AVUV - difficult to hold

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
rkhusky
Posts: 17767
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rkhusky »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:34 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:27 am At least with bonds you know the nominal return. With stocks you don’t know the nominal or real return. And a value for the expected return is suspect unless you can make a convincing argument for the future probability distribution.

The uncertainty in stocks is so much greater than for bonds that comparing the difference between two categories of bonds to the difference between two categories of stocks to the difference between stocks and bonds makes little sense. They are at least an order of magnitude apart.

Bond category differences are small with low uncertainty. Stock category differences are small with high uncertainty. Bond category vs stock category differences are large with high uncertainty.

And I note that in factor equations, the market return is compared to a risk free investment, typically a short term Treasury.
The amount of uncertainty isn’t relevant. What is relevant is by virtue of discounting certain stocks, the market is pricing these stocks with a higher expected premium
The amount of uncertainty is equivalent to the risk, which is certainly relevant.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:21 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:34 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:27 am At least with bonds you know the nominal return. With stocks you don’t know the nominal or real return. And a value for the expected return is suspect unless you can make a convincing argument for the future probability distribution.

The uncertainty in stocks is so much greater than for bonds that comparing the difference between two categories of bonds to the difference between two categories of stocks to the difference between stocks and bonds makes little sense. They are at least an order of magnitude apart.

Bond category differences are small with low uncertainty. Stock category differences are small with high uncertainty. Bond category vs stock category differences are large with high uncertainty.

And I note that in factor equations, the market return is compared to a risk free investment, typically a short term Treasury.
The amount of uncertainty isn’t relevant. What is relevant is by virtue of discounting certain stocks, the market is pricing these stocks with a higher expected premium
The amount of uncertainty is equivalent to the risk, which is certainly relevant.
Then you agree Value stocks have higher risk due to increased uncertainty over earnings and growth and therefore are priced for higher expected returns
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
JSPECO9
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:34 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by JSPECO9 »

beezlebub wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:15 am 80% of the time in the past; it's a shame we can't invest in the past. If I recall correctly from another thread, your experiment with tilting has resulted in underperformance compared to the S&P 500 or TSM to date.
VISVX has outperformed VTSMX over its lifetime.
DFSVX has outperformed VTSMX over its lifetime.
DISVX has outperformed VGTSX over its lifetime.
DFEVX has outperformed VEIEX over its lifetime.

I don't understand why MCW advocates point to past couple of years of outperformance, but completely disregard the longer term. At the very least, we should agree that past performance doesn't guarantee future results for any strategy, but we shouldn't point to past performance simply when it works in our favor.
rkhusky
Posts: 17767
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rkhusky »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:34 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:21 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:34 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:27 am At least with bonds you know the nominal return. With stocks you don’t know the nominal or real return. And a value for the expected return is suspect unless you can make a convincing argument for the future probability distribution.

The uncertainty in stocks is so much greater than for bonds that comparing the difference between two categories of bonds to the difference between two categories of stocks to the difference between stocks and bonds makes little sense. They are at least an order of magnitude apart.

Bond category differences are small with low uncertainty. Stock category differences are small with high uncertainty. Bond category vs stock category differences are large with high uncertainty.

And I note that in factor equations, the market return is compared to a risk free investment, typically a short term Treasury.
The amount of uncertainty isn’t relevant. What is relevant is by virtue of discounting certain stocks, the market is pricing these stocks with a higher expected premium
The amount of uncertainty is equivalent to the risk, which is certainly relevant.
Then you agree Value stocks have higher risk due to increased uncertainty over earnings and growth and therefore are priced for higher expected returns
I think the uncertainty in future total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. The market has an expectation that the future total return of growth stocks will be higher than for value stocks, compared to current total return, hence their higher price. In that sense, average return expectations is the big driver for price for these market segments.

For individual stocks, uncertainty in total return is a bigger driver of prices. For two stocks with similar total return expectations, the one with lower uncertainty in total return will command a higher price. Similarly, if two stocks have similar uncertainty, the one with higher return expectations will fetch a higher price. If stock investors had control over return, the stocks with higher uncertainty would command a higher return.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:54 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:34 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:21 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:34 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:27 am At least with bonds you know the nominal return. With stocks you don’t know the nominal or real return. And a value for the expected return is suspect unless you can make a convincing argument for the future probability distribution.

The uncertainty in stocks is so much greater than for bonds that comparing the difference between two categories of bonds to the difference between two categories of stocks to the difference between stocks and bonds makes little sense. They are at least an order of magnitude apart.

Bond category differences are small with low uncertainty. Stock category differences are small with high uncertainty. Bond category vs stock category differences are large with high uncertainty.

And I note that in factor equations, the market return is compared to a risk free investment, typically a short term Treasury.
The amount of uncertainty isn’t relevant. What is relevant is by virtue of discounting certain stocks, the market is pricing these stocks with a higher expected premium
The amount of uncertainty is equivalent to the risk, which is certainly relevant.
Then you agree Value stocks have higher risk due to increased uncertainty over earnings and growth and therefore are priced for higher expected returns
I think the uncertainty in future total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. The market has an expectation that the future total return of growth stocks will be higher than for value stocks, compared to current total return, hence their higher price. In that sense, average return expectations is the big driver for price for these market segments.

For individual stocks, uncertainty in total return is a bigger driver of prices. For two stocks with similar total return expectations, the one with lower uncertainty in total return will command a higher price. Similarly, if two stocks have similar uncertainty, the one with higher return expectations will fetch a higher price. If stock investors had control over return, the stocks with higher uncertainty would command a higher return.
If this is the case, then why do we have quantifiable measures of higher volatility in aggregate for Value stocks vs Growth stocks, as well as persistently higher value premiums as showcased in the chart I posted previously in this thread?
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
abc132
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by abc132 »

JSPECO9 wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:04 pm
beezlebub wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:15 am 80% of the time in the past; it's a shame we can't invest in the past. If I recall correctly from another thread, your experiment with tilting has resulted in underperformance compared to the S&P 500 or TSM to date.
VISVX has outperformed VTSMX over its lifetime.
DFSVX has outperformed VTSMX over its lifetime.
DISVX has outperformed VGTSX over its lifetime.
DFEVX has outperformed VEIEX over its lifetime.

