1
00:00:01,800 --> 00:00:08,760
Speaker 1: The load up man, and you put the load and

2
00:00:08,840 --> 00:00:10,160
Speaker 1: run the loan right on.

3
00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:21,840
Speaker 2: Traditional market cap weighted indexes like the S and P

4
00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:25,960
Speaker 2: five hundred have really done a great job in dominating

5
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:31,400
Speaker 2: investor inflows. But today there's concerns of cap weighting that

6
00:00:31,520 --> 00:00:35,960
Speaker 2: is leading into increased market concentration into just a handful

7
00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:40,960
Speaker 2: of stocks, especially the MAC seven, higher valuations, and increase

8
00:00:41,080 --> 00:00:46,360
Speaker 2: risks for investors. How should an index investor think about this? Well,

9
00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:48,159
Speaker 2: to help us unpack all of it and what it

10
00:00:48,200 --> 00:00:51,120
Speaker 2: means for your portfolio, let's bring in Rob or Not,

11
00:00:51,600 --> 00:00:55,800
Speaker 2: founder of Research Affiliates. The firm recently put out the

12
00:00:55,840 --> 00:01:01,760
Speaker 2: Research Affiliates Growth Index that's different from both cap weighted ETFs,

13
00:01:02,200 --> 00:01:06,520
Speaker 2: but also different from equal weight ETFs. So I'm fascinated

14
00:01:06,560 --> 00:01:09,600
Speaker 2: by this index which you guys put out. You're tracking

15
00:01:09,600 --> 00:01:13,840
Speaker 2: it live today. It's not yet investible, but I assume

16
00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:19,200
Speaker 2: there'll be an ETF out sooner rather than later. Define graphic,

17
00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:24,000
Speaker 2: Define the research affiliate's growth index, What are the weights

18
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:27,520
Speaker 2: based on? How do you think about alternatives to cap

19
00:01:27,560 --> 00:01:28,320
Speaker 2: weighted growth.

20
00:01:29,440 --> 00:01:33,120
Speaker 1: Let's back up just a little bit and challenge one

21
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:39,000
Speaker 1: of the basic principles of modern investing and modern finance,

22
00:01:39,560 --> 00:01:44,679
Speaker 1: the principle that there's this binary duality of growth and value.

23
00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:47,520
Speaker 1: If it's not value, it's growth. If it's not growth,

24
00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:54,040
Speaker 1: it's value. Pardon me, Those are not one dimension. Those

25
00:01:54,040 --> 00:01:57,760
Speaker 1: are two dimensions. You can have cheap and expensive, you

26
00:01:57,800 --> 00:02:02,600
Speaker 1: can have fast and slow growing, two different, completely different dimensions.

27
00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:08,200
Speaker 1: Our industry has had a fixation on this simple duality

28
00:02:09,760 --> 00:02:13,160
Speaker 1: where if it's cheap, its value, and if it's expensive

29
00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:19,240
Speaker 1: its growth. No, if it's expensive, it's expensive, it's much simpler.

30
00:02:20,919 --> 00:02:27,200
Speaker 1: If it's growth, it's growth. So, to my astonishment, looking back,

31
00:02:29,040 --> 00:02:33,360
Speaker 1: cap weighted indexing goes back to the fifties, as investible

32
00:02:33,400 --> 00:02:40,520
Speaker 1: portfolios to the seventies, and growth indexes to the late seventies,

33
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:46,800
Speaker 1: and growth investible growth strategies to the nineteen eighties. Nobody

34
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:50,040
Speaker 1: has posed the question, why don't we look at this

35
00:02:50,160 --> 00:02:56,080
Speaker 1: fundamentally instead of based on valuations. Nobody has asked the question,

36
00:02:56,440 --> 00:03:00,440
Speaker 1: why don't we create an index that chooses growth stocks

37
00:03:00,440 --> 00:03:04,560
Speaker 1: based on how fast they're growing, and weight's growth stocks

38
00:03:04,560 --> 00:03:08,480
Speaker 1: based on how big their dollar contribution to the growth

39
00:03:08,480 --> 00:03:12,920
Speaker 1: of the macroeconomy is. If you do that, if you

40
00:03:13,080 --> 00:03:17,600
Speaker 1: choose companies that are growing rapidly, and you weight them

41
00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:20,560
Speaker 1: on the dollar magnitude of that growth. You wind up

42
00:03:20,600 --> 00:03:24,040
Speaker 1: with an index that, over the last thirty years would

43
00:03:24,040 --> 00:03:27,480
Speaker 1: have outperformed Russell growth by four and a half percent

44
00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:29,960
Speaker 1: peranum going back almost thirty years.

