WEBVTT - Focusing on Growth (Not Market Cap)

0:00:01.800 --> 0:00:08.760
<v Speaker 1>The load up man, and you put the load and

0:00:08.840 --> 0:00:10.160
<v Speaker 1>run the loan right on.

0:00:17.600 --> 0:00:21.840
<v Speaker 2>Traditional market cap weighted indexes like the S and P

0:00:22.000 --> 0:00:25.960
<v Speaker 2>five hundred have really done a great job in dominating

0:00:26.000 --> 0:00:31.400
<v Speaker 2>investor inflows. But today there's concerns of cap weighting that

0:00:31.520 --> 0:00:35.960
<v Speaker 2>is leading into increased market concentration into just a handful

0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 2>of stocks, especially the MAC seven, higher valuations, and increase

0:00:41.080 --> 0:00:46.360
<v Speaker 2>risks for investors. How should an index investor think about this? Well,

0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:48.159
<v Speaker 2>to help us unpack all of it and what it

0:00:48.200 --> 0:00:51.120
<v Speaker 2>means for your portfolio, let's bring in Rob or Not,

0:00:51.600 --> 0:00:55.800
<v Speaker 2>founder of Research Affiliates. The firm recently put out the

0:00:55.840 --> 0:01:01.760
<v Speaker 2>Research Affiliates Growth Index that's different from both cap weighted ETFs,

0:01:02.200 --> 0:01:06.520
<v Speaker 2>but also different from equal weight ETFs. So I'm fascinated

0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:09.600
<v Speaker 2>by this index which you guys put out. You're tracking

0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 2>it live today. It's not yet investible, but I assume

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:19.200
<v Speaker 2>there'll be an ETF out sooner rather than later. Define graphic,

0:01:19.319 --> 0:01:24.000
<v Speaker 2>Define the research affiliate's growth index, What are the weights

0:01:24.040 --> 0:01:27.520
<v Speaker 2>based on? How do you think about alternatives to cap

0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:28.320
<v Speaker 2>weighted growth.

0:01:29.440 --> 0:01:33.120
<v Speaker 1>Let's back up just a little bit and challenge one

0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:39.000
<v Speaker 1>of the basic principles of modern investing and modern finance,

0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:44.679
<v Speaker 1>the principle that there's this binary duality of growth and value.

0:01:44.840 --> 0:01:47.520
<v Speaker 1>If it's not value, it's growth. If it's not growth,

0:01:47.560 --> 0:01:54.040
<v Speaker 1>it's value. Pardon me, Those are not one dimension. Those

0:01:54.040 --> 0:01:57.760
<v Speaker 1>are two dimensions. You can have cheap and expensive, you

0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:02.600
<v Speaker 1>can have fast and slow growing, two different, completely different dimensions.

0:02:03.120 --> 0:02:08.200
<v Speaker 1>Our industry has had a fixation on this simple duality

0:02:09.760 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 1>where if it's cheap, its value, and if it's expensive

0:02:13.160 --> 0:02:19.240
<v Speaker 1>its growth. No, if it's expensive, it's expensive, it's much simpler.

0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:27.200
<v Speaker 1>If it's growth, it's growth. So, to my astonishment, looking back,

0:02:29.040 --> 0:02:33.360
<v Speaker 1>cap weighted indexing goes back to the fifties, as investible

0:02:33.400 --> 0:02:40.520
<v Speaker 1>portfolios to the seventies, and growth indexes to the late seventies,

0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:46.800
<v Speaker 1>and growth investible growth strategies to the nineteen eighties. Nobody

0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:50.040
<v Speaker 1>has posed the question, why don't we look at this

0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:56.080
<v Speaker 1>fundamentally instead of based on valuations. Nobody has asked the question,

0:02:56.440 --> 0:03:00.440
<v Speaker 1>why don't we create an index that chooses growth stocks

0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:04.560
<v Speaker 1>based on how fast they're growing, and weight's growth stocks