I don't understand why MCW advocates point to past couple of years of outperformance, but completely disregard the longer term. At the very least, we should agree that past performance doesn't guarantee future results for any strategy, but we shouldn't point to past performance simply when it works in our favor.
Here are some of the issues:
1) total market has no beginning date and total market funds have far less survival bias
2) new factor funds are created every year and defined from their inception date
3) the factor funds that overperform tend to survive
4) many of these funds on your list would not exist today if they had underperformed --> factor money goes to the top performers
5) you ignore all the other factors that people could have invested in that resulted in negative value

Factor proponents only talk about the best performing factor funds. "AVUV knows how to do it". "Vanguard is doing it wrong with VIOV".

Picking an advantageous inception date and only focusing on the best performing factor funds produces an incorrect perception of factors. Ignoring the historical fees produces a bigger advantage than actually existed.

Because factor investors have very little standards on which to define factor performance they will always be choosing overperforming backtests as their representation of what happened. I have to laugh when people say all we had to do was choose international small cap value - as if we knew that in advance. Factor investors will always think they have a bigger advantage than they do - "because AVUV knows how to do it" "because all we had to do was choose international small cap value".

While there are individuals who can separate these things, much of of the factor crowd produces a very biased view of factors based on the above criteria. Remember the market is just one factor which studies show we can't actionably use valuations to move in and out of. Active stock funds can on average beat the market factor but not after fees. But suddenly factor spreads tell us how to move in and out of the value factor. Studies show how we choose stocks doesn't work but suddenly how we choose our factors matters. Factor investors equate all these things as factors and treat factors that are not the market much differently - it is like they haven't learned any of the lessons about the market factor. If you learned that you can't actionably time the stock market factor, then you can't do this for other factors.

If we are going to give other factors different properties than the market...
1) how we own them matters
2) we can actionably move in and out of them
3) we have to choose the right combination of them

I move we start calling them figments instead of factors. Use your imagination because with these definitions we will always be able to create figments that outperform the market average and we will never have to predict in advance what is actually going to work. With these definitions factors literally can't fail - even if they don't exist.

The factor community is a mess because of their lack of definitions and the resulting inability to form or test a hypothesis. People will just change definitions to make factors "true" because something will always have outperformed the average. You have to have testable definitions of factors for them to be fairly evaluated. Lacking this, we know what the investment community will do. If AVUV underperforms you will just have a new candidate that "knows how to do it better".

There is nothing wrong with factor theory but factor investors should demand far more:
- consistent, testable, and timeless definitions
- forward predictions that can eventually be proven true/false
- agreed upon standard of references for value performance, momentum performance, etc.

Without these you are just picking the overperformers after the fact and you don't know if you actually have anything actionable.
beezlebub
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:23 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by beezlebub »

JSPECO9 wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:04 pm
beezlebub wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:15 am 80% of the time in the past; it's a shame we can't invest in the past. If I recall correctly from another thread, your experiment with tilting has resulted in underperformance compared to the S&P 500 or TSM to date.
VISVX has outperformed VTSMX over its lifetime.
DFSVX has outperformed VTSMX over its lifetime.
DISVX has outperformed VGTSX over its lifetime.
DFEVX has outperformed VEIEX over its lifetime.

I don't understand why MCW advocates point to past couple of years of outperformance, but completely disregard the longer term. At the very least, we should agree that past performance doesn't guarantee future results for any strategy, but we shouldn't point to past performance simply when it works in our favor.
Yet the past is just that -- the past. I could point to any various actively managed funds that have beat total market over the long term, and would you then have the confidence to invest in them based on past results? Doubtful. I am simply not convinced by "financial science" of these funds like Avantis. If those factors/sectors outperform, that's fantastic since they are already included in VTI. I see no need for myself, or any rational investor, to tilt a portfolio based on backtesting data and claiming that the right ratio of this or the right weighting of that will result in long term future outperformance.

And as another poster already pointed out, it's easy to look back now and decide which factor fund(s) you want to focus on, but at the time there were numerous factors to be selected from and outside of a handful of a very select few, so where did the rest end up? These factors will eventually fail and/or experience a long period of underperformance, and when that happens the factor crowd (those that has 5-15 tickers listed in their signature block) will simply say "well, it would have worked if only ____ held constant", switch to the newest, shiny factor fund based on the new, "improved" data, and claim that the future is bright. For those that like to tinker I imagine it's a fun little hobby for them, but for me it's a waste of time and antithetical to the reasons I was drawn to the Boglehead approach in the first place, which is not to be concerned by all of the noise and swayed by fancy financial products and slick marketing.
Last edited by beezlebub on Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
broncocountry25
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 11:49 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by broncocountry25 »

Tune out the noise!

We have our Roth IRAs fully invested in SCV for the long run VBR & AVUV. One piece of the puzzle that we aren't budging on sounds like you need to figure out your long term investment policy.
JSPECO9
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:34 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by JSPECO9 »

beezlebub wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:22 am
Yet the past is just that -- the past. I could point to any various actively managed funds that have beat total market over the long term, and would you then have the confidence to invest in them based on past results? Doubtful. I am simply not convinced by pseudo the "financial science" of these funds like Avantis. If those factors/sectors outperform, that's fantastic since they are already included in VTI. I see no need for myself, or any rational investor, to tilt a portfolio based on backtesting data and claiming that the right ratio of this or the right weighting of that will result in long term future outperformance.
You're absolutely correct. It's a bad idea to simply look at a backtest and create a portfolio out of it. I was responding to you pointing out that Nathan Drake's portfolio has underperformed US-TSM. It isn't relevant that his portfolio has underperformed (only the U.S. market, you shouldn't ignore ex-US), what matters is that he invest with conviction and sticks to his strategy, not a couple of years of underperformance.

