growth

Will Growth Stocks Continue to Trounce Value Stocks?

Scott Buchanan4 Comments

Will Growth Stocks Continue to Trounce Value Stocks?

It’s no secret that growth stocks, mainly big tech companies like Apple and Microsoft, have massively out-performed so-called value stocks in the past fifteen years. Value stocks tend to have lower price/earnings and steady earnings and low price/earnings. They include sectors such as petroleum, utilities, traditional banks, and consumer products. These companies often pay substantial dividends from their cash flow.

Here are some charts which make the point. This 2005-early 2023 chart shows value stocks (blue curve) having a small edge 2005-2008, then the growth stocks (orange curve) keep ripping higher and higher. Financial stocks, which mainly fall in the value category, were hit particularly hard in the 2008-2009 downturn.

Chartoftheday

Here is a bar chart display of annual returns of value stocks (blue bars) and of growth stocks for the years 1993-2022. In 1997-1999 growth stocks outperformed. This was the great tech bubble – I remember it well, investors were shoveling money into any enterprise with a customer-facing website, whether or not there was any reasonable path to profitability. Reality caught up in 2000 (“What was I thinking??”), tech stock prices crashed and then tech was hated for a couple of years. But by 2009 or so, today’s big tech firms had emerged and established their quasi-monopolies, and started actually making money and even more money.

Merrilledge

So, is the answer to just allocate all your equity portfolio to big tech and walk away? This is a question I have been asking myself. Even as growth stocks dominate year after year, there have continued to be voices warning that this is anomaly; historically, value stocks have performed better. So, with the sky-high valuations of today’s big tech, there is due to be a big mean reversion where the “Magnificent 7” get crushed, and Big Banks and Big Oil and Proctor & Gamble and even humble utilities finally get to shine.

I don’t have  a chart that goes that far back, but I have read that over the past 100 years, value has usually  beat “growth”. Here is a hard-to-read plot of value vs growth for 1975-2024. I have added yellow highlighter lines to mark major trend periods. Growth underperformed 1975-1990, then growth picked up steam and culminated in the peak in the middle of the chart at 2000. Growth then underperformed 2000-2008, as noted earlier, as the excesses of the tech bubble were unwound, and people made paper fortunes in the real estate bubble of 2001-2007.

Growth has dominated since 2009, excerpt for 2022. That was the year the Fed raised interest rates, which tends to punish growth stocks. However, with their unstoppable increases in earnings (accounting for the vast majority of the earnings in the whole S&P 500), big tech has come roaring back. Yes, they sport high P/E ratios, but they have the earnings and the growth to largely justify their high valuations.

Longtermtrends.net

I have been influenced  by the continual cautions about growth stocks becoming overvalued. Many an expert has advocated for value stocks.  In June of this year, Bank of America head of US equity strategy Savita Subramanian told an audience at the Morningstar Investment Conference: “I have one message to you: Buy large-cap value.” So, for the past couple of years, I have gone relatively light on big tech and have over-allocated to “safer” investments like fixed income and value stocks. Silly me.

In the last few months, I finally decided to give up fighting the dominant trend, and so I put some funds into SCHG, which is specifically large cap growth, and in other growth-heavy funds. As you may imagine, these funds are loaded with Nvidia and Meta and other big tech. They have done very well since then.

How about going forward? Will the growth dominance continue, or will the dreaded mean reversion strike at last?  At some point, I suspect that big tech earnings will slow down to where their high valuations can no longer be supported. But I don’t know when that will be, so I will just stay diversified.

Boilerplate disclaimer: Nothing here should be taken as advice to buy or sell any security.

Future Consumption Has Never Been Cheaper

Zachary Bartsch1 Comment

Economics as a discipline really likes to boil things down to their essentials. There are plenty of examples. How many goods can one consume? Just two, bread and not bread. How can you spend your time? You can labor or leisure. How do you spend your money? Consume or save. It’s this last one that I want to emphasize here.

First, all income ultimately ends up being spent on consumption. Saving today is just the decision to consume in the future. And if not by you, then by your heirs. One determinant of inter-temporal consumption decisions is the real rate of return. That is, how many apples can you eat in the future by forgoing an apple eaten today? The bigger that number is, the more attractive the decision to save.

Further, since most saving is not in the form of cash and is instead invested in productive assets, we can also characterize the intertemporal consumption problem as the current budget allocation decision to consume or invest. The more attractive capital becomes, the more one is willing to invest rather than consume. The relative attractiveness between consumption and investment informs the consumption decision.

How attractive is investment? I’ll illustrate in two graphs. First, if the price of investment goods falls relative to consumption goods, then individuals will invest more. The graph below charts the price ratio of investment goods to consumption goods. Relative to consumption, the price of investment has fallen since 1980. Saving for the future has never been cheaper!

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1p0C7

Of course, as in a price taker story, I am assuming that individuals don’t affect this price ratio. Truly, prices are endogenous to consumption/investment decisions. For all we know, it may be that the prices of investment goods are falling because demand for investment goods has fallen. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Continue reading →

Home(r) Economics

Jeremy Horpedahl5 Comments

Is it harder to buy a home today than in the past? Many seem to think so. Lately, some people have used the example of the fictional Simpsons family to make this claim. A recent Tweet with around 100,000 likes expressed the sentiment:

The unspoken implication is that today a “single salary from a husband who didn’t go to college” couldn’t buy a typical home in the US. Or at least, it would stretch your budget so thin that you would have to give up something else or need two incomes to support that lifestyle (famously dubbed “the two-income trap” by Elizabeth Warren).

And it’s not just a Tweet that caught fire. A December 2020 article in the Atlantic claimed “The Life in The Simpsons Is No Longer Attainable” and used housing as a prime example. And while a 2016 Vox article on Homer’s many jobs doesn’t mention the cost of housing, they draw a similar conclusion and implication: “Homer Simpson has gone nowhere in the past 27 years — and the same could be said of actual middle-class Americans.”

But is this an accurate picture of the Simpsons family over time? And does that picture accurately represent a typical family in the US? Let’s investigate. And let’s start by pointing out that as measured by the availability of consumption goods, the Simpsons do see rising prosperity over time. They have flat screen TVs now, instead of consoles with rabbit ears, as the late Steve Horwitz and Stewart Dompe point out in their contribution to the edited volume Homer Economicus. But with all due respect to my friends Steve and Stewart, I don’t think many would deny that TVs, cell phones, and computers are cheaper today than in the 1990s. The familiar refrain is “but what about housing, education, and health care?”

In this post I want to take on the question of housing, partially by using the Simpsons as an example. My main result is this chart, which I will present first and then explain.

Continue reading →