Loading...

Value versus Growth - An Empirical Analysis of Equity Fund Managers´ Capabilities to Generate Alpha

Bachelor Thesis 2012 59 Pages

Business economics - Business Management, Corporate Governance

Excerpt

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

List of Figures and Tables

1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Definition
1.2 Course of the Investigation

2 Techniques and Principles of Value and Growth Investing
2.1 Introduction and Characterisation of Value and Growth Investing
2.2 Instruments to Determine the Investment Style
2.2.1 Price-to-Earnings Ratio
2.2.2 Price-to-Book Value Ratio
2.2.3 Price-to-Cash Flow Ratio
2.2.4 Dividend Yield
2.3 Classification of Value and Growth Stocks and Funds
2.3.1 Classification in Theory by Researchers
2.3.2 Classification in Practice by Financial Data Providers

3 Performance Evaluation of Value and Growth Investing
3.1 Development of the Value Premium
3.2 Reasons for the Value Premium
3.2.1 Rational Explanation
3.2.2 Behavioural Explanation
3.2.3 Random or Chance Occurrence Explanation

4 Equity Fund Managers´ Capabilities to Generate Alpha
4.1 Problem Definition and Question of Analysis
4.2 Data Set Methodology
4.3 Performance Measurement Methodology
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Empirical Results of Equity Fund Managers´ Capabilities
4.4.2 Further Empirical Results Provided by Academic Researchers
4.5 Reasons for the Outperformance of Growth Equity Funds
4.6 Recommendations for Investors Based on the Empirical Findings

5 Summary and Conclusion

Reference List

Appendix

List of Abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1: The Morningstar Equity Box

Figure 2: Performance of the MSCI Global Growth and the MSCI Global Value between 2000-2011 and 2007-2011

Figure 3: Risk-Return Deviation of Value and Growth Funds between 2007 and 2011

Figure 4: Development of the Fund Volume of Exchange-Traded Funds between 2001 and 2010

Tables

Table 1: Distinguishing Features of Value and Growth Investing

Table 2: Performance and Risk of Value and Growth Funds between
2007 and 2011

Table 3: Empirical Evaluation of Value and Growth Funds in Comparison to their Internal Benchmark

Table 4: Performance Assessment of Value and Growth Funds in Comparison to their Internal Benchmark

Table 5: Empirical Evaluation of Value and Growth Funds in Comparison to an External Benchmark

Table 6: Performance Assessment of Value and Growth Funds in Comparison toan External Benchmark

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Definition

Portfolio managers face the challenge to achieve excess returns comparative to a benchmark for their private or institutional clients. Researchers such as Fama and French (1992, 1996) or Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1994) caused a stir with their findings that various investment styles tend to accomplish superior returns over a long-term horizon. Their findings proposed that value stocks tend to outperform growth stocks. Throughout the academic activities, additional researchers supported the findings of Fama and French. They achieved the same results in different time periods and with different explanations for the superior returns. Investors closely tracked the academic findings because of the effects on their investment behavior. When value stocks tend to outperform growth stocks within a certain investment region, fund managers with a value investment approach should beat growth fund managers. Investors, who invest in the funds market, expect from their portfolio managers excess returns compared to a stated benchmark. Otherwise, investors would have no incentive to invest in an active portfolio management approach.
This bachelor thesis raises the question whether value or growth fund managers are able to achieve a persistent outperformance relative to their internal and external benchmark. The findings have a crucial influence on investors considering an investment into the equity market by an active or passive portfolio management approach. Therefore, three different hypotheses will be discussed:

1. If both investment styles generate a persistent alpha in comparison to their internal as well as external benchmark investors shall follow an active investment approach.
2. If one investment style outperforms the other one in comparison to a certain benchmark investors shall choose the favourable style while investing in an investment region.
3. If both investment styles underperform relative to their internal as well as external benchmark investors shall invest in passive index tracking vehicles.

1.2 Course of the Investigation

This bachelor thesis is structured into five chapters. The introduction defines and raises the question of analysis of this bachelor thesis.

The second chapter provides an overview of the techniques and principles of value and growth investing. Therefore, the first sub-section introduces and characterizes value and growth investors by their historic background, investment approach, and different classification instruments. These instruments, in particular the price-to-earnings ratio, price-to-book value ratio, price-to-cash flow ratio, and the dividend yield, are illustrated in the second sub-section. The third sub-section of the second chapter expounds how researchers and practitioners distinguish between the investment style of stocks and funds.