For OP, it doesn't look like he has the same conviction. He should stick to U.S.-TSM (likely wont be able to stick with the actual global haystack either, considering international stock market has also underperformed for so long).

Unfortunately, OP, like many other investors, fall pray to recency bias and performance chasing, and can only buy and hold U.S. TSM. I just hope that if we have a decade like 99-09, OP can continue to stick with his U.S. TSM approach only.
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by secondopinion »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:11 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:54 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:34 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:21 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:34 pm

The amount of uncertainty isn’t relevant. What is relevant is by virtue of discounting certain stocks, the market is pricing these stocks with a higher expected premium
The amount of uncertainty is equivalent to the risk, which is certainly relevant.
Then you agree Value stocks have higher risk due to increased uncertainty over earnings and growth and therefore are priced for higher expected returns
I think the uncertainty in future total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. The market has an expectation that the future total return of growth stocks will be higher than for value stocks, compared to current total return, hence their higher price. In that sense, average return expectations is the big driver for price for these market segments.

For individual stocks, uncertainty in total return is a bigger driver of prices. For two stocks with similar total return expectations, the one with lower uncertainty in total return will command a higher price. Similarly, if two stocks have similar uncertainty, the one with higher return expectations will fetch a higher price. If stock investors had control over return, the stocks with higher uncertainty would command a higher return.
If this is the case, then why do we have quantifiable measures of higher volatility in aggregate for Value stocks vs Growth stocks, as well as persistently higher value premiums as showcased in the chart I posted previously in this thread?
Explain which quantifiable measures show higher volatility for value stocks versus growth. If the stocks had completely known earnings (not constant exactly but known), they would still not have the same PE because some defer the earnings out (the growth stocks) while some have a lot of earnings up front (value stocks); in this case, those with the higher PE would in fact be riskier (at least by short-term metrics) due to effective duration.
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
rushrocker
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:54 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rushrocker »

Today is a tough day to be a SCV holder. So RIP to the AVUV holding of anyone with SCV doubts before today :mrgreen:
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:38 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:11 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:54 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:34 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:21 pm
The amount of uncertainty is equivalent to the risk, which is certainly relevant.
Then you agree Value stocks have higher risk due to increased uncertainty over earnings and growth and therefore are priced for higher expected returns
I think the uncertainty in future total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. The market has an expectation that the future total return of growth stocks will be higher than for value stocks, compared to current total return, hence their higher price. In that sense, average return expectations is the big driver for price for these market segments.

For individual stocks, uncertainty in total return is a bigger driver of prices. For two stocks with similar total return expectations, the one with lower uncertainty in total return will command a higher price. Similarly, if two stocks have similar uncertainty, the one with higher return expectations will fetch a higher price. If stock investors had control over return, the stocks with higher uncertainty would command a higher return.
If this is the case, then why do we have quantifiable measures of higher volatility in aggregate for Value stocks vs Growth stocks, as well as persistently higher value premiums as showcased in the chart I posted previously in this thread?
Explain which quantifiable measures show higher volatility for value stocks versus growth. If the stocks had completely known earnings (not constant exactly but known), they would still not have the same PE because some defer the earnings out (the growth stocks) while some have a lot of earnings up front (value stocks); in this case, those with the higher PE would in fact be riskier (at least by short-term metrics) due to effective duration.
Higher volatility and max drawdowns
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by secondopinion »

Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:29 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:38 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:11 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:54 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 7:34 pm

Then you agree Value stocks have higher risk due to increased uncertainty over earnings and growth and therefore are priced for higher expected returns
I think the uncertainty in future total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. The market has an expectation that the future total return of growth stocks will be higher than for value stocks, compared to current total return, hence their higher price. In that sense, average return expectations is the big driver for price for these market segments.

For individual stocks, uncertainty in total return is a bigger driver of prices. For two stocks with similar total return expectations, the one with lower uncertainty in total return will command a higher price. Similarly, if two stocks have similar uncertainty, the one with higher return expectations will fetch a higher price. If stock investors had control over return, the stocks with higher uncertainty would command a higher return.
If this is the case, then why do we have quantifiable measures of higher volatility in aggregate for Value stocks vs Growth stocks, as well as persistently higher value premiums as showcased in the chart I posted previously in this thread?
Explain which quantifiable measures show higher volatility for value stocks versus growth. If the stocks had completely known earnings (not constant exactly but known), they would still not have the same PE because some defer the earnings out (the growth stocks) while some have a lot of earnings up front (value stocks); in this case, those with the higher PE would in fact be riskier (at least by short-term metrics) due to effective duration.
Higher volatility and max drawdowns
Could you share the source of information where this is observed?
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:36 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:29 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:38 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:11 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:54 pm
I think the uncertainty in future total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. The market has an expectation that the future total return of growth stocks will be higher than for value stocks, compared to current total return, hence their higher price. In that sense, average return expectations is the big driver for price for these market segments.

For individual stocks, uncertainty in total return is a bigger driver of prices. For two stocks with similar total return expectations, the one with lower uncertainty in total return will command a higher price. Similarly, if two stocks have similar uncertainty, the one with higher return expectations will fetch a higher price. If stock investors had control over return, the stocks with higher uncertainty would command a higher return.
If this is the case, then why do we have quantifiable measures of higher volatility in aggregate for Value stocks vs Growth stocks, as well as persistently higher value premiums as showcased in the chart I posted previously in this thread?
Explain which quantifiable measures show higher volatility for value stocks versus growth. If the stocks had completely known earnings (not constant exactly but known), they would still not have the same PE because some defer the earnings out (the growth stocks) while some have a lot of earnings up front (value stocks); in this case, those with the higher PE would in fact be riskier (at least by short-term metrics) due to effective duration.
Higher volatility and max drawdowns
Could you share the source of information where this is observed?
Portfolio Visualizer

Compare VUG to DFSVX
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by secondopinion »

Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:38 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:36 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:29 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:38 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:11 pm