0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:08.480
<v Speaker 1>based on how big their dollar contribution to the growth

0:03:08.480 --> 0:03:12.920
<v Speaker 1>of the macroeconomy is. If you do that, if you

0:03:13.080 --> 0:03:17.600
<v Speaker 1>choose companies that are growing rapidly, and you weight them

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:20.560
<v Speaker 1>on the dollar magnitude of that growth. You wind up

0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:24.040
<v Speaker 1>with an index that, over the last thirty years would

0:03:24.040 --> 0:03:27.480
<v Speaker 1>have outperformed Russell growth by four and a half percent

0:03:27.520 --> 0:03:29.960
<v Speaker 1>peranum going back almost thirty years.

0:03:30.120 --> 0:03:32.040
<v Speaker 2>Russell growth not Russell value.

0:03:32.080 --> 0:03:33.000
<v Speaker 1>So correct.

0:03:33.440 --> 0:03:37.760
<v Speaker 2>So if that's the case, what are we selecting on

0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:41.680
<v Speaker 2>It's not just cap weight. I'm assuming it's and I've

0:03:41.720 --> 0:03:45.360
<v Speaker 2>read some of the research. You're looking at increasing sales,

0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:51.320
<v Speaker 2>increasing profits, increasing R and D explain what goes in growth?

0:03:52.360 --> 0:03:55.400
<v Speaker 1>Well, there's an article coming out in the next issue

0:03:55.400 --> 0:03:57.800
<v Speaker 1>of the Financial Analyst Journal that takes a deep dive.

0:03:58.000 --> 0:04:01.080
<v Speaker 1>So anyone who's got access to the f AJ take

0:04:01.120 --> 0:04:03.920
<v Speaker 1>a look for the moment. You can also find it

0:04:03.960 --> 0:04:08.160
<v Speaker 1>on SSRN. Just look up are Not Fundamental Growth and

0:04:08.240 --> 0:04:14.320
<v Speaker 1>it'll take you right there. Anyway, if you wanted a

0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:17.880
<v Speaker 1>growth index that didn't anchor on expensive stocks but anchored

0:04:17.880 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>on fast growing companies, how would you instinctively choose to

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:28.640
<v Speaker 1>measure that? Growth? Sales, profits? Those are the obvious choices,

0:04:29.520 --> 0:04:32.840
<v Speaker 1>slightly less obvious. Most growth companies have R and D

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 1>and it's a big enough part of their business that

0:04:36.520 --> 0:04:38.440
<v Speaker 1>they break it out as a separate item in their

0:04:38.440 --> 0:04:42.240
<v Speaker 1>P and L. So what about growth in P and L?

0:04:42.480 --> 0:04:45.279
<v Speaker 1>Excuse me, growth in R and D because if they're

0:04:45.320 --> 0:04:47.599
<v Speaker 1>shrinking their R and D budget, that's a bad sign.

0:04:48.279 --> 0:04:51.320
<v Speaker 1>And so if you have three different growth rates, growth

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 1>in sales, growth in profits, and growth in R and

0:04:55.480 --> 0:04:59.640
<v Speaker 1>D spending, if that's available two of the three, if

0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:03.640
<v Speaker 1>it's no, you average those growth rates, and you've got

0:05:03.640 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 1>a very good gauge of how fast the company's growing.

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:09.440
<v Speaker 1>If it's growing rapidly enough to be in the top

0:05:09.520 --> 0:05:12.480
<v Speaker 1>twenty five percent, let's use it. Here's a fun factoid.

0:05:13.120 --> 0:05:15.919
<v Speaker 1>Two of the Magnificent seven don't make the cut for

0:05:15.960 --> 0:05:17.080
<v Speaker 1>the Raffi Growth Index.

0:05:17.640 --> 0:05:18.719
<v Speaker 2>H really, which two?

0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:20.560
<v Speaker 1>Take a guess?

0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:28.920
<v Speaker 2>So who's cutting way back on their R and D

0:05:29.080 --> 0:05:38.599