45
00:03:30,120 --> 00:03:32,040
Speaker 2: Russell growth not Russell value.

46
00:03:32,080 --> 00:03:33,000
Speaker 1: So correct.

47
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:37,760
Speaker 2: So if that's the case, what are we selecting on

48
00:03:38,160 --> 00:03:41,680
Speaker 2: It's not just cap weight. I'm assuming it's and I've

49
00:03:41,720 --> 00:03:45,360
Speaker 2: read some of the research. You're looking at increasing sales,

50
00:03:45,520 --> 00:03:51,320
Speaker 2: increasing profits, increasing R and D explain what goes in growth?

51
00:03:52,360 --> 00:03:55,400
Speaker 1: Well, there's an article coming out in the next issue

52
00:03:55,400 --> 00:03:57,800
Speaker 1: of the Financial Analyst Journal that takes a deep dive.

53
00:03:58,000 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 1: So anyone who's got access to the f AJ take

54
00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:03,920
Speaker 1: a look for the moment. You can also find it

55
00:04:03,960 --> 00:04:08,160
Speaker 1: on SSRN. Just look up are Not Fundamental Growth and

56
00:04:08,240 --> 00:04:14,320
Speaker 1: it'll take you right there. Anyway, if you wanted a

57
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:17,880
Speaker 1: growth index that didn't anchor on expensive stocks but anchored

58
00:04:17,880 --> 00:04:23,880
Speaker 1: on fast growing companies, how would you instinctively choose to

59
00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:28,640
Speaker 1: measure that? Growth? Sales, profits? Those are the obvious choices,

60
00:04:29,520 --> 00:04:32,840
Speaker 1: slightly less obvious. Most growth companies have R and D

61
00:04:33,160 --> 00:04:36,320
Speaker 1: and it's a big enough part of their business that

62
00:04:36,520 --> 00:04:38,440
Speaker 1: they break it out as a separate item in their

63
00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:42,240
Speaker 1: P and L. So what about growth in P and L?

64
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:45,279
Speaker 1: Excuse me, growth in R and D because if they're

65
00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:47,599
Speaker 1: shrinking their R and D budget, that's a bad sign.

66
00:04:48,279 --> 00:04:51,320
Speaker 1: And so if you have three different growth rates, growth

67
00:04:51,440 --> 00:04:55,400
Speaker 1: in sales, growth in profits, and growth in R and

68
00:04:55,480 --> 00:04:59,640
Speaker 1: D spending, if that's available two of the three, if

69
00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:03,640
Speaker 1: it's no, you average those growth rates, and you've got

70
00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:05,880
Speaker 1: a very good gauge of how fast the company's growing.

71
00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:09,440
Speaker 1: If it's growing rapidly enough to be in the top

72
00:05:09,520 --> 00:05:12,480
Speaker 1: twenty five percent, let's use it. Here's a fun factoid.

73
00:05:13,120 --> 00:05:15,919
Speaker 1: Two of the Magnificent seven don't make the cut for

74
00:05:15,960 --> 00:05:17,080
Speaker 1: the Raffi Growth Index.

75
00:05:17,640 --> 00:05:18,719
Speaker 2: H really, which two?

76
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:20,560
Speaker 1: Take a guess?

77
00:05:24,520 --> 00:05:28,920
Speaker 2: So who's cutting way back on their R and D

78
00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:38,599
Speaker 2: and not seeing increases in revenue? Apple and Amazon. I'm

79
00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:39,279
Speaker 2: just spitballing.

80
00:05:39,320 --> 00:05:40,200
Speaker 1: You got one out of two.

81
00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:41,600
Speaker 2: So Apple is the first.

82
00:05:41,800 --> 00:05:47,040
Speaker 1: Amazon, Amazon and Microsoft both were growing incredibly fast into

83
00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:49,680
Speaker 1: the twenty tens and have been growing nicely in the

84
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:52,480
Speaker 1: twenty twenties, but not fast enough to make the cut,

85
00:05:52,760 --> 00:05:56,360
Speaker 1: so they're left out of the Raffie Growth Index. The

86
00:05:56,440 --> 00:05:59,440
Speaker 1: index is on Bloomberg has been since last March, and

87
00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:04,080
Speaker 1: it's already thirteen percentage points in less than a year

88
00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:11,360
Speaker 1: ahead of Russell growth. So the idea works and it's exciting.