If this is the case, then why do we have quantifiable measures of higher volatility in aggregate for Value stocks vs Growth stocks, as well as persistently higher value premiums as showcased in the chart I posted previously in this thread?
Explain which quantifiable measures show higher volatility for value stocks versus growth. If the stocks had completely known earnings (not constant exactly but known), they would still not have the same PE because some defer the earnings out (the growth stocks) while some have a lot of earnings up front (value stocks); in this case, those with the higher PE would in fact be riskier (at least by short-term metrics) due to effective duration.
Higher volatility and max drawdowns
Could you share the source of information where this is observed?
Portfolio Visualizer

Compare VUG to DFSVX
But that is comparing small-cap against large-cap essentially. Most of the volatility could be explained from that alone. :?
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:59 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:38 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:36 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:29 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:38 pm

Explain which quantifiable measures show higher volatility for value stocks versus growth. If the stocks had completely known earnings (not constant exactly but known), they would still not have the same PE because some defer the earnings out (the growth stocks) while some have a lot of earnings up front (value stocks); in this case, those with the higher PE would in fact be riskier (at least by short-term metrics) due to effective duration.
Higher volatility and max drawdowns
Could you share the source of information where this is observed?
Portfolio Visualizer

Compare VUG to DFSVX
But that is comparing small-cap against large-cap essentially. Most of the volatility could be explained from that alone. :?
You can compare small cap growth to small cap value and get the same result
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Marseille07 »

Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:10 pm You can compare small cap growth to small cap value and get the same result
What conclusions are you drawing if volatility & max drawdowns are bigger?
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by secondopinion »

Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:10 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:59 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:38 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:36 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:29 pm

Higher volatility and max drawdowns
Could you share the source of information where this is observed?
Portfolio Visualizer

Compare VUG to DFSVX
But that is comparing small-cap against large-cap essentially. Most of the volatility could be explained from that alone. :?
You can compare small cap growth to small cap value and get the same result
But here is the question; is it value minus quality versus growth + quality (and still have some size effect)? Technically speaking, if the earnings are expected to be similar but the risk is higher in stock A than B, it usually stands to reason that stock A will have a lower PE. But that is not "value" (value meaning the timeline of expected earnings is rather front heavy), that is minus quality (quality meaning surety of earnings). If requiring profitability is part of the selection, then you have already thrown out the riskiest growth stocks (since any earnings are certainly in the future rather than the present). Value stocks have to, by definition of front heavy earnings, already be profitable.

In general, I would think that the PE would drift towards the average if the expected outcome realizes (low PE -> higher PE due to earnings drop, high PE -> lower PE due to earnings increase).
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:43 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:10 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:59 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:38 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:36 pm

Could you share the source of information where this is observed?
Portfolio Visualizer

Compare VUG to DFSVX
But that is comparing small-cap against large-cap essentially. Most of the volatility could be explained from that alone. :?
You can compare small cap growth to small cap value and get the same result
But here is the question; is it value minus quality versus growth + quality (and still have some size effect)? Technically speaking, if the earnings are expected to be similar but the risk is higher in stock A than B, it usually stands to reason that stock A will have a lower PE. But that is not "value" (value meaning the timeline of expected earnings is rather front heavy), that is minus quality (quality meaning surety of earnings). If requiring profitability is part of the selection, then you have already thrown out the riskiest growth stocks (since any earnings are certainly in the future rather than the present). Value stocks have to, by definition of front heavy earnings, already be profitable.

In general, I would think that the PE would drift towards the average if the expected outcome realizes (low PE -> higher PE due to earnings drop, high PE -> lower PE due to earnings increase).
Value is traditionally defined as low P/B, though other metrics can be used such as P/S, P/CF, etc.

Funds like Avantis also implement quality measures like profitability, but it is not seeking the absolute highest profitability sorts as those are expensively priced.

The point is, in aggregate Value stocks have higher risk measures compared to Growth, which accounts for some of the premium. The other side of the premium may be behavioral but unlikely to be arbitraged away
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by secondopinion »

Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:15 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:43 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:10 pm
secondopinion wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:59 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:38 pm

Portfolio Visualizer

Compare VUG to DFSVX
But that is comparing small-cap against large-cap essentially. Most of the volatility could be explained from that alone. :?
You can compare small cap growth to small cap value and get the same result
But here is the question; is it value minus quality versus growth + quality (and still have some size effect)? Technically speaking, if the earnings are expected to be similar but the risk is higher in stock A than B, it usually stands to reason that stock A will have a lower PE. But that is not "value" (value meaning the timeline of expected earnings is rather front heavy), that is minus quality (quality meaning surety of earnings). If requiring profitability is part of the selection, then you have already thrown out the riskiest growth stocks (since any earnings are certainly in the future rather than the present). Value stocks have to, by definition of front heavy earnings, already be profitable.

In general, I would think that the PE would drift towards the average if the expected outcome realizes (low PE -> higher PE due to earnings drop, high PE -> lower PE due to earnings increase).
Value is traditionally defined as low P/B, though other metrics can be used such as P/S, P/CF, etc.

Funds like Avantis also implement quality measures like profitability, but it is not seeking the absolute highest profitability sorts as those are expensively priced.

The point is, in aggregate Value stocks have higher risk measures compared to Growth, which accounts for some of the premium. The other side of the premium may be behavioral but unlikely to be arbitraged away
I look at the timeline of expected earnings as the main determination of value versus growth because it is the only means for a "risk-free" version of a stock to differ (in this hypothetical, cap does not matter, profitability is assumed, and many factors disappear; only a known stream of earnings exist).

If one can argue that value is riskier due to the discount given to riskier stocks and they are more likely to show up in the portfolio, that makes sense. Beyond this, I really cannot say that value is riskier by itself merely on when earnings are expected.
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
Gaston
Posts: 1220
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Gaston »

Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:15 pm Value is traditionally defined as low P/B, though other metrics can be used such as P/S, P/CF, etc.
Where I sometimes get confused is in the definition of “low”. Financial pundits sometimes say value has a low PE relative to growth. Even if this is true, it still might be possible that value and growth are both overvalued.

It seems more important to look at value not relative to growth, but to value’s own historical trend.

