Back to press
Prevous
Next
This is some text inside of a div block.

YOU NEEDN'T HOLD YOUR STOCK WINNERS

For the full article, click here.

‍

The Debate

This winter, two British investment managers publicly squabbled.

Lawrence Burns, from the firm Baillie Gifford, cited academic research showing that “a small number of superstar companies” accounted for the stock market’s gains. Stated Burns, “The other 99% of companies were a distraction to the task of making money. ”For Burns, the results implied an obvious investment strategy: Hold the portfolio’s winners. Profit-taking can be “the worst possible mistake.”

Andrew Dickson, founder of Albert Bridge Capital, strongly disagreed. Three days later, he responded with “Baillie Gifford’s never-sell mantra is a song for fools.” Dickson sharply criticized both the academic paper, which had been presented “in a sensational way,” and Burns’ “after-the-fact diagnosis.” For those who lacked a time machine that would permit them to identify the stock market’s future stars, claimed Dickson, Burns’ advice was “the worst possible.”

Cats and dogs, Madrid and Barcelona, growth and value investors. The language of the Burns-Dickson dispute was new, but not the rivalry. Baillie Gifford buys growth stocks--in recent years scoring big with its Tesla (TSLA) position--while Albert Bridge prefers value stocks. Consequently, Baillie Gifford resists selling equities because they have become costly, while Albert Bridge suggests doing so.

I agree with Baillie Gifford and growth investors on the facts. Last week’s column confirmed the findings of the academic paper. It cannot be denied that, over time, most equities stink. But that information alone does not support the policy of retaining the portfolio’s winners. An additional question must be asked and answered. And when it is, the interpretation favors Albert Bridge/value buyers.

‍

Two Market Regimes

Consider two hypothetical stock markets: 1) Growth Dream and 2) Value Dream. In Growth Dream, each stock repeats the previous year’s order. The top performer once again leads the way, the salutatorian places second, and so forth. This conduct maximizes the compounding effect and thus supports the growth investor’s argument. In Growth Dream, it is always wrong to sell winners.

Value Dream flips Growth Dream on its head by having each stock reverse its previous course. The highest returner becomes the next year’s bottom-feeder; the silver medalist comes next; and the class clown is crowned valedictorian. This conduct minimizes the compounding effect and thus supports the value investor’s argument. In the Value Dream, it is always right to sell winners.

My point is that performances compound over time, thereby exacerbating the differences between one stock’s returns and another’s; this must be considered when evaluating whether investors should hold their stock market winners, but the mere existence of compounding does not settle the debate. What matters is how the compounding occurs. If winners tend to persist, as with Growth Dream, let them ride. But if they backtrack, as with Value Dream, harvest their profits.

‍

By the Numbers

Happily, this inquiry can be tested. We can examine how stocks actually behave. Below, I compare the percentage of the 1,000 biggest U.S. companies that beat the Morningstar U.S. Stock Index during each calendar year to the percentage of such companies that outgained the index over an entire decade.

The results seemed to support the case for Growth Dream. In a single year, slightly less than half the stocks exceeded the index’s return. Over the decade, one in five managed the feat. That is, while most winners reverted to the mean, a large minority continued to thrive. What’s more, 4% of companies more than tripled the cumulative gain of the index. Surely that level of success demonstrated genuine persistence. It couldn’t have simply been luck.  

Then I thought again. If a coin is flipped 10 times, the most likely result is five heads and five tails. However, that is scarcely the only possible result. In fact, achieving an equal number of heads and tails with 10 flips occurs on only 25% of occasions. With many other sequences, either heads or tails predominate, which might lead naïve observers to perceive a pattern that does not exist.

In other words, chance alone will create stock market outliers. If there were no true persistence, such that equity returns were purely random, some stocks would nevertheless enjoy unusually high compounded gains. Consequently, that the amount of stock market winners shrinks over time is beside the point. The critical question is: Is this percentage more or less than would occur by chance?

With enough effort, I could probably have resolved this query through equations. But with modern computing power, there was no need. I simulated. By drawing randomly from the 2011 returns, 2012 returns, 2013 returns, and so forth for each of the 1,000 companies, I constructed an artificial 10-year stock history. This security never existed, but it could have, because it was created from the same material--that is, the same 10 calendar years of 1,000 individual stock returns--as reality.

I repeated the process several thousand times to generate 5,000 artificial 10-year performances and then compared the distribution of the clone stocks’ annualized returns to those of the actual marketplace.

Bingo! Across the board, the simulations mirrored the real world. This result shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that the market’s top performers became that way because such companies were fortunate. Such a conclusion would ask too much of the evidence.

What we can say, at least over the previous decade, is that the distribution of U.S. stock returns--that is, the manner in which they compounded--is indistinguishable from what would have been achieved by chance.

Which means that, absent the gift of foresight, there’s no reason for stock investors to hold their winners. Yes, some of those securities will continue to thrive, thereby enjoying the virtuous circle of higher returns compounding previously high returns. However, if investors chose instead not to retain their winners, instead shifting those assets into randomly selected securities--as done through the simulations--they would have fared equally well.