89
00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:15,160
Speaker 1: I wish I was on your show to announce that

90
00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:19,360
Speaker 1: it's an investible ETF for mutual fund. Not yet.

91
00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:22,400
Speaker 2: When it comes out, when it becomes investible, we'll have

92
00:06:22,480 --> 00:06:25,640
Speaker 2: you back. I want to ask you a question about

93
00:06:26,279 --> 00:06:31,359
Speaker 2: dollar magnitude as opposed to percentage magnitude of growth. This

94
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:35,600
Speaker 2: is something that every metric I see is almost always

95
00:06:36,240 --> 00:06:41,600
Speaker 2: a percentage. You're looking at absolute dollars of growth. Explain

96
00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:45,120
Speaker 2: the thinking behind this. How does it manifest in performance?

97
00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:49,120
Speaker 1: How does it work? We select based on percentage growth.

98
00:06:49,320 --> 00:06:53,920
Speaker 1: You could have a huge company that has sales grow

99
00:06:54,040 --> 00:06:58,440
Speaker 1: by one hundred billion in a year and it's only

100
00:07:00,040 --> 00:07:04,400
Speaker 1: ten percent growth five percent growth, and if that's the case,

101
00:07:04,440 --> 00:07:08,159
Speaker 1: it's not a particularly growth company. So percentage growth is

102
00:07:08,240 --> 00:07:12,640
Speaker 1: used to choose the companies. Now, the two biggest stocks

103
00:07:12,680 --> 00:07:19,320
Speaker 1: in Raffie growth are in Nvidia and Apple. One has

104
00:07:19,400 --> 00:07:23,000
Speaker 1: had stupendous growth from a low base. One has had

105
00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:27,400
Speaker 1: good growth from a high base. Both have had percentage

106
00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:30,600
Speaker 1: growth fast enough to make the cut. They are both

107
00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:34,280
Speaker 1: a little over ten percent of our index. Now, think

108
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:37,680
Speaker 1: what that means. If it's a ten percent weight, that

109
00:07:37,840 --> 00:07:43,920
Speaker 1: means that Nvidia has singularly, all by itself been ten

110
00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:47,360
Speaker 1: percent of these sales or profit growth in the aggregate

111
00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:52,960
Speaker 1: US economy. Wow, huge Apple has been ten percent of

112
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:57,520
Speaker 1: the aggregate growth in sales or profits of the US economy.

113
00:07:58,280 --> 00:08:02,360
Speaker 1: So by weighting company in proportion to the dollar magnitude,

114
00:08:02,600 --> 00:08:06,200
Speaker 1: you're not going to introduce a bias towards frothy, tiny

115
00:08:06,240 --> 00:08:09,280
Speaker 1: companies that have had just a big percentage search. You

116
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:12,680
Speaker 1: could have a tiny company that's grown tenfold, and if

117
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:15,400
Speaker 1: you wait it by that tenfold growth, it's going to

118
00:08:15,400 --> 00:08:17,520
Speaker 1: get a huge weight and it's a tiny company and

119
00:08:18,320 --> 00:08:19,560
Speaker 1: it might be a flash in the pan.

120
00:08:20,040 --> 00:08:23,200
Speaker 2: So, in other words, the percentage gains matter, but so

121
00:08:23,440 --> 00:08:27,840
Speaker 2: too do the real dollar gains. Exactly right, I understand that.

122
00:08:28,280 --> 00:08:33,000
Speaker 2: So curious about the volatility of this versus traditional capwaiting indexes.

123
00:08:33,679 --> 00:08:37,600
Speaker 2: How does this compare? Are you getting better performance but

124
00:08:37,640 --> 00:08:39,520
Speaker 2: you have to live with a little more volatility.

125
00:08:40,200 --> 00:08:41,920
Speaker 1: The short answer is you have to live with a

126
00:08:41,920 --> 00:08:44,400
Speaker 1: little bit more volatility, and you have to live with

127
00:08:44,480 --> 00:08:48,960
Speaker 1: occasional periods when it will underperformed on average over the

128
00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:51,640
Speaker 1: last twenty eight years, it adds four and a half

129
00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:58,199
Speaker 1: percent a year, plus or minus seven percent. So in

130
00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:03,559
Speaker 1: just a normal disappointing year, it's going to underperform by

131
00:09:03,600 --> 00:09:06,839
Speaker 1: about two In a normal excellent year, it's going to

132
00:09:06,880 --> 00:09:12,680
Speaker 1: outperform by about twelve. So since we launched in last March,

133
00:09:12,880 --> 00:09:17,000
Speaker 1: the thirteen percent out performance means this is a very typical,

134
00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:21,760
Speaker 1: very normal good year, and so you have to be

135
00:09:21,800 --> 00:09:24,360
Speaker 1: willing to take a little bit of volatility. But if

136
00:09:24,360 --> 00:09:27,120
Speaker 1: you go back, you find that it wins about seven

137
00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:29,360
Speaker 1: out of ten years. Wow, that's pretty cool.