Am I thinking about this correctly?
“My opinions are just that - opinions.”
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by secondopinion »

Gaston wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:56 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:15 pm Value is traditionally defined as low P/B, though other metrics can be used such as P/S, P/CF, etc.
Where I sometimes get confused is in the definition of “low”. Financial pundits sometimes say value has a low PE relative to growth. Even if this is true, it still might be possible that value and growth are both overvalued.

It seems more important to look at value not relative to growth, but to value’s own historical trend.

Am I thinking about this correctly?
Sadly, the market real yields do differ over time. Therefore, it can be "overvalued" in that sense. However, one has to adjust for this to determine if a stock is really a value stock.

That is, if real yields were really high, everything would look like a value stock otherwise.
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
rkhusky
Posts: 17767
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rkhusky »

Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:11 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:54 pm I think the uncertainty in future total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. The market has an expectation that the future total return of growth stocks will be higher than for value stocks, compared to current total return, hence their higher price. In that sense, average return expectations is the big driver for price for these market segments.

For individual stocks, uncertainty in total return is a bigger driver of prices. For two stocks with similar total return expectations, the one with lower uncertainty in total return will command a higher price. Similarly, if two stocks have similar uncertainty, the one with higher return expectations will fetch a higher price. If stock investors had control over return, the stocks with higher uncertainty would command a higher return.
If this is the case, then why do we have quantifiable measures of higher volatility in aggregate for Value stocks vs Growth stocks, as well as persistently higher value premiums as showcased in the chart I posted previously in this thread?
A lot of the value outperformance was from past eras where markets were less efficient. Since the WWW was just starting in the early 90’s, about the same time as the FF model was published, the modern era of investing could be said to have started in the early 2000’s, which was still a good time for Value. Since then, there is no clear consensus for a positive value premium.

If I look at the future instead of the past, the uncertainty of total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. Can all the growth stocks that have had little to no profit actually make money? Or can the growth stocks that are making money expand and make even more money? Can the value stocks that seem to be on the path to bankruptcy turn things around?
Will the value companies that consistently make money but haven’t been able to expand or find new markets do so? The future remains hazy.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Marseille07 »

Gaston wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:56 pm Where I sometimes get confused is in the definition of “low”. Financial pundits sometimes say value has a low PE relative to growth. Even if this is true, it still might be possible that value and growth are both overvalued.

It seems more important to look at value not relative to growth, but to value’s own historical trend.

Am I thinking about this correctly?
Yes, you are thinking correctly. There's quite a bit more to investing than just buying "low PE" stocks - they might stay low for various reasons.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

Gaston wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:56 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:15 pm Value is traditionally defined as low P/B, though other metrics can be used such as P/S, P/CF, etc.
Where I sometimes get confused is in the definition of “low”. Financial pundits sometimes say value has a low PE relative to growth. Even if this is true, it still might be possible that value and growth are both overvalued.

It seems more important to look at value not relative to growth, but to value’s own historical trend.

Am I thinking about this correctly?
It is possible that both Value and Growth are overvalued. You would need a scenario whereby both the spread between Value and Growth narrows, and where the valuation of Growth is high.

The way you evaluate this is to compare both Growth and Value relative to their own historical valuations. Right now, Value is at roughly the historical average in the US, and extremely cheap in exUS markets. Growth, however, is historically overvalued relative to its own history.

But Value funds can combat this to a certain degree by having higher concentrations in Value stocks, which you sacrifice some diversification for. You would need the spreads to be narrow across the entire spectrum of stocks which is unlikely given how the markets work.
rkhusky wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 5:24 pm
Nathan Drake wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:11 pm
rkhusky wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:54 pm I think the uncertainty in future total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. The market has an expectation that the future total return of growth stocks will be higher than for value stocks, compared to current total return, hence their higher price. In that sense, average return expectations is the big driver for price for these market segments.

For individual stocks, uncertainty in total return is a bigger driver of prices. For two stocks with similar total return expectations, the one with lower uncertainty in total return will command a higher price. Similarly, if two stocks have similar uncertainty, the one with higher return expectations will fetch a higher price. If stock investors had control over return, the stocks with higher uncertainty would command a higher return.
If this is the case, then why do we have quantifiable measures of higher volatility in aggregate for Value stocks vs Growth stocks, as well as persistently higher value premiums as showcased in the chart I posted previously in this thread?
A lot of the value outperformance was from past eras where markets were less efficient. Since the WWW was just starting in the early 90’s, about the same time as the FF model was published, the modern era of investing could be said to have started in the early 2000’s, which was still a good time for Value. Since then, there is no clear consensus for a positive value premium.

If I look at the future instead of the past, the uncertainty of total return for value stocks is about the same as for growth stocks. Can all the growth stocks that have had little to no profit actually make money? Or can the growth stocks that are making money expand and make even more money? Can the value stocks that seem to be on the path to bankruptcy turn things around?
Will the value companies that consistently make money but haven’t been able to expand or find new markets do so? The future remains hazy.
Value outperformance has nothing to do with market inefficiencies. The past few years Value has outperformed; does that mean the markets became less efficient?
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
rushrocker
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:54 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rushrocker »

Since 1972, small cap growth has been riskier than small cap value:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

Why hasn't this "risk" given us excess return?
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:45 am Since 1972, small cap growth has been riskier than small cap value:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

Why hasn't this "risk" given us excess return?
Because it contains a lot of junk that appeals to gamblers chasing skew, the behavioral aspect is real and unlikely to be arbitraged as long as humans have a propensity to gamble on lottery picks. We are seeing signs of these behaviors all over the place the past few years. These don’t appear to be compensated risk premiums

Value is clearly riskier than “the market”
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
rushrocker
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:54 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rushrocker »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:50 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:45 am Since 1972, small cap growth has been riskier than small cap value:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

Why hasn't this "risk" given us excess return?
Because it contains a lot of junk that appeals to gamblers chasing skew, the behavioral aspect is real and unlikely to be arbitraged as long as humans have a propensity to gamble on lottery picks. We are seeing signs of these behaviors all over the place the past few years. These don’t appear to be compensated risk premiums