The third chapter outlines the relative performance of value and growth stocks in different time periods as well as in different investment regions. Furthermore, the empirical results and their explanations are outlined in the second sub-section of the third chapter. Especially the rational, behavioural, and chance or occurrence explanations for the superior rate of return of value stocks are explained in the second sub-section.

The fourth chapter is the main part of the bachelor thesis. The first sub-section states the problem definition whether value or growth equity funds are able to achieve persistent excess returns relative to their internal and external benchmark. Moreover, the second and third sub-sections cover the data set and performance methodology that was used to answer the question of analysis. The fourth sub-section of the fourth chapter provides empirical results in the course of this bachelor thesis comparative to past empirical results found out by researchers. Possible reasons for the empirical results and recommendations for investors based on these findings close the fourth chapter.

The fifth chapter concludes and summarizes the empirical findings and raises further questions for future academic research.

2 Techniques and Principles of Value and Growth Investing

2.1 Introduction and Characterisation of Value and Growth Investing

Academic researchers, private or institutional investors, and professional portfolio managers analysed stocks and portfolios in order to develop explanations for different risk and return patterns observed from past performances. Within a short period of time, theoretical and practical researchers identified different investment styles which served as a classification to identify equity market strategies. Investors divide the equity market into “Value” and “Growth” stocks regarding the structure, sector, or strategy. The first concept, defining the value approach, was established by Benjamin Graham, the so-called father of value investing, in the late 1930s. Graham and Dodd (1940) established the fundamental analysis in their book Security Analysis: Principles and Techniques , which aims at the analysis of stock companies with respect to their operating numbers. This analysis is based on current accounting and stock market information. In particular, Graham analysed stocks with his mathematical knowledge using mainly quantitative evaluation methods. The value approach should identify stocks which were empirically undervalued. Value investing tries to target on superior returns by buying undervalued stocks. These are stocks that are neglected, unpopular, or out-of-favour but economically profitable and low priced (Postert, 2007, p. 46). Value investors attempt to determine the intrinsic value or fundamental value of stocks by applying financial ratios which focus on the net asset value of the company in relation to the current stock price.

The most notable financial ratios are the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E), the price-to-book value of equity ratio (P/BV), the price-to-cash flow (P/CF) ratio, and the dividend yield. Companies with low financial ratios and high dividend yields, compared to their historic values or to those of their peer group, are attractive for value investors (Mobius, 2007, p. 245). Value investors try to pick up bargains by buying undervalued stocks and wait for other investors realising the undervaluation and invest in the stock until it reaches its intrinsic or fair value. Hence, value investors try to buy low-priced undervalued stocks and sell them at a higher fair price (Haslem, 2003, p. 264). Nevertheless, value investors face the risk that their perceived undervaluation was incorrect and consequently the fair value appears only several years after the investment or it never reaches its expected fair value (Postert, 2007, p. 74)

For value investors, the growth component in sales or earnings is often subordinated to the financial ratios, which focus merely on the accounting figures relative to the current stock price. In contrast, growth investors seek exactly for this growth component whilst investing in a stock (Garman & Forgue, 2011, p. 463). Growth investors search for stocks with superior expected earnings or sales growth (Haslem, 2003, p. 264). The first well-known growth investors were Thomas Rowe Price Jr. and Philip Fisher. Both aimed at innovative companies with high potential for future growth in the 1940s and 1950s (Postert, 2007, p. 45). During the selection process, especially after evaluating the business model of a potential investment, Fisher emphasized the importance of the analysis of the management of a company. To rate the potential in achieving the earnings level Fisher expected from his investment, he conducted interviews with senior managers as well as checked their curricula vitae (CVs) (Fisher, 2003, pp. 214-216). Fisher assessed the capabilities to be innovative by analysing the product development potential, the ability to create future trade channels, or the dismantling of entry barriers against future competitors (Fisher, 2003, p. 254). Growth stocks seemed to be an attractive investment when the growth part was above-average, even in times of economic recessions.

In the beginning of growth investing, investors tried to identify companies with organic growth which were not driven by a policy of expansion. Bernstein (1956) stated, “[. . .] organic company growth can only be achieved by technological progress” (p. 91). In addition, he defined growth companies as economic entities which grew faster in earnings in comparison to their peers within the same industry (Bernstein, 1956, p. 87). However, these criteria soften throughout the decades because of the changing business models. Nowadays, growth companies often start their business without consistent profits within the first years of business. Hence, negative cash flows appear to be the normality and losses do not preclude start-up companies to be identified as growth investments (Brettel, Rudolf, & Witt, 2005, p. 5).

