It is possible that the Value premium is so well known now and that so many people are trying to exploit it that the premium might have been arbitraged away. When strategies get too popular, they tend to stop working, at least in the shorter term. My own view is that the Value premium will return at some point as human nature never changes and new generations of investors have to relearn the lessons that older generations knew. In other words, there are always new suckers to exploit.
The trend back towards individual stocks is evident in the Robinhood trend where younger investors are speculating in riskier individual stocks, they don't know about Bogleheads or Index Funds or perhaps think they know better than their elders. The Robinhood phenomenon will create market inefficiencies that smarter, wiser investors can take advantage of.
As they say, a sucker is born every minute. Post by pseudoiterative » Sun Nov 07, am I suspect the "classical" definition of the "Value" factor focusing on book price, say may not work very well. Occasionally you hear someone talking about different, nonstandard ways to define value that make more sense -- e.
So DFA and Avantis combine factors. Avantis is coy, they talk about Academic Research and favorable pricing but they won't out and say that they are a Value shop. Avantis wants the flexibility to combine factors in a way that best matches what they see as the best opportunities. You want your factor loadings to generate a synergy and not just cancel each other out Jared Kizer wrote: Some factor premia have negative correlation with each other, namely value and momentum.
Practically, it is impossible, therefore, to own a stock portfolio that is both deeply tilted toward value and deeply tilted toward momentum. At best, stock portfolios can be moderately tilted toward both. More generally, it is not feasible to build portfolios that capture significant amounts of multiple factor premia. Post by whereskyle » Sun Nov 07, pm Thanks so much everyone for the input. I've long been uncomfortable with factor tilting of any kind because every tilt seems unjustifiable unless one thinks that one is smarter than the market.
After hearing your thoughts, that discomfort remains. I have no interest in playing the beat-the-market game. Post by dbr » Sun Nov 07, pm I suppose an argument can be made that any particular investment strategy is behavioral speculation because the prices at which any assets trade on the market and the terms and conditions at which any assets are presented to investors are a consequence of the behavior of the participants in investment, trade, and commerce, including setting the law.
To answer the OP question requires considerable refinement of exactly what is being asked. By contrast a question such as what is the mass of an electron does not depend on speculating on the behavior of human beings unless one wants to enter metaphysical realms such as whether or not the idea that electrons exist and have a mass does not start in human behavior. Jack Bogle's Words of Wisdom: "Never think you know more than the market. Nobody does. Momentum funds have very high turnover to capture the academic premium, but you can have both Momentum and Value and they can feature premiums simultaneously.
I believe it's arguing semantics. So money floods into Growth, overvaluing it dramatically, because it has a lottery-like effect that is hard for humans to collectively ignore. This effect can last a long time and be completely irrational. But over the long-term, reality kicks in. Growth underperforms and Value overperforms.
Unlikely to be arbitraged away, and with the rise of apps like Robinhood and speculation on Meme stocks being pumped through social media youtube, WSB, etc I think the effect will actually be magnified. Money hasn't flooded into value, it's done the opposite. So the expected premium for Value should be much higher now.
Post by acegolfer » Sun Nov 07, pm No to your answer. There's a neoclassical economic model that explains the value premium. The first is obvious: there has been no SCV premium since The second is that even before , economists debate whether the SCV was behavior based or risk based.
Nisprius' post quotes aspects of this debate. The distinction is extremely important. If it's risk based, the higher returns of SCV are just from taking more risk. I could get the same return with the same risk by just leveraging TSM slightly.
The fact that even before the evidence is inconclusive whether SCV is behavior or risk based and from what I've read the evidence is more on the side of it just being a premium for taking more risk - like leverage AND that it's not even present since , with much lower risk adjusted returns since , makes SCV totally unappealing to me. From what I've read the size premium only applies to small cap value It is found that smaller firms have had higher risk adjusted returns, on average, than larger got,d.
A growing body of evidence exists that small-capitalization stocks significantly outperform large-capitalization stocks. This effect is so strong and so consistent that even advocates of the Efficient Market Hypothesis have found no refutation of this effect. Unfortunately, the size premium basically disappeared in the U.
This is why I said that combining factors is a better strategy. I also have said that overdoing factor combination can actually lead to a cancelling out effect. If an individual wants to do factor tilting themselves, the best bet is with Small Value. If you find a Small Value fund that screens a bit for Quality, so much the better. That is about as far as I would take factors doing it myself.
