Click here to read the WSJ article by Mark Hulbert, 3/23/13
Using Ford Equity Research data, he compared
the performance of the 20% lowest financial rated stocks to the highest. The 4 year gains are +273% vs +171% respectively, a very substantial divergence in favor of 'junk'. I calculate the difference in performance to be +37.1 % per annum vs +27.0%.
Core Equity Valuations has been keeping records of the valuation of over 500 equities monthly since September 2004. In addition to our valuation data, we have also retained in our database some Value Line data included their Safety Rank. Using that as our measure of financial quality, we get very similar results as those based on the Ford data.
Between the end of 2004 to October 2007, below average Safety Rank stocks outperformed the highest Safety. However, from Oct '07 to Jan '09, something very dramatic occurs. The lowest ranked stocks declined an average of 76% while the highest ranked declined by only about 45%.
The next question to ask is: was the decline in low Safety stocks attributable to overvaluation in October '07?
But after the decline, in Dec '08, those VR numbers are +73% and -17% respectively. The former is an exceedingly high median number for any group of stocks, at any time.
Therefore, the conclusion is that the poorer quality stocks have done well in the recovery due primarily to their massive undervaluation at the beginning.
The monetary easing probably facilitated their recovery but it doesn't look like it caused it.
Finally the question is where are we today in terms of valuation. The answer is pretty neutral. The median VR for below average Safety Rank is +1% and +4% for the highest ranked.
Robert L. Colby
* Valuation Return/Risk is the price projection relative to the market based on the history of the each stock's history of relative valuation to the market and their return from growth and yield, both actual and projected.