While value investors try to identify bargains, growth investors are willing to pay a relatively high price, in terms of financial ratios, when the stock price is justified by a solid growth story. The expected growth story projects increasing stock prices in the near future. Growth investors believe in rising stock prices if companies´ earnings meet or exceed their own and analysts´ expectations (Mobius, 2007, p. 73). In addition, growth stocks can be identified by relatively high P/BV, P/E, or P/CF metrics. Growth investors justify a high P/E ratio by an attractive enterprise perspective with superior earnings.

Growth investing can further be divided into sub-categories such as aggressive growth and growth at a reasonable price. Aggressive growth or momentum investors invest in more speculative stocks with volatile price movements, striving for the highest short-term capital appreciation possible (Garman & Forgue, 2011, p. 463). In particular, the aggressive growth strategy is, in comparison to other investment strategies, more venturous as it means ignoring value measures based on fundamental data. Investors select stocks with the expectation of rapidly increasing stock prices on a monthly or daily basis. Moreover, the selected stocks are often recommended with a “strong buy” judgment from analysts who cover the companies. As a result, momentum investors typically sell the stocks when the companies´ quarterly earnings announcements did not show an extraordinary growth part because investors regard this as an indicator for a future share price decline (Mobius, 2007, p. 74).

A more conservative growth investing style is termed growth at a reasonable price (GARP). GARP investors seek for companies which have the characteristics of future above-average earnings. Thereby, they are barely willing to pay high stock prices. They search for growth stocks dropped in value due to disappointing internal or external events. The declining share prices make the stocks appear to be cheap compared with their assets or with their peer group. GARP investors such as value investors choose companies they predict to recover in value within a short period of time (Mobius, 2007, p. 73).

To sum up, value investors search for undervalued stocks while growth investors search for stocks with superior expected earnings growth (Haslem, 2003, p. 264). Value investors compare the book or intrinsic value with the current stock market value and invest in a lower-valued latter. Investors expect that the market corrects the undervaluation through an increase of the stock price. In contrast, growth investors select stocks with high expected earnings which are not fully appreciated in the stock price. Even though the stock price is not relatively cheap, future earnings justify the current and even higher stock prices in the future (Postert, 2007, p. 31). Table 1 depicts the main characteristics of value and growth investing. However, there is not a clear rule that distinguishes value from growth. The variables are not determinative for undervalued stocks. Therefore, investments in stocks with high P/E and P/BV ratios and low dividend yields are not inevitably contradictory with value stocks (Haslem, 2003, p. 264). Nevertheless, the attributes stated are, according to the academic literature, the major distinguishing features between value and growth. All features should be understood as relative values in relation to competitors within the peer group.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

2.2 Instruments to Determine the Investment Style

As stated in sub-section 2.1, financial ratios classify and distinguish value and growth stocks. The most common and most important instruments are the price-to-earnings ratio, the price-to-book value of equity ratio, the price-to-cash flow ratio, and the dividend yield. However, the instruments are not an exclusive enumeration but cover the main ratios researchers use to categorise growth and value stocks.

2.2.1 Price-to-Earnings Ratio

The price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is calculated by dividing the current stock market price by the earnings per share during the past 12 months (Mobius, 2007, p. 73). A company´s P/E ratio indicates how much investors are willing to pay for each dollar or euro of reported earnings (Brigham & Houston, 2011, p. 320). A relatively high P/E ratio indicates that investors are willing to pay a high price because of the expectation that the invested company can increase its earnings in the near future. Hence, a high P/E ratio indicates that a company is relatively expensive for investors. On the contrary, a low P/E ratio could display that investors do not believe that the company can increase its profits and thus they are only willing to pay a relatively low price. Value investors interpret a low P/E ratio as a sign of an undervaluation compared with the company´s peer group.

However, a valuation of a stock, only based on the P/E ratio, could lead to a misinterpretation because earnings can be subject to accounting manipulations (Brigham & Houston, 2011, p. 320).

Investors do not only calculate and interpret the current P/E ratio; but also they evaluate historic average and future estimated P/E ratios. Anderson and Brooks (2006) stated that a P/E ratio calculated on the basis of an eight-year average of earnings is twice as effective in predicting returns as the traditional one-year P/E ratio (p. 1084).

