Greenbackd has been quiet over the last few days while I finished “Simple But Not Easy,” my latest white paper for Eyquem (embedded below). If you want to receive similar future missives, shoot me an email at greenbackd at gmail dot com. Thoughts, criticisms, and questions are all welcome too.
Simple But Not Easy: The Case For Quantitative Value (White Paper)
June 13, 2012 by Tobias Carlisle
Posted in Behavioral economics, Quantitative investment, Strategy | Tagged Behavioral investing, Quantitative investment, Value investing | 22 Comments
22 Responses
Leave a comment Cancel reply
Follow on Twitter
My TweetsTop Posts
- Mike Burry's Silicon Investor "Value Investing" thread
- Value: After Hours Podcast
- Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation, and Risk: LSV's Two-Dimensional Classifications
- How to beat The Little Book That Beats The Market: An analysis of the Magic Formula
- A closer look at the "High Minus Low" strategy: HML returns (Part 2)
Archives
- January 2020
- December 2019
- December 2016
- November 2016
- September 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
greenbackd,
If the answer is in your book, let me know, and I will purchase a copy!
I was surprised the P/BV ratio wasn’t #1. But I was curious if you did any tests on the P/B ratio w/ varying leverage ratios.
I’m taking a guess here, but I imagine many of the extremely low EV/EBITDA companies are not cheap because of under-appreciated earnings power; but, because they have a substantial net cash balance.
Effectively, you have a company w/ excess capital that can be put to work and drive incremental earnings.
Walter Schloss’ strategy was to buy stocks below book w/ minimal debt — allowing the company time to fixed their problems. He held stocks in excess of 100, and crushed the market.
LikeLike
[…] is a topic we covered in some detail in Quantitative Value and in my shorter piece Simple But Not Easy: The Case For Quantitative Value. Both were inspired by Montier’s ideas and […]
LikeLike
[…] more info check out the full piece on Quantitative Value. Of course, this chart shows results from backtesting and past performance doesn’t guarantee […]
LikeLike
[…] paper di Toby Carlisle (autore di Greenbackd e fondatore di Eyquem Investment Management): "Simple But Not Easy: The Case For Quantitative Value Investment". Peraltro autore insieme al già nominato Wes Gray di un libro che si prospetta interessante: […]
LikeLike
[…] letting heuristics get in the way of passion-less rules. According to some research spelled out in an outstanding whitepaper by Toby Carlisle, the author of Greenbackd.com, trying to “second guess the model” like this could be a […]
LikeLike
[…] more of my research, see my white paper “Simple But Not Easy: The Case For Quantitative Value“ and the accompanying presentation to the UC Davis MBA value investing […]
LikeLike
[…] Monday I presented an expanded version of my white paper “Simple But Not Easy: The Case For Quantitative Value“ to the UC Davis MBA value investing […]
LikeLike
Toby, thanks for sharing your paper. It is very well written and is a good summary of your blog posts of the past few years. Note the typo on page 12, first line: “Ppart.”
LikeLike
Interesting read, it leaves me wondering though, why does EV/EBITDA outperform other ratios and how could one decompose the components that make it outperform vs say P/E?
LikeLike
There’s more information in EV/EBITDA, so that might be a reason.
LikeLike
I think what I’m getting at is, is EV/EBITDA the best ratio to use, what factors make it better than others, and could factors be excluded/included to make it even better?
Probably requires a lot of leg work to answer those questions but I might do some investigating…
Also, when you suggest using the Russell 1000 value, that index is actually weighted by price to book, which is clearly not the best methodology….
All-in-all though very interesting…
LikeLike
I don’t discuss Russell 1000 value at any stage. I use Russell 1000 – the index, not value – as a comparison. Russell 1000 is market capitalization-weighted.
LikeLike
[…] But Not Easy: The Case For Quantitative Value – Greenbackd Så kallade värdeaktier har historiskt gett en högre avkastning än tillväxtaktier och börsen […]
LikeLike
[…] https://greenbackd.com/2012/06/13/simple-but-not-easy-the-case-for-quantitative-value-white-paper/ […]
LikeLike
During the period studied (2007-2011) the growth index (VIGAX) outperformed the value index (VVIAX) by 29%. Does this prove that growth > value? No. Why? Because this period was unusual.
During this period active growth beat passive growth. Does this prove that active is better than passive? Again the answer is no. Why? Because this period was unusual.
Since this period was unusual how can you use it to prove that quantitative value is better than active value?
LikeLike
The Loughran Wellman study covers the period 1926 to 2010, and finds something similar, but you’re right, more research needs to be done to understand why active underperforms passive.
LikeLike
Also very happy to be directed to research that active value > passive value.
LikeLike
Actually, I agree with your premise that passive will do better than active. I even suspect that quantitative value will do better than active value. However, I wouldn’t use Damdoram’s study to prove this second point because the time period is too short to be conclusive.
Going forward I suspect that the advantage of quantitative value will narrow. Active managers are using quantitative screening more than they used to.
LikeLike
I thought this was a very thoughtful presentation on investing and our built in limitations. Many of our investment attitudes, I believe, are morally based “pride, selfishness, inflated self image, gluttony, greed” and play a prominent part in all of our thoughts and actions. Please put out more thoughtful posts like this.
LikeLike
Thank you for the kind words.
LikeLike
Very interesting paper. I have struggled with the quantitative vs. qualitative approach to value investment. Quantitative value investing — as you say — is “easy”. You run screens, identify statistical bargains, sell, buy, rebalance, repeat — over and over for years and years. It’s certainly a good way to achieving above-market returns over the long-term — I have no doubt about this. But for the more curious (those of us that are interested in learning about businesses) it doesn’t feel that “satisfying” (even though the results may themselves be satisfying). I’ve struggled with this alot. I also believe that quantitative value investing — while it will provide you with good long-terms returns — will probably not allow you to compound at very high rates of return (unless you add portfolio leverage). This latter “problem” might in fact be it’s strength — I suppose it’s naive to to think that you’ll compound at 20+ per anum over the long-term when very few actually have…How have you reconciled these issues as an investor?
LikeLike
Thank you for the great question. I sympathise with Keynes’s view that, “The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll.” – From The General Theory of Employment etc
LikeLike