Value is clearly riskier than “the market”
It definitely is. But so is growth.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

As you mentioned about growth underperforming. To me, that explanation is a more compelling risk based explanation than for value. Higher standard deviations, bigger drawdowns, and lots of lottery picking with chances to go bust. Sounds awful risky to me. So why not higher returns than a market-neutral asset class?
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:57 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:50 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:45 am Since 1972, small cap growth has been riskier than small cap value:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

Why hasn't this "risk" given us excess return?
Because it contains a lot of junk that appeals to gamblers chasing skew, the behavioral aspect is real and unlikely to be arbitraged as long as humans have a propensity to gamble on lottery picks. We are seeing signs of these behaviors all over the place the past few years. These don’t appear to be compensated risk premiums

Value is clearly riskier than “the market”
It definitely is. But so is growth.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

As you mentioned about growth underperforming. To me, that explanation is a more compelling risk based explanation than for value. Higher standard deviations, bigger drawdowns, and lots of lottery picking with chances to go bust. Sounds awful risky to me. So why not higher returns than a market-neutral asset class?
It’s an uncompensated risk, like stock picking

Value is not uncompensated, we clearly see persistent and robust premiums

Not all risks are compensated
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
rushrocker
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:54 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rushrocker »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:04 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:57 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:50 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:45 am Since 1972, small cap growth has been riskier than small cap value:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

Why hasn't this "risk" given us excess return?
Because it contains a lot of junk that appeals to gamblers chasing skew, the behavioral aspect is real and unlikely to be arbitraged as long as humans have a propensity to gamble on lottery picks. We are seeing signs of these behaviors all over the place the past few years. These don’t appear to be compensated risk premiums

Value is clearly riskier than “the market”
It definitely is. But so is growth.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

As you mentioned about growth underperforming. To me, that explanation is a more compelling risk based explanation than for value. Higher standard deviations, bigger drawdowns, and lots of lottery picking with chances to go bust. Sounds awful risky to me. So why not higher returns than a market-neutral asset class?
It’s an uncompensated risk, like stock picking

Value is not uncompensated, we clearly see persistent and robust premiums

Not all risks are compensated
Well that is a very convenient story. It's true to say that we have seen persistent and robust premiums, in all markets, and averse to redefinition. It's also true to say it was compensated, but whether it was easy to capture that compensation as a retail investor is another question. Costs and barriers to trading where much greater in the past, which could be the only reason that premium existed. Now days, all of Wall Street has a super computer combing the mines for excess returns, 24/7, and we can buy small cap value in 2 seconds on a cell phone. How can it truly be so simple to say that there's a known premium going forward?
Apathizer
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:56 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Apathizer »

rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:27 am Well that is a very convenient story. It's true to say that we have seen persistent and robust premiums, in all markets, and averse to redefinition. It's also true to say it was compensated, but whether it was easy to capture that compensation as a retail investor is another question. Costs and barriers to trading where much greater in the past, which could be the only reason that premium existed. Now days, all of Wall Street has a super computer combing the mines for excess returns, 24/7, and we can buy small cap value in 2 seconds on a cell phone. How can it truly be so simple to say that there's a known premium going forward?
It's not so simple and unknown. It's more accurate, I think, to infer a premium is reasonably likely, though might be reduced by arbitrage. It's likely to persist, at least somewhat I think, since behavioral and cognitive errors are also likely to persist among at least some investors. That is, some investors have unrealistically lofty expectations for sexy growth companies while dismissing more mundane but financially solid value companies.
ROTH: 50% AVGE, 10% DFAX, 40% BNDW. Taxable: 50% BNDW, 40% AVGE, 10% DFAX.
rkhusky
Posts: 17767
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rkhusky »

Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:49 pm Value outperformance has nothing to do with market inefficiencies. The past few years Value has outperformed; does that mean the markets became less efficient?
It did in the past. Now it is the result of random market fluctuations. Value is underperforming in 2023.
swilgu1
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:31 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by swilgu1 »

rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:27 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:04 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:57 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:50 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:45 am Since 1972, small cap growth has been riskier than small cap value:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

Why hasn't this "risk" given us excess return?
Because it contains a lot of junk that appeals to gamblers chasing skew, the behavioral aspect is real and unlikely to be arbitraged as long as humans have a propensity to gamble on lottery picks. We are seeing signs of these behaviors all over the place the past few years. These don’t appear to be compensated risk premiums

Value is clearly riskier than “the market”
It definitely is. But so is growth.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

As you mentioned about growth underperforming. To me, that explanation is a more compelling risk based explanation than for value. Higher standard deviations, bigger drawdowns, and lots of lottery picking with chances to go bust. Sounds awful risky to me. So why not higher returns than a market-neutral asset class?
It’s an uncompensated risk, like stock picking

Value is not uncompensated, we clearly see persistent and robust premiums

Not all risks are compensated
Well that is a very convenient story. It's true to say that we have seen persistent and robust premiums, in all markets, and averse to redefinition. It's also true to say it was compensated, but whether it was easy to capture that compensation as a retail investor is another question. Costs and barriers to trading where much greater in the past, which could be the only reason that premium existed. Now days, all of Wall Street has a super computer combing the mines for excess returns, 24/7, and we can buy small cap value in 2 seconds on a cell phone. How can it truly be so simple to say that there's a known premium going forward?
There are lots of different kinds of risk and not all are captured by standard deviation and max drawdown. Because of how cap weighting works, value tends to have a lower correlation to the market than growth, and therefore introduces tracking error regret. There are also industry risks with value. Value strategies tend to allocate to riskier parts of the economy. We're seeing that show up in volatility with the banking drawdowns recently and AVUV's heavy allocation to financials. But it doesn't always show up in volatility and instead shows up with risks like FOMO (e.g. "will small cap value companies be the ones to benefit from AI") due to the fact that value strategies tend to allocate to out of favor industries and sometimes "old economy" areas of business.