Value investor Warren Buffett suggests that “the P/E ratio limit should be set at 25 times average earnings, and not more than 20 times those of the last 12 months” (Jain, 2010, p. 27) when considering an investment in a stock. In particular, Buffett examines the P/E ratio over a five- and ten-year average to evaluate an under- or overvaluation of a stock.

2.2.2 Price-to-Book Value Ratio

The price-to-book value of equity (P/BV) ratio is calculated by dividing the current stock market price by the company´s book value per stock (Mobius, 2007, p. 73). The book value of equity is defined as the difference between the book value of assets and the book value of liabilities (Damodaran, 2002, p. 511). The P/BV ratio shows the relation between the market value and book value of equity. A P/BV ratio of more than 1 indicates that other investors value the assets of the firm higher than their balance sheet value. This could indicate the willingness to pay for intangible assets that are partially denoted in the balance sheet (Peddina, 2010, p. 147). A P/BV multiple below 1 signals that investors value the assets of the firm lower than the book value. A low P/BV ratio implies that investors who would buy the company and directly liquidate it in selling all its assets would receive more money than the initial purchase price (Sommer, 2012, pp. 14-16). Hence, a low P/BV ratio indicates an undervaluation of a company.

Analysts use the P/BV ratio because the book value of equity provides a stable and intuitive measure that can be matched with the current stock market price. Furthermore, companies can be evaluated as they generate losses. Therefore, the P/BV ratio can be applied when the P/E ratio lacks validity (Damodaran, 2002, p. 514). On the one hand, the P/BV ratio provides a good measurement of comparability among companies within the same industry because accounting standards are fairly consistent; on the other hand, differences in local accounting standards, especially across different countries, and the different interpretation of accounting standards (US-GAAP, IFRS) can make the P/BV ratio not applicable when comparing investment alternatives. The disadvantage of the P/BV ratio as a single valuation tool is that only the book value of equity is evaluated without considering the earnings situation and potential. Furthermore, certain industries such as service enterprises can hardly be measured by using the book value of equity because of their high value of intangible assets, which are only partially reflected in the balance sheet (Schacht & Fackler, 2009, p. 266). In addition, the interpretation of the P/BV ratio can be misleading. In general, a relatively high ratio indicates an overvaluation whereas a relatively low ratio shows an undervaluation. However, a low ratio can also indicate that investors expect the future book value of equity to be decreasing because of potential future losses. These losses would be reflected by a lower stock price. On the contrary, a high P/BV ratio can indicate that investors expect higher future earnings which would increase the book value of equity (Heese, 2011, p. 87).

To sum up, the P/BV ratio is one of the most noted ratios to determine value and growth investors. Keener (2011) showed that earnings and the book value of equity are both significant predictors of future price movements. Through a cross-sectional time-series regression, Keener (2011) signified that earnings and the book value explained about 41.30% of the variation in stock prices in the period of 1982-2001 (p. 6). Collins, Maydew, and Weiss (1997) came to the same conclusion that earnings and book value mutually explained about 54% of the variation in price movements between 1953 and 1993 in the U.S. stock market (p. 72).

2.2.3 Price-to-Cash Flow Ratio

The price-to-cash flow (P/CF) ratio is calculated by dividing the current stock market price by the free cash flow per stock in the most recent fiscal year (McKenzie, 2003, p. 275). The free cash flow is defined as the amount of cash available to a company after paying all of its expenses (Temple, 2007, p. 173). It is calculated as the difference between the operating cash flow and the capital expenditures. The P/CF ratio evaluates a company based on the degree of liquidity. Furthermore, the cash flow reveals the internal financing and expansion potential of a company because cash flows determine mainly the investment capabilities (Temple, 2007, p. 55).

The P/CF ratio is often more useful than the P/E ratio in cases of companies with significant non-cash expenses such as depreciation or amortization (Dreman, 1998, pp. 178-179). In contrast to earnings, cash flows are often more stable, less subject to accounting manipulation, and provide a more unbiased view on the financial situation of a company. In comparison to the P/BV ratio and the P/E ratio, a low P/CF ratio indicates an undervalued stock, and a high P/CF ratio indicates an overvalued stock. Especially value investors try to identify potential investments with low P/CF ratios whereas growth investors accept relatively high P/CF ratios.

2.2.4 Dividend Yield

The dividend yield is calculated by dividing the dividend per stock by the current stock market price. In cases in which the stock price is very volatile, the dividend yield is assessed by using the average market price during the measurement period (Bragg, 2010, p. 204). The dividend yield is useful to determine the return earned by an investor ignoring any capital gains that may arise from stock price movements. In comparison to other companies, investors will purchase the stock with the highest dividend yield assumed all other things being equal (GroppelliNikbakht, 2006, p. 473).