Last edited by skierincolorado on Sun Nov 07, pm, edited 1 time in total. Post by nedsaid » Sun Nov 07, pm A big part of the reason that the factor premiums seemed to disappear has been the Large Growth trend from From mid through about mid, the Value premium and particularly for Small Value seemed to reappear with a vengeance. Since then Growth has roared back but Value is still ahead of Growth year to date for So hard to say if Value's re-emergence is a new market trend or just a one year blip.
We got head faked before, I think it was when Value looked like it was coming back only for Growth to reassert itself. So of course, the Small Value story won't look so good in an environment where Large Growth has predominated for over a decade. Too early to say that the factor premiums, particularly Value, has disappeared for good. Long periods of performance that matches TSM returns with no premium, but then the premium can show up profoundly in the span of a few years.
I do not see any evidence of this going away. Was Value dead before ? Post by abuss » Mon Nov 08, am I think most sectors and styles will have a day in the sun. The question becomes can an investor stay with a strategy over the long term? Factor investing small, value, and momentum is one such strategy. Dimensional Fund Advisors have been a pioneer in this area. But in exchange for the hope of high return, stocks are extremely volatile and risky.
Over time, stock prices roughly follow the trend of the economy, which is to grow. But prices can stagnate or decline for decade-long periods. This is why having an allocation to bonds is a necessary element of asset allocation. Bonds are a promise to pay back a loan of money on a pre-set schedule. Bonds do not produce the same expected high returns that stocks do, but they are much less volatile.
The way to get reasonable growth without stomach-churning drops is to hold a mix of stocks and bonds. How much in bonds? That's the basic question of asset allocation. Before you decide, you first need to balance your ability, willingness, and need to take risk. The more risk you can handle, the less bonds you need.
When you are young, your prime earning years lie ahead, and it will be decades before you need to access the money. So, higher stock allocations may be suitable since big drops in stock prices will not hurt as long as you do not flee the market. John Bogle advises that "as we age, we usually have 1 more wealth to protect, 2 less time to recoup severe losses, 3 greater need for income, and 4 perhaps an increased nervousness as markets jump around.
All four of these factors suggest more bonds as we age. Although your exact asset allocation should depend on your goals for the money, some rules of thumb exist to guide your decision. A rule of thumb is just: 1 a method of procedure based on experience and common sense ; 2 a general principle regarded as roughly correct but not intended to be scientifically accurate".
Consider Benjamin Graham's  timeless advice:. There is an implication here that the standard division should be an equal one, or , between the two major investment mediums. Bogle describes the idea as just "a crude starting point" which "[c]learly Bogle also suggests that, during the retirement distribution phase, you include as a bond-like component of your wealth and asset allocation the value of any future pension and Social Security payment you expect to receive.
Some Bogleheads do not add pensions and Social Security to their asset allocation of bond holdings. It is easy to underestimate risk and to overestimate your tolerance for risk. Many people found out the hard way after the crash of Those people learned too late they should have been holding more bonds, so you should think carefully before choosing an asset allocation with high stock market allocations. If you have not been through a major market downturn before, it is hard to explain how your logical considerations of risk can quickly become emotional ones.
There is an entire field of neuroeconomics now developing explaining how mental traits and emotional effects that work well in other areas undermine our ability to deal rationally with markets and investing. Bogleheads like to own bond funds instead of individual bonds for convenience and diversification. Using individual corporate or municipal bonds require a very large holding in order to achieve the broad diversification and increased safety of a bond fund.
The high number of different bonds in bond funds let you ignore the risk of any one bond defaulting. Interest rate risk can be managed if you select funds with short and intermediate-term duration , while default risk can be managed by selecting funds with high credit ratings.
The central idea here is that your bond holdings are for safety, to reduce violent up and down swings in overall portfolio value. Bogleheads tend to take risks on the equity side, not the bond side. The goal is to select an asset allocation that lets you sleep at night, and avoid the destructive urge to sell out in a panic the next time the market plummets; then having to agonize over when its a "good time' to get back in. This leads to selling low and buying high, the exact opposite of prudent investing.
Bogleheads typically divide bond allocations between just two categories: nominal bonds such as the Vanguard Total Bond Market Fund  , and U. They are sold directly to investors by the U. Treasury; can be bought using your IRS tax refund; don't need to be held in a tax-protected account; and accrue interest tax-deferred for up to 30 years. There are annual limits on how much you can buy in I-bonds. Once you establish a regular savings pattern, you can begin the process of accumulating financial wealth.
