb05131f23f7","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121961883,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>good</u>","text":"<u>good</u>","html":"<u>good</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121963851,"gmtCreate":1624449975473,"gmtModify":1703837011713,"author":{"id":"3582703680193232","authorId":"3582703680193232","name":"KailashN","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bcea4d0815f5091810e222c8e9e54c35","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3582703680193232","authorIdStr":"3582703680193232"},"htmlText":"Good!","listText":"Good!","text":"Good!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":9,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121963851","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4980068,"gmtCreate":1624465024960,"gmtModify":1663229837238,"authorId":3586254379286032,"author":{"id":3586254379286032,"idStr":"3586254379286032","authorId":3586254379286032,"name":"AtwoZ","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7347da48f4f74369b5ff3a53a2e36a45","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121963851,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>Thanks</u>","text":"<u>Thanks</u>","html":"<u>Thanks</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":121985343,"gmtCreate":1624449653082,"gmtModify":1703837004264,"author":{"id":"3586409610140134","authorId":"3586409610140134","name":"Felixpow","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a3007d4a16bb4b548591e43d3506ea8","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3586409610140134","authorIdStr":"3586409610140134"},"htmlText":"Cool","listText":"Cool","text":"Cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/121985343","repostId":1155637149,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1155637149","pubTimestamp":1624448532,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1155637149?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-23 19:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1155637149","media":"Barron's","summary":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around","content":"<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.</p>\n<p>That’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.</p>\n<p>Value stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.</p>\n<p>Anticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.</p>\n<p>Don’t fall for it.</p>\n<p>To be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&amp;P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.</p>\n<p>Consider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&amp;P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Consider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&amp;P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>Yet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&amp;P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.</p>\n<p>Consider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&amp;P 500 Value index.</p>\n<p>The proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.</p>\n<p>Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.</p>\n<p>To support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.</p>\n<p>In the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.</p>\n<p>Is the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?</p>\n<p>Tint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.</p>\n<p>This argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.</p>\n<p>Tint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”</p>\n<p><b>How to Invest in Value</b></p>\n<p>The investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:</p>\n<p>Large-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).</p>\n<p>Mid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>Small-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.</p>\n<p>I note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&amp;P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Value Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nValue Is Outpacing Growth. But Value Managers Still Can’t Beat the Index.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-23 19:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/value-managers-still-cant-beat-the-index-51624411524?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1155637149","content_text":"Stock-picking is no more successful when value is beating growth than when it’s the other way around.\nThat’s important to remember right now, since it increasingly appears that value has finally turned the corner in its epic battle against growth.\nValue stocks, of course, are those trading for the lowest ratios of price to various measures of financial performance, such as book value and earnings. Growth stocks are those trading for the highest such ratios. Though value stocks’ return relative to growth has stalled over the past couple of weeks, they are still well ahead for the period extending back to the end of last August—more than nine months ago. That’s long enough to convince many that value’s outperformance is more than a flash in the pan.\nAnticipating this trend will continue, some champions of active management are insisting that index funds are therefore to be avoided. It’s a convenient narrative, which, if true, justifies paying the higher management fees that active managers charge relative to index funds.\nDon’t fall for it.\nTo be sure, it certainly appears as though these champions of active management have history on their side. That’s because far more value funds beat the S&P 500 index when value is dominant than during such periods than when growth is beating value. It’s overwhelming, in fact.\nConsider the 500 or so actively managed open-end mutual funds that Morningstar Direct classifies as in the value camp. Since the end of last August, which is when value began its recent outperformance, virtually all of them—some 95%—have beaten the S&P 500. During the prior five years, during which growth far outpaced value, hardly any of these value funds (fewer than 1%) beat the S&P 500.\nConsider the Bridgeway Small-Cap Value fund (ticker: BRSVX), which is the best performer since the end of last August among the funds in Morningstar Direct’s value category. It has gained 99.4% since then, compared with the S&P 500’s 22.3%, including reinvested dividends. Over the five years before last August, however, the fund produced an annualized return of just 2.8%, versus 14.3% for the S&P 500.\nYet these statistics. compelling as they might seem, still don’t support the stock-picking narrative. That’s because the S&P 500 is an inappropriate benchmark for judging the performance of a value mutual fund. The index is dominated by large-cap growth stocks, so comparing value fund managers to it tells you nothing about their stock-picking abilities.\nConsider the five stocks that currently dominate the index—the famous FAAMG names: Facebook (FB), Amazon.com (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL), which together represent more than 20% of the total market cap of the index. Each has a sky-high price-to-book ratio, the hallmark of a growth stock. Their average price-to-book ratio is more than 15, according to FactSet, which is more than five times the 2.7 average ratio for the S&P 500 Value index.\nThe proper benchmark for judging the stock-picking abilities of a value manager is, of course, an index containing value stocks. And relative to their proper benchmarks, only a precious few value funds come out ahead.\nLawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares (now part of BlackRock ), goes even further. He argues that there never will be a period in which a majority of actively managed value funds beat their appropriate benchmarks. In an interview, he insisted that if it ever appeared to the contrary, then we can be assured that we’re judging the funds against the wrong benchmarks.\nTo support this bold claim, Tint refers to a seminal 1991 article in the Financial Analysts Journal: “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” The article was written by William Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990. Tint at the time was president of Sharpe-Tint, a consulting firm.\nIn the article, Sharpe demonstrated that beating the market is a zero-sum game before transaction costs, and a negative-sum game net of those fees. “On average, therefore, actively managed mutual funds must lag the performance of a passive index,” Tint says.\nIs the Market for Value Stocks Especially Inefficient?\nTint’s argument speaks directly to the second of the bogus reasons that are being used to justify active management in a value-dominated market: that the universe of value stocks contains an especially wide range of good and bad investments, creating more potential for a value-stock picker to add value by avoiding the worst issues. In effect, this argument is that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient and therefore easier to beat.\nThis argument doesn’t appear to hold water. There would seem to be just as wide a range in the growth stock universe between stocks whose growth can be bought at a reasonable price and those that are wildly overvalued. Growth-fund managers can easily argue that active management is just as important for them, if not more so, than for value-fund managers.\nTint responds that his conclusion still applies even if it’s true that the market for value stocks is especially inefficient. “If one value manager picks stocks that beat their benchmark,” Tint argues, “then someone else must lose. And after you take transaction costs into account, they on average will have lagged the market.”\nHow to Invest in Value\nThe investment implication is clear: If you want to bet on value beating growth, then you should invest in an index fund. To pick one, you will also need to decide whether to invest in large-, mid-, or small-cap issues, since there is a powerful interaction between the growth-versus-value and market-cap dimensions. As usual, Vanguard Group offers some of the least-expensive index funds in each of these three market-cap categories:\nLarge-cap value: the Vanguard Value exchange-traded fund (VTV), with an expense ratio of 0.04% (or $4 per $10,000 invested).\nMid-cap value: the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nSmall-cap value: the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR), with an 0.07% expense ratio.\nI note that each of these ETFs has far outpaced the S&P 500 since the end of last August. In contrast to the 22.3% gain since then for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), these three Vanguard ETFs have produced returns of 29.8%, 37.8%, and 52.5%, respectively.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4975261,"gmtCreate":1624450894519,"gmtModify":1663229813436,"authorId":3581585794734271,"author":{"id":3581585794734271,"idStr":"3581585794734271","authorId":3581585794734271,"name":"thuiching","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9dc8e63d946079f8f710c092c90f6aa4","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":121985343,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"[财迷] [财迷]","text":"[财迷] [财迷]","html":"[财迷] [财迷]"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":79,"commentSize":22,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}