A couple of the examples of increased risk with value strategies I mentioned above are certainly alive and well despite new and better technology.
muffins14
Posts: 5529
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:14 am
Location: New York

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by muffins14 »

rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:27 am Now days, all of Wall Street has a super computer combing the mines for excess returns, 24/7, and we can buy small cap value in 2 seconds on a cell phone.
The Wall Street supercomputer May have a very different objective function than you do. They may be looking for returns over 5 seconds, 5 minutes, some hours. Maybe they do quarterly reporting and need to show good, stable returns for investors. Maybe you don’t care all all about the next 10 years and want the best portfolio size in year 25.

That would lead to different willingness to pay for certain assets. For example maybe they are willing to take less returns in expectation to avoid some kind of outcome. Perhaps you don’t care about that outcome, so you buy a little more of the thing they don’t want as much of
Crom laughs at your Four Winds
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:14 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:49 pm Value outperformance has nothing to do with market inefficiencies. The past few years Value has outperformed; does that mean the markets became less efficient?
It did in the past. Now it is the result of random market fluctuations. Value is underperforming in 2023.
Value in exUS is still outperforming this year

Is 100 years of market data all random fluctuations? Why should we trust the market factor over bonds?
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:27 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:04 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:57 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:50 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:45 am Since 1972, small cap growth has been riskier than small cap value:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

Why hasn't this "risk" given us excess return?
Because it contains a lot of junk that appeals to gamblers chasing skew, the behavioral aspect is real and unlikely to be arbitraged as long as humans have a propensity to gamble on lottery picks. We are seeing signs of these behaviors all over the place the past few years. These don’t appear to be compensated risk premiums

Value is clearly riskier than “the market”
It definitely is. But so is growth.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

As you mentioned about growth underperforming. To me, that explanation is a more compelling risk based explanation than for value. Higher standard deviations, bigger drawdowns, and lots of lottery picking with chances to go bust. Sounds awful risky to me. So why not higher returns than a market-neutral asset class?
It’s an uncompensated risk, like stock picking

Value is not uncompensated, we clearly see persistent and robust premiums

Not all risks are compensated
Well that is a very convenient story. It's true to say that we have seen persistent and robust premiums, in all markets, and averse to redefinition. It's also true to say it was compensated, but whether it was easy to capture that compensation as a retail investor is another question. Costs and barriers to trading where much greater in the past, which could be the only reason that premium existed. Now days, all of Wall Street has a super computer combing the mines for excess returns, 24/7, and we can buy small cap value in 2 seconds on a cell phone. How can it truly be so simple to say that there's a known premium going forward?
More flawed arguments that ease of access means diminished or no premiums going forward

Is that the case for basic total market index funds? Those are far more ubiquitous than SCV funds in retirement plans
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
rushrocker
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:54 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rushrocker »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:18 am More flawed arguments that ease of access means diminished or no premiums going forward

Is that the case for basic total market index funds? Those are far more ubiquitous than SCV funds in retirement plans
All participants can, and must in aggregate, own the market portfolio. All participants can not own the SCV portfolio. The more people that own it, the more its returns revert to the return of the market.
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 17413
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by White Coat Investor »

Yesterdaysnews wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:06 pm I absolutely find the data behind factor investing convincing and believe AVUV is a good product.... but man does it make it difficult to hold, especially in an IRA where there is no tax consequence to dumping it.

It seems to be a significant drag on overall portfolio returns for me personally. International has even done better overall.

I can see the allure of factor investing but it absolutely tests the commitment of the investor and who knows may never actually yield any excess returns..... Factor investing is a tough game to play.
Yup. Don't tilt more than you believe.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:56 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:18 am More flawed arguments that ease of access means diminished or no premiums going forward

Is that the case for basic total market index funds? Those are far more ubiquitous than SCV funds in retirement plans
All participants can, and must in aggregate, own the market portfolio. All participants can not own the SCV portfolio. The more people that own it, the more its returns revert to the return of the market.
None of this is logically consistent

Prices are set at the margin by active trading
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by burritoLover »

If you want to take on more risk on the equity side, without increasing its allocation, tilting towards factors would be the way to do it. It's that simple.

These conversations are always ridiculous because usually those pooh-poohing factors envision it as some free lunch, while the factor-heads think the historical factor premiums are highly likely to persist going forward. Both are wrong.
rkhusky
Posts: 17767
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rkhusky »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:08 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:14 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:49 pm Value outperformance has nothing to do with market inefficiencies. The past few years Value has outperformed; does that mean the markets became less efficient?
It did in the past. Now it is the result of random market fluctuations. Value is underperforming in 2023.
Value in exUS is still outperforming this year

Is 100 years of market data all random fluctuations? Why should we trust the market factor over bonds?
In the past there were inefficiencies and random fluctuations. Now there is much less inefficiency and the random fluctuations are the main drivers of value under- and over-performing.

Stocks and bonds are different investments. Value and growth stocks are the same investment - in fact a value stock can become a growth stock, and vice-versa.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

burritoLover wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:12 am If you want to take on more risk on the equity side, without increasing its allocation, tilting towards factors would be the way to do it. It's that simple.

These conversations are always ridiculous because usually those pooh-poohing factors envision it as some free lunch, while the factor-heads think the historical factor premiums are highly likely to persist going forward. Both are wrong.
Why are factor premiums unlikely to persist if that argument is wrong?

Is the market premium gone?
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:22 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:08 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:14 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:49 pm Value outperformance has nothing to do with market inefficiencies. The past few years Value has outperformed; does that mean the markets became less efficient?
It did in the past. Now it is the result of random market fluctuations. Value is underperforming in 2023.
Value in exUS is still outperforming this year

Is 100 years of market data all random fluctuations? Why should we trust the market factor over bonds?
In the past there were inefficiencies and random fluctuations. Now there is much less inefficiency and the random fluctuations are the main drivers of value under- and over-performing.