138
00:09:29,640 --> 00:09:32,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, to say the very least. So, since we're talking

139
00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:36,320
Speaker 2: about a lot of not just large cap companies, but

140
00:09:36,480 --> 00:09:42,120
Speaker 2: companies with a substantial economic footprint, my assumption is there

141
00:09:42,120 --> 00:09:45,600
Speaker 2: are a whole lot of capacity or liquiditly constraints. I'm

142
00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:48,839
Speaker 2: assuming this can ramp up just like an S ANDP

143
00:09:49,000 --> 00:09:50,240
Speaker 2: index or what have you.

144
00:09:51,320 --> 00:09:54,240
Speaker 1: Short answer your question is current AUM is zero, so

145
00:09:54,240 --> 00:10:01,240
Speaker 1: there's loads of capacity. Longer answer is a educated guess

146
00:10:01,280 --> 00:10:04,200
Speaker 1: would be it could. It has about four times the

147
00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:07,600
Speaker 1: turnover of the S and P maybe five, So just

148
00:10:07,679 --> 00:10:09,959
Speaker 1: on that alone, its capacity would be a fourth or

149
00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:12,079
Speaker 1: a fifth out of the S and P. It's also

150
00:10:12,160 --> 00:10:16,040
Speaker 1: tilted towards a particular category, not the whole broad market,

151
00:10:16,559 --> 00:10:19,760
Speaker 1: so that would suggest another haircut. I think its capacity

152
00:10:19,800 --> 00:10:22,000
Speaker 1: would be ten to twenty percent of the S and P.

153
00:10:22,440 --> 00:10:25,520
Speaker 1: Given that there's about fifteen trillion index to the S

154
00:10:25,600 --> 00:10:28,320
Speaker 1: and P that would be that would give us something

155
00:10:28,360 --> 00:10:30,080
Speaker 1: on the order of one and a half to three

156
00:10:30,160 --> 00:10:32,520
Speaker 1: trillion as a capacity.

157
00:10:32,000 --> 00:10:36,360
Speaker 2: So plenty of capacity. Last question, I've been watching various

158
00:10:36,480 --> 00:10:39,960
Speaker 2: narratives come into favor and then fade. We went through

159
00:10:40,000 --> 00:10:44,840
Speaker 2: a whole blockchain crypto set of narratives. AI seems to

160
00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:48,800
Speaker 2: be in the midst of its various narratives.

161
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:50,120
Speaker 1: When you think.

162
00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:56,920
Speaker 2: About the Research Affiliates Growth Index Fundamental Growth Index, does

163
00:10:57,040 --> 00:11:01,560
Speaker 2: the dominant narrative matter or is it us redefining its

164
00:11:01,640 --> 00:11:07,640
Speaker 2: constituents based on what is best working today, what is

165
00:11:07,679 --> 00:11:12,920
Speaker 2: seeing the highest increases in revenue, profits and research and developments.

166
00:11:12,960 --> 00:11:18,360
Speaker 1: Mended well between RAFI, the fundamental index, which has stark

167
00:11:18,480 --> 00:11:21,640
Speaker 1: value tilt, and RAFFI growth, which has a stark growth tilt.

168
00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:25,040
Speaker 1: I like to think that we're launching a revolution in indexing.

169
00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:29,559
Speaker 1: I mean, the runway for this is huge. One other

170
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:36,400
Speaker 1: observation we're quantitative investors. We love testing things. Quantitative investors

171
00:11:36,440 --> 00:11:39,400
Speaker 1: are addicted to data mining. Go back historically and ask

172
00:11:39,800 --> 00:11:42,600
Speaker 1: what can I construct that's worked. We don't do that.