How much saving is enough? Twenty percent of income is a good baseline number. If you plan to retire before age 65 or plan to leave significant assets to charity or children, you probably need to save even more. Figure 1. The best way to save money is to arrange automatic deductions from your paycheck. Many k s already provide this convenience.
When you invest in an IRA or taxable account, select a fund company able to automatically deduct money from your bank account the day after pay day. This concept, described as "paying yourself first," goes a long way towards establishing and reinforcing reasonable spending habits. There are specific guidelines for which accounts you should fund and in what order.
But always remember, you first need to save the money. Saving regularly is more important than investment selection when starting this lifelong process. Rather than trying to pick the specific stocks or sectors of the market that may outperform in the future, Bogleheads buy funds that are widely diversified, or even approximate the whole market.
Being average sounds bad, but it is actually a great thing. That's because most investors perform worse than average after taking into account the high fees they can pay for actively managed funds. Studies of manager performance indicate that, before costs, managers, on average, possess stock selection skill, but actual performance is insufficient to overcome the costs of management. In addition, while there is evidence of persistence of poor performance, there is no evidence of persistence of outperformance.
Funds that outperform one year tend to underperform in the next. And in the real world, investors pay high fees on managed funds. That means more than half of those actively managed funds usually underperform index funds over the long haul. Simplicity is the master key to financial success. When there are multiple solutions to a problem, choose the simplest one.
It is not necessary to own many funds to achieve effective diversification. A single total stock market index fund contains thousands of stocks, including all styles and cap-sizes. A total bond market index fund contains thousands of bonds of various types and maturities.
A simple portfolio has many advantages. It almost always lowers costs including taxes , makes analysis easier, simplifies rebalancing, simplifies tax-preparation, reduces paper-work and record-keeping, and enables caregivers and heirs to easily take-over the portfolio when necessary. Best of all, a simple portfolio allows you to spend more time with family and friends, and less time managing your finances.
A portfolio held by many Bogleheads forum members is the three fund portfolio , which allocates investments among a U. Total stock market index fund, a Total International stock market index fund, and a U. S Total bond market index fund. Many Bogleheads extend the bond portion of this portfolio to include a fourth asset class, U.
The Vanguard Target Retirement and LifeStrategy funds add international bonds as a fourth asset class. As Bogleheads author William Bernstein says in reference to the three fund portfolio : "Does this portfolio seem overly simplistic, even amateurish? Get over it. Over the next few decades, the overwhelming majority of all professional investors will not be able to beat it.
If your entire portfolio is in a tax-advantaged account, you can simplify even further by owning a single Target Retirement or LifeStrategy fund. Some Bogleheads use more than three or four funds in their portfolios, but as with all investment decisions, you should be aware of the risks and costs before doing so.
Main articles: Indexing and Index fund. The best and lowest cost way to buy the whole stock market is with index funds either through traditional mutual funds or ETFs. The first such retail fund was pioneered by Jack Bogle in , and was called "Bogle's folly" by some members of the financial industry.
Today, Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund is the largest mutual fund in the world, and is also one of the best values. Fund expenses weigh in at about one-tenth the industry average. By purchasing this single fund, an investor owns a piece of essentially every public company in the US. This diversification lowers risk, because the failure of any one company does not have a big effect. The investor is still exposed to the high volatility of the overall stock market, but in exchange the investor gets to participate in whatever returns the market is generous enough to give over time.
Bogleheads also like to use low cost index funds to hold international stocks , so they can take advantage of economic growth in other countries. Vanguard Total International Stock Market Fund is one such fund that owns a portion of most international public companies in both the developed and developing worlds. International equity may or may not provide higher growth than US equity over time, and it has historically been even more volatile than domestic stocks. The difference between an expense ratio of 0.
After 30 years, a fund with a 1. Costs matter, and investors need returns compounding for their own benefit, not the benefit of fund companies who skim unnecessary fees off the top. Figure 2. Unfortunately, some k plans do not offer any index funds. In this unfortunate situation, Bogleheads generally look for the largest, most diversified funds with the lowest fees.
William J. If you want to reduce your portfolio risk, it is far more efficient to simply substitute riskless assets for risky ones rather than try to inoculate your risky assets with other risky and noncorrelating ones. I agree or mostly agree with Bernstein here about the profitability and practicality of using asset class correlations. However, I still see it as a flaw that a majority of the community pays little attention to how the returns and risks of the asset classes in a portfolio correlate.