Investors analyse the dividend yield because of its function to serve as a proxy for profitability. In particular, companies with a strong financial situation are able to pay out significant dividends. Moreover, the dividend yield reveals the managements´ alternatives to use their generated profits. A company with adequate growth opportunities may invest all available cash flows into internal investments rather than paying out dividends (Warren, Reeve, & Duchac, 2011, p. 685).

Growth investors often choose stocks with low dividend yields because of their high expected future growth. These companies operate generally in cyclical or technical industries (Moyer, McGuigan, & Kretlow, 2008, p. 72). Growth stocks tend to retain their earnings for investments in future growth. In contrast, high stable and steadily growing companies tend to pay out higher dividends which are frequent indicators of low future growth prospects. However, extraordinary high dividend yields could be a signal for a company facing financial instability. The stock market could expect future dividend cuts and lower the stock price due to massive sales orders (Moyer, McGuigan, & Kretlow, 2008, p. 74).

2.3 Classification of Value and Growth Stocks and Funds

Value and growth stocks cannot be classified by means of the absolute P/E ratio, P/BV ratio, P/CF ratio, or dividend yield. Therefore, researchers and practitioners who analysed both investment styles developed classification systems to distinguish between value and growth on relative figures.

2.3.1 Classification in Theory by Researchers

Researchers sorted value and growth stocks either by a one-dimensional classification or by a two-dimensional classification. The one-dimensional classification divides a sample of stocks solely by the P/BV ratio, P/CF ratio, or the P/E ratio. In contrast, the two-dimensional classification combines accounting ratios and growth figures to determine the investment style of a stock. Therefore, value and growth stocks are classified by the P/BV ratio and the sales growth; or they are classified by the P/CF ratio and the sales growth. Through a two-dimensional classification, the identification of value and growth stocks is not only based on past performance (depicted by the past sales growth) but rather on a combination of past and expected future performance (depicted by P/CF or P/BV) (Beukes, 2011, p. 2).

The method most commonly used by researchers to analyse value and growth stocks consists of dividing companies into portfolios based on a one- or two-dimensional classification. Furthermore, the portfolios are ranked from high value to high growth based on their relative measures. Fama and French (1992) sorted value and growth portfolios according to the P/BV ratio and the P/E ratio (p. 442). Chan, Hamao, and Lakonishok (1991) added an analysis based on the P/CF ratio (p. 1748). In addition, Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1994) sorted value and growth stocks by a two-dimensional classification based on sales growth and P/CF ratio as well as on the sales growth and P/BV ratio. Gregory, Harris, and Michou (2001) studied UK stocks between 1975 and 1998 by means of a two-dimensional classification. The portfolios were deployed by the past sales growth and further filed within each portfolio by the P/CF ratio, P/BV ratio, or the P/E ratio (pp. 1205-1206). Beyond the classification based on financial ratios, researchers subdivide value and growth stocks according to their market capitalisation. Chan, Karceski, and Lakonishok (2000) divided U.S. stocks based on the P/E ratio as well as on the market capitalisation (p. 24). The market capitalisation is used to demonstrate the size effect which states that small-cap companies tend to achieve superior returns relative to large-cap companies (Berk & DeMarzo, 2007, p. 402).

2.3.2 Classification in Practice by Financial Data Providers

2.3.2.1 Financial Data Providers focusing on Stocks

Financial data providers focusing on stocks such as the Russell Investment Group (RIG), Standard and Poor´s Financial Services LLC (S&P), or MSCI Inc. provide equity indices for various purposes. Indices present global and local market performance benchmarks for investment trusts. Besides, they provide replicable models for passive investment portfolios such as Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). Academic researchers and most of the financial media use equity indices as an objective indicator of the total market and individual segment performance. Further, equity indices provide the fundament for various financial instruments and risk management tools (Russell Investments, 2012). All financial data providers offer equity indices that distinguish stocks according to their investment style. However, the disposition to determine value and growth stocks varies among the different index providers.

