Tag Archives: pro

Why Value Works: Low Trading Volume

One aspect or explanation why value works is the low trading volume, which is often typical for companies in which we invest. A new paper by Roger Ibbotson and Thomas Idzorek , who work for GMO, a fund management group where James Montier works as well, in the Journal of Portfolio Management, which analysed 40 years of stock returns by putting them into a perspective to the average trading volume of the last year. The paper finds stocks in the least popular quartile outperformed those in the most popular segment by seven percent. In their paper “Dimensions of Popularity,” Ibbotson and Idzorek identify the most common market premiums and anomalies, such as: Small cap – Smaller capitalization stocks outperform larger capitalization stocks Valuation – Value companies beat growth companies Liquidity – Less liquid stocks beat those with more liquidity Momentum – Stocks trending up will continue to trend up Because the risk-return framework does not explain all these premiums and anomalies seen in the market, the researchers propose the unifying “theory of popularity.” The authors explain that the most common market premiums and anomalies are associated with a stock’s popularity or unpopularity. For example, if investors “vote with their dollars,” small cap companies have gotten fewer votes. Value companies commonly have something wrong with them, which makes them unpopular. If an asset has characteristics that investors really dislike, such as low liquidity, little name recognition, or high volatility, its price will be lower and therefore its expected future returns will be higher, all other things being equal. According to the theory of popularity, if an investor were to rank stocks by popularity, he or she could buy a basket of unpopular stocks and systematically rebalance as the stocks become more popular by buying a new portfolio of relatively less popular stocks. As some of the stocks in the portfolio become more popular over time, they become more valuable and the investor will see appreciation. This cycle happens normally in Deep Value situations where trends tend to revert to the mean. “Risk has become a catch-all for all of the attributes that investors do not like, but riskiness does not explain all the anomalies we see in the market. Value premiums are a perfect example. Stocks with low market-to-book ratios or low price-earnings ratios are not necessarily more volatile or less liquid, but we know that over time value stocks beat growth stocks. We need a new model for explaining investment performance that goes beyond risk and return. Popularity may be a better lens through which to view investment behavior,” Ibbotson said. “Many of the well-known market premiums are associated with unpopular stocks. Unpopular stocks tend to be smaller, less liquid, and perceived as lacking growth potential. These stocks, with their low relative prices, may offer investors better future performance as they move along the spectrum toward popularity.” Have a good week. Share this article with a colleague

Wisconsin Energy (WEC) Q4 2014 Results – Earnings Call Webcast

The following audio is from a conference call that will begin on February 11, 2015 at 02:00 AM ET. The audio will stream live while the call is active, and can be replayed upon its completion. Are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Neutral Results for ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague

Funds Experience $2.8 Billion In Aggregate Net Outflows

By Patrick Keon The positive performance by the indices came on the heels of negative performance by both for the month of January. The Dow was off 3.6% for the month, while the S&P 500 retreated 3.1%. It was the worst monthly performance for each index since January of last year. A contributing factor to this January’s poor performance as well as the bounce at the start of February was oil. Slumping oil prices caused by oversupply had weighed on the markets. But last week sentiment on the street suggested oil prices may have bottomed, and the demand for energy stocks was the driving force behind the markets’ rally. In this past week’s fund-flows activity, Lipper’s fund macro groups had overall net outflows of $2.8 billion. Money market funds (-$9.9 billion) and equity funds (-$7.1 billion) paced the way for the net outflows, while taxable bond funds (+$13.7 billion) accounted for the lion’s share of the net inflows. Municipal bond funds took in $589 million net for the week. The net inflows into taxable bond funds were split between those to exchange-traded funds (ETFs) (+$8.6 billion net) and mutual funds (+$5.1 billion). On the ETF side, investors were buying iShares Short Treasury Bond ETF ( SHV , +$2.0 billion), iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF ( IEF , +$1.3 billion), and iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF ( IEI , +$927 million). For mutual funds, Lipper’s Core Plus Bond Funds classification led the way with positive flows of $2.3 billion. Equity ETFs (-$5.7 billion net) accounted for the bulk of the equity outflows, while equity mutual funds saw $1.5 billion leave. SPDR S&P 500 ETF ( SPY , -$2.2 billion) and iShares US Technology ETF ( IYW ,-$1.2 billion) experienced the biggest outflows among the ETFs. Net outflows on the mutual fund side were fairly evenly split between non-domestic equity (-$869 million) and domestic equity (-$608 million) funds. Municipal bond mutual funds took in $422 million net during the week. Once again, funds in the national municipal categories (+$464 million) were the main recipients of the positive flows. Lastly, money market funds saw their coffers reduced by $9.9 billion net during the week. Institutional money market funds (-$6.4 billion) were responsible for the bulk of the outflows. Are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Neutral Results for ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague