The Wrong Way to Pick Value Investing Funds

/The Wrong Way to Pick Value Investing Funds

The Wrong Way to Pick Value Investing Funds

By | 2017-08-18T16:55:05+00:00 February 16th, 2015|Research Insights, Value Investing Research, $SPY|1 Comment

US News laundry lists their top 10 “Value Investing Funds,” or Value Investing ETFs, in their recent article:

http://money.usnews.com/funds/etfs/rankings/value-funds

The criteria (and weighting) for selecting so-called “Value” ETFs are outlined below:

  • Expense Ratio (30%)
  • Tracking Error (30%)
  • Bid/Ask Ratio (20%)
  • Diversification (20%)

Assessing the Criteria

The criteria seem reasonable enough–at the outset. For example, expense ratios are clearly important, and all else equal, lower is better. No qualms here.

But the other criteria don’t make any sense in the context of active investing, especially value-investing!

  • Tracking Error — the volatility of the spread in returns between a benchmark and a strategy.
  • Bid/Ask Ratio measure for how much the ask exceeds the bid; a measure of liquidity
    • ETF liquidity is primarily driven by the liquidity of the underlying securities the ETF holds.
    • So distress security funds–sometimes referred to as “value” funds–are penalized?
    • A phone call to an ETF trading desk that will offer you $50,000,000 liquidity at a 1 penny spread doesn’t matter?
  • Diversification — Typically measured by the number of securities held in a portfolio and/or exposures to various sectors/industries.
    • Charlie Munger, a preeminent value-investor speaking alongside Warren Buffett at 2004 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting is quoted as saying, “The idea of excessive diversification is madness…almost all good investments will involve relatively low diversification.”
    • Nondiversified value portfolios are penalized?

As I’ve pointed out, it is unclear that tracking error, bid/ask ratios, and diversification should be criteria for selecting a value investing fund or etf.

Just how much Value to these Value Funds have?

To assess how much “value” is in these value ETFs, we can run a simple factor analysis. To keep things easy we’ll focus on the classic 3-factor Fama-French analysis. This analysis focuses on assessing a strategy’s exposure to the broad market (RM-rf), small-cap stocks (SMB), and value-stocks (HML).

First, a benchmark for value, or HML exposure, from Ken French’s website:

  • VAL_10 = Top Decile market-weighted value portfolio (Data)

And the associated factor model analysis. Note the HML factor loading of ~.9 from 1/2011 through 12/2014.

Value Investing Fund Assessment_The Incorrect Approach_1

The results are hypothetical results and are NOT an indicator of future results and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request.

I ran some quick stats in PortfolioVisualizer.com to see just how much “value” these so-called value investing etfs identified by US News actually had.

Value Investing Fund Assessment_The Incorrect Approach_2

The results are hypothetical results and are NOT an indicator of future results and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request.

The answer?

Not much value to be had. But plenty of closet-indexing.

HML betas are all roughly .2 to .3, a far cry from the basic VAL 10 portfolio.

Value Investing Fund Assessment_The Incorrect Approach_3

The results are hypothetical results and are NOT an indicator of future results and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request.

 Main point?

Avoid US News when assessing which “value funds” are the best fit for your portfolio. (Duh!)

Unless, of course, you value low-tracking error passive market exposures wrapped in a more expensive wrapper entitled “value fund.”

 


  • The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Alpha Architect, its affiliates or its employees. Our full disclosures are available here. Definitions of common statistics used in our analysis are available here (towards the bottom).
  • Join thousands of other readers and subscribe to our blog.
  • This site provides NO information on our value ETFs or our momentum ETFs. Please refer to this site.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About the Author:

Wes Gray
After serving as a Captain in the United States Marine Corps, Dr. Gray earned a PhD, and worked as a finance professor at Drexel University. Dr. Gray’s interest in bridging the research gap between academia and industry led him to found Alpha Architect, an asset management that delivers affordable active exposures for tax-sensitive investors. Dr. Gray has published four books and a number of academic articles. Wes is a regular contributor to multiple industry outlets, to include the following: Wall Street Journal, Forbes, ETF.com, and the CFA Institute. Dr. Gray earned an MBA and a PhD in finance from the University of Chicago and graduated magna cum laude with a BS from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
  • Jin Won Choi

    That’s a truly shocking criteria from U.S. News. I wish more journalists were trained in the area of their subject matter.