Russell Investment Group (RIG)

RIG uses three different variables for their Russell Global Indexes to determine value and growth. These are the P/BV ratio, the forecasted earnings for the next two years, and the growth of sales from the last five years. The forecasted earnings are based on the Institutional Brokers Estimate System (I/B/E/S). I/B/E/S is a database of earnings expectations received from more than 2,500 analysts. The forecasted earnings information is updated on a weekly basis and covers the gathered opinions of financial professionals (Institutional Brokers Estimate System, 2012). The P/BV ratio has no absolute limitations but is rather determined by the value relative to an appropriate market index. The three variables are converted into a composite value score (CVS) and ranked according their CVS score. In general, stocks with a low CVS score are classified as growth and stocks with a high CVS score are classified as value, whereas stocks in the middle range are considered value and growth and weighted proportionally to the respective index. As a result, stocks are presented with the mix of their value and growth weight. In particular, a stock with a 40% weight in a global value index will have a 60% weight in a global growth index (Russell Investments Indices Methodology, 2012).

The most well-known value and growth indices from Russell Global Indexes are the Russell Global Growth and the Russell Global Value Index. By the end of November 2011, the average variables for the Russell Global Growth Index were:

P/BV ratio = 2.89, two-year forecasted earnings = 13.21%, and growth of the past five-year sales = 11.90%.

By the end of November, the average variables for the Russell Global Value Index were:

P/BV ratio = 1.09, two-year forecasted earnings = 9.23%, and growth of the past five-year sales = 2.50% (Russell Global Indexes, 2011).

Standard and Poor´s Financial Services LLC (S&P)
S&P divides the stocks of broad based market indices into value and growth stocks according to their financial metrics. The most popular investment style indices are the S&P Pure Growth and S&P Pure Value. The pure style indices cover approximately a third of the market capitalisation of the broad market index. In particular, the style indices are determined by two separate dimensions including three variables per dimension.

Growth stocks are identified by the three-year change in the P/E ratio, three-year sales growth rate, and the momentum which is the last 12-month percentage change in price.

Value stocks are identified according to the P/BV ratio, the P/E ratio, and the P/Sales ratio.

A score for each stock is computed according to the average of the growth and value dimensions. As a result, all stocks are classified according to their relative score. Stocks which score highest in value and growth are classified as pure and included in the pure style indices (Standard and Poor´s, 2012).

2.3.2.2 Financial Data Providers focusing on Funds

Financial data providers focusing on funds such as Morningstar Inc. and Lipper Inc. offer investors information about the performance, investment style, fund assets, or asset holding structure of mutual funds. Therefore, private as well as institutional investors use the databases of the data providers to evaluate and compare equity mutual funds. The investment style is often classified by the portfolio holdings within the fund in comparison to a broad market index or to a fund within the same peer group.

Morningstar Inc.

Morningstar Inc. is a Chicago based data provider which publishes mutual fund analysis, ratings, and commentaries. Morningstar Inc. uses their equity style box (3 x 3 matrix) to classify the size and investment style of equity mutual funds relative to peer group funds and relative to benchmarks (Haslem, 2003, pp. 206-207).

The Morningstar equity box is a nine-square grid which classifies equity mutual funds according to asset size on the vertical axis and according to value and growth characteristics along the horizontal axis (Figure 1). The determination of size is based on the stock market´s capitalisation relative to the cumulative market capitalisation of its style zone. Large stocks rank among the top 70% of the capitalisation of each style zone; mid-cap stocks account for the next 20%; and small-cap stocks represent the remaining 10%.

Value and growth funds are determined by the portfolio holdings within the fund. The value score components consist of forward looking measures and historical based measures. The forward looking measurement is expressed by the projected P/E ratio, whereas the historical based measurements are expressed by the P/BV ratio, P/Sales ratio, P/CF ratio, and the dividend yield. Forward and historical measurements are weighted equally.

The forward looking measure of the growth score consists solely of the long-term projected earnings growth rate. In contrast, the historical based measures consist of the historical earnings, sales, cash flow, and book value growth rates.

The stocks in the equity fund are given a value and growth score based on the fundamental measures. Moreover, the scores of the stocks are compared to other stocks in their style zone and against stocks in their peer group according to size. The difference between the growth and the value score is the net style score which classifies the investment style. Blend stocks occur when the scores of value and growth are similar in strength (Morningstar Style Box Methodology, 2012).

[...]

Details

Pages
59
Year
2012
ISBN (eBook)
9783656178248
ISBN (Book)
9783656180173
File size
782 KB
Language
English
Catalog Number
v192205
Institution / College
EBS European Business School gGmbH
Grade
1,00
Tags
value growth empirical analysis equity fund managers´ capabilities generate alpha

Author

Previous

Title: Value versus Growth - An Empirical Analysis of Equity Fund Managers´ Capabilities to Generate Alpha