And I see it as a flaw that some very vocal members of the community regularly display antagonism to thinking about asset class correlation. Regularly and over the long run, paying attention should help an investor enjoy either better returns or lower risks, a point the Vanguard Group itself makes in a free whitepaper you can download here. As Vanguard notes in its paper, correlations show the same sort of volatility as returns.
But you and I still should consider asset class correlations when we build portfolios. Lots more can be said about all this, but let me quickly share a comment from another expert. Ultimately, the behavioral benefits of diversification loom larger than the financial benefits. Investors with undiversified portfolios face enormous pressures, both internal and external, to change course when the concentrated strategy produces poor results… Unfortunately, diversification provides no guarantee that investors will stay the course through adverse conditions.
But, when only a portion of the portfolio suffers from dramatically adverse price moves, investors face a higher likelihood of riding out the storm. The Bogleheads founders, Taylor Larimore and Mel Lindauer, deserve much credit for promoting this possibility. But passive investing using index funds works pretty simply.
Given this simplicity, no reason exists for giving away ten to twenty percent of your investment income to some outside adviser for work that you can do yourself. An adviser fee calculated as a half a percent or a percent of your savings may equal ten or twenty percent of your investment income. And outside the area of passively investing using index funds, the do-it-yourself-ism of the Bogleheads sometimes goes off the rails.
An example of this: Coincidentally, the community regularly discusses an area of corporate tax law, Subchapter S taxation, that I specialize in. And our work in this specialty means we regularly collaborate with other accountants and attorneys both in the business world and from federal and state revenue agencies.
Lots of experience in other words. Regularly, Bogleheads discussions reach conclusions about Subchapter S taxation that are catastrophically wrong. Regularly, forum discussions include bad advice from well-intended amateurs that anyone with a year or two of relevant work experience would know enough not to utter. The problem more generally is the community assumes since crowd-sourced do-it-yourself-ism works for simple financial tasks, it works for more complex financial tasks.
Two quick tangential comments about this particular flaw. Second, absolutely online forums can perform complex problem solving see the blog post Using the Delphi Method for Small Business Problem Solving. But success seems to require a format very different from that used by the Bogleheads.
A final, special case quibble with the Bogleheads investment philosophy: The philosophy looks at the performance of active managers investing in traditional asset classes like stocks and bonds and then correctly points out that with traditional asset classes, active management loses over time as compared to passive management. Note: An active management approach means an investor tries to pick good investments and avoid bad investments. A passive management approach means an investor buys everything and accepts the average.
Active management costs lots of money as compared to passive management, unfortunately. Unfortunately, once you get outside of traditional asset classes and look at alternative asset classes like private equity, direct real estate investment, and absolute return investments like hedge funds, the landscape changes.
But Bogleheads often miss this reality. But three comments about that position. First, we may be forced into alternative asset classes. Do you own your own business? Or an interest in a professional services partnership or corporation? Are you directly investing in real estate?
Swensen, by the way, says individuals should avoid actively managed investments… And I agree with this general advice. Second, you ought to know that people can do really well with some of these alternative investments. Or direct leveraged real estate investment.
And then this third comment about an awkward set of statistics highlighted in the last big IRS wealth study. First, let me again say that the basic theory of the Bogleheads approach works really well. Low-cost index funds and a common sense asset allocation formula work better than most new investors realize.
Over the course of twenty years, the followers of John C. Bogle have evolved from a loose association of investors to a major force with the largest and most active non-commercial financial forum on the Internet. The Boglehead's Guide to Investing brings that communication to you with comprehensive guidance to the investment prowess on display at Bogleheads. You'll learn how to craft your own investment strategy using the Bogle-proven methods that have worked for thousands of investors, and how to: Choose a sound financial lifestyle and diversify your portfolio Start early, invest regularly, and know what you're buying Preserve your buying power, keeping costs and taxes low Throw out the «good» advice promoted by Wall Street that leads to investment failure Financial markets are essentially closed systems in which one's gain garners another's loss.
Investors looking for a roadmap to successfully navigating these choppy waters long-term will find expert guidance, sound advice, and a little irreverent humor in The Boglehead's Guide to Investing. A vid R eaders. The Barefoot Investor. The Science of Getting Rich.
Fix broken screen sure only trusted users can run. Submit a Comment free open-source cloud. Sign up or allow the attacker to cause the.
Now, you can simply use this formula to generate a Value Path for your investment. jellt.xyz › wiki › Value_averaging. This simple formula gives me the confidence to stay the course regardless of what's going on in the marketplace. Which brings me to value.