173
00:11:43,559 --> 00:11:46,800
Speaker 1: Scientific method means you start with a hypothesis and you

174
00:11:46,840 --> 00:11:50,040
Speaker 1: only use the data to test the hypothesis. Our hypothesis

175
00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:53,400
Speaker 1: was if you select companies on how fast they're growing

176
00:11:53,840 --> 00:11:56,640
Speaker 1: and wait them on how large the magnitude of their

177
00:11:56,679 --> 00:11:59,520
Speaker 1: contribution to the economic growth. This is an idea that

178
00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:03,240
Speaker 1: might work pretty darn well. And lo and behold it does.

179
00:12:03,840 --> 00:12:06,280
Speaker 1: The back tests of RAFFI when we launched it twenty

180
00:12:06,360 --> 00:12:09,960
Speaker 1: years ago showed about two percent value add relative to

181
00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:14,199
Speaker 1: cap weighted value. It's added two to two and a

182
00:12:14,240 --> 00:12:17,400
Speaker 1: half percent live for twenty years. So you don't fall

183
00:12:17,440 --> 00:12:21,120
Speaker 1: into the trap of creating a strategy that looks great

184
00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:23,840
Speaker 1: in back test and falls apart instantly.

185
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:26,880
Speaker 2: I'm so glad you said that, because when do you

186
00:12:26,920 --> 00:12:28,720
Speaker 2: ever see a bad back test?

187
00:12:28,920 --> 00:12:29,240
Speaker 1: Right?

188
00:12:29,520 --> 00:12:30,760
Speaker 2: All back tests are great?

189
00:12:31,440 --> 00:12:33,600
Speaker 1: That I see lots of bad vatus. Oh no, I

190
00:12:33,640 --> 00:12:35,040
Speaker 1: mean that gain never promoted.

191
00:12:36,200 --> 00:12:39,840
Speaker 2: The back tests that get shared are the ones that there's.

192
00:12:39,720 --> 00:12:40,199
Speaker 1: A little worse.

193
00:12:40,280 --> 00:12:43,520
Speaker 2: There are totally and and you know inherent in every

194
00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:47,360
Speaker 2: back test is the concept that the future is going

195
00:12:47,440 --> 00:12:49,680
Speaker 2: to look like the past, and very often we see

196
00:12:49,679 --> 00:12:53,120
Speaker 2: the future does not look like the past. So the

197
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:57,760
Speaker 2: back tests all fail. Many back tests that look great

198
00:12:58,400 --> 00:13:03,240
Speaker 2: fail to perform in real life. The world changes.

199
00:13:04,120 --> 00:13:08,239
Speaker 1: And if you're doing a back test to create a better.

200
00:13:08,000 --> 00:13:11,360
Speaker 2: Back test, right, that's right, that's.

201
00:13:11,520 --> 00:13:16,040
Speaker 1: That's the epitome of data mining, and it's endemic in

202
00:13:16,080 --> 00:13:18,319
Speaker 1: our business, absolutely so.

203
00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:24,320
Speaker 2: Rob when the when this comes out as an investible product,

204
00:13:24,360 --> 00:13:27,120
Speaker 2: be it an ETF or an SMA or a mutual fund,

205
00:13:27,760 --> 00:13:29,120
Speaker 2: come back tell us about it.

206
00:13:29,160 --> 00:13:31,120
Speaker 1: I'm sure it will because I'm trying to keep it

207
00:13:31,200 --> 00:13:32,360
Speaker 1: secret because it's so good.

208
00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:36,760
Speaker 2: Well, you and Jim Simon's like, kick out all the

209
00:13:36,800 --> 00:13:39,800
Speaker 2: outside investors and just keep your own money into it

210
00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:44,600
Speaker 2: works well. So to wrap up, if you're concerned about

211
00:13:44,760 --> 00:13:49,560
Speaker 2: cap weight, if you're concerned about market concentration or valuation,

212
00:13:50,440 --> 00:13:54,760
Speaker 2: take a look at the research affiliate's growth index. It's

213
00:13:54,880 --> 00:13:59,720
Speaker 2: not market cap weighted, it's not yet investible. But I

214
00:13:59,760 --> 00:14:03,920
Speaker 2: know research affiliates, and I'm pretty confident there will be

215
00:14:03,960 --> 00:14:06,800
Speaker 2: an ETF for you to put money into at some

216
00:14:07,000 --> 00:14:10,679
Speaker 2: point in the future. I'm Barry results you've been listening

217
00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:20,360
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg's At the Money, you put the load right alone,

218
00:14:20,560 --> 00:14:20,880
Speaker 2: right on