If stock performances showed higher persistence than would occur through chance, then the odds would favor investors who follow Baillie Gifford’s advice to keep those that got you here. But they do not.

You might Also Like

OK, 2022 WAS A DISASTER FOR TESLA. WHAT NEXT?

Read more

FAULT LINES IN US AND EUROPEAN EQUITIES AND BEHAVIORAL FINANCE

A discussion between Drew Dickson of Albert Bridge Capital and Morgan Housel of The Collaborative Fund; moderated by Jamie Catherwood of O'Shaughnessy Asset Management.
Read more

ON BEHAVIORAL FINANCE AND STOCK PICKING

Drew chats with Dr. Daniel Crosby about behavioral economics and stock-picking.
Read more

WHY EUROPEAN VALUE STOCKS MIGHT WIN

In a return to normalcy, Europe might have a lot of catching up to do – particularly some of the value stocks across the continent. For American investors that have previously been shunning European opportunities, this is something worth considering.
Read more
Navigations
HomeTeamDrew's viewsPressContact
Disclaimers
Legal & regulatoryPrivacy policyCookies policy
How to get in Touch
info@albertbridgecapital.com

Subscribe to Drew's Views

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
© Albert Bridge Capital 2022
Website by SW10media.com
homeTeamdrew's viewspressCOntactDisclaimers
OK, 2022 WAS A DISASTER FOR TESLA. WHAT NEXT?
FAULT LINES IN US AND EUROPEAN EQUITIES AND BEHAVIORAL FINANCE
ON BEHAVIORAL FINANCE AND STOCK PICKING
WHY EUROPEAN VALUE STOCKS MIGHT WIN
EUROPE'S COMPANIES LANGUISH IN THE SLOW LANE
BEHAVIORAL FINANCE AND VALUE INVESTING IN EUROPE
BEHAVIORAL INVESTING AND THE INTERSECTION WITH SPORTS
THE ‘TESLA-FINANCIAL COMPLEX’
HERE'S THE MATH FOR TESLA'S STOCK PRICE IF IT BECOMES THE APPLE OF CAR MAKERS
YOU NEEDN'T HOLD YOUR STOCK WINNERS
BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS' LATEST BIAS
AA’s BIGGEST SHAREHOLDER REJECTS 'DERISORY' OFFER
AA’s BIGGEST SHAREHOLDER SETS UP ROADBLOCK TO BUY-OUT WITH OBJECTION TO "DERISORY' OFFER
AA TAKEOVER TALKS TRIGGER SHAREHOLDER BREAKDOWN
STALLING AA CALLS FOR RESCUE OF ITS OWN
THERE'S SUCH A THING AS TOO MANY MEETINGS WITH THE CEO
VALUE STOCK INVESTORS HOPE VACCINE BOOST CAN LAST
BAILLIE GIFFORD'S NEVER-SELL MANTRA IS A SONG FOR FOOLS
FINDING ALPHA THROUGH BEHAVIOURAL INVESTING IN EUROPE
I'VE PULLED OUT ALL THE STOPS FOR TESLA, BUT CAN'T FIND UPSIDE.
THIS BULL MARKET ISN'T AS BIG AS YOU THINK
BLENDING BEHAVIOUR & FUNDAMENTALS AT ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL
INMARSAT BUYOUT FACES FRESH OPPOSITION AS COURT RULING LOOMS
BUBBLE ECONOMICS: THE ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE DEBATE
SHORT SELLERS "SHOULD BE KNIGHTED, NOT SPITED"
FINANCIAL TWITTER LOSES A SOURCE OF HUMILITY AND WISDOM, BUT GOOD VOICES REMAIN
THE FUTILITY OF MARKET TIMING
ALBERT BRIDGE BORDERS ON ‘SUGGESTIVISM’ IN BACKING MICRO FOCUS RECOVERY - PROFILER
ALBERT BRIDGE’S DREW DICKSON AT IRA SOHN
VOLKSWAGEN STOCK IS CHEAP AND HAS LOTS OF HORSEPOWER
THE DAY VOLKSWAGEN BRIEFLY CONQUERED THE WORLD
A CHALLENGE TO THE BIGGEST IDEA IN BEHAVIOURAL FINANCE
ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL’S DICKSON DISCUSSES NOBEL PRIZE WINNER RICHARD THALER
ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL'S DICKSON INCLUDED IN THE HEDGE FUND JOURNAL TOMORROW'S TITANS 2016
ALBERT BRIDGE HIRES FORMER BAML’S KENNY FOR MARKETING
ALBERT BRIDGE HIRES BAML CAP INTRO HEAD
EX-FORTRESS AND MORGAN STANLEY HEAVYWEIGHT JOINS HEDGE FUND STARTUP
EX-PERELLA WEINBERG MANAGER RAISES $150M FOR STARTUP
FORMER PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS EXEC DICKSON LAUNCHING NEW HEDGE FUND
EX-PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNER LAUNCHES ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL
EX-PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNER TO LAUNCH EQUITY HEDGE FUND