Stocks and bonds are different investments. Value and growth stocks are the same investment - in fact a value stock can become a growth stock, and vice-versa.
Market inefficiencies have nothing to do with risk premiums

If you believe in market efficiency, you should believe in risk premiums for stocks with additional fundamental risks that are compensated
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
rkhusky
Posts: 17767
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rkhusky »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:30 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:22 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:08 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:14 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:49 pm Value outperformance has nothing to do with market inefficiencies. The past few years Value has outperformed; does that mean the markets became less efficient?
It did in the past. Now it is the result of random market fluctuations. Value is underperforming in 2023.
Value in exUS is still outperforming this year

Is 100 years of market data all random fluctuations? Why should we trust the market factor over bonds?
In the past there were inefficiencies and random fluctuations. Now there is much less inefficiency and the random fluctuations are the main drivers of value under- and over-performing.

Stocks and bonds are different investments. Value and growth stocks are the same investment - in fact a value stock can become a growth stock, and vice-versa.
Market inefficiencies have nothing to do with risk premiums

If you believe in market efficiency, you should believe in risk premiums for stocks with additional fundamental risks that are compensated
Investors should seek a premium for taking a risk. But that’s difficult for stocks because investors have no control over stock returns. While investors might be able to discern that one stock appears to have higher risk compared to another stock, the investor has no control over the returns of either stock.
Nathan Drake
Posts: 6237
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by Nathan Drake »

rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:40 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:30 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:22 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:08 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:14 am
It did in the past. Now it is the result of random market fluctuations. Value is underperforming in 2023.
Value in exUS is still outperforming this year

Is 100 years of market data all random fluctuations? Why should we trust the market factor over bonds?
In the past there were inefficiencies and random fluctuations. Now there is much less inefficiency and the random fluctuations are the main drivers of value under- and over-performing.

Stocks and bonds are different investments. Value and growth stocks are the same investment - in fact a value stock can become a growth stock, and vice-versa.
Market inefficiencies have nothing to do with risk premiums

If you believe in market efficiency, you should believe in risk premiums for stocks with additional fundamental risks that are compensated
Investors should seek a premium for taking a risk. But that’s difficult for stocks because investors have no control over stock returns. While investors might be able to discern that one stock appears to have higher risk compared to another stock, the investor has no control over the returns of either stock.
The market sets prices which feature higher discount rates for companies seen as riskier. This is efficient markets in action

Otherwise, nobody would hold value stocks
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
rushrocker
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:54 am

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rushrocker »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:09 am
rushrocker wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:56 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:18 am More flawed arguments that ease of access means diminished or no premiums going forward

Is that the case for basic total market index funds? Those are far more ubiquitous than SCV funds in retirement plans
All participants can, and must in aggregate, own the market portfolio. All participants can not own the SCV portfolio. The more people that own it, the more its returns revert to the return of the market.
None of this is logically consistent

Prices are set at the margin by active trading
It was actually your logic I was refuting lol. That was the illogically inconsistent part, not my reply. Let me try to explain...

Your question/comment was if ease of access to the TSM could reduce its premium, conflating the idea that ease of access to SCV wouldn't reduce its premium.

I pointed out that everyone can own TSM, but the same can not be said for SCV.

Therefore answer is no for TSM, and yes for SCV.
muffins14
Posts: 5529
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:14 am
Location: New York

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by muffins14 »

rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:22 am Value and growth stocks are the same investment
I would certainly disagree. I think something with P/E of 10 is different from something with P/E of 40. there is at a minimum some information on expected future revenue growth, or perceived riskiness of ability to realize expected upcoming earnings
Crom laughs at your Four Winds
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by burritoLover »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:28 am
burritoLover wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:12 am If you want to take on more risk on the equity side, without increasing its allocation, tilting towards factors would be the way to do it. It's that simple.

These conversations are always ridiculous because usually those pooh-poohing factors envision it as some free lunch, while the factor-heads think the historical factor premiums are highly likely to persist going forward. Both are wrong.
Why are factor premiums unlikely to persist if that argument is wrong?

Is the market premium gone?
I didn't say they were unlikely to persist but many factor-lovers seem to think it is highly likely that they'll get the full historical premium going forward. And there is still a possibility that there's no statistically significant premium in the future (or even a negative premium) - that is often not even considered a possibility by many who are factor tilting. I tilt to SCV 30% but I understand that even over 30+ years, it is possible I'll be worse off than if I had just gone with a market-only portfolio.
rkhusky
Posts: 17767
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rkhusky »

muffins14 wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:53 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:22 am Value and growth stocks are the same investment
I would certainly disagree. I think something with P/E of 10 is different from something with P/E of 40. there is at a minimum some information on expected future revenue growth, or perceived riskiness of ability to realize expected upcoming earnings
But they are both stocks. You can differentiate every stock from one another by a variety of characteristics, but at the end of the day they are still stocks. They are not bonds for example, or real estate or a small business.
rkhusky
Posts: 17767
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: AVUV - difficult to hold

Post by rkhusky »

Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:49 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:40 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:30 am
rkhusky wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:22 am
Nathan Drake wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:08 am

Value in exUS is still outperforming this year

Is 100 years of market data all random fluctuations? Why should we trust the market factor over bonds?
In the past there were inefficiencies and random fluctuations. Now there is much less inefficiency and the random fluctuations are the main drivers of value under- and over-performing.

Stocks and bonds are different investments. Value and growth stocks are the same investment - in fact a value stock can become a growth stock, and vice-versa.
Market inefficiencies have nothing to do with risk premiums

If you believe in market efficiency, you should believe in risk premiums for stocks with additional fundamental risks that are compensated
Investors should seek a premium for taking a risk. But that’s difficult for stocks because investors have no control over stock returns. While investors might be able to discern that one stock appears to have higher risk compared to another stock, the investor has no control over the returns of either stock.
The market sets prices which feature higher discount rates for companies seen as riskier. This is efficient markets in action

Otherwise, nobody would hold value stocks
The market sets prices based on expectations of total return and the uncertainty of the return. But investors have no control on the actual return. Unlike bonds or CD’s, where investors can choose the nominal return they want for a given level of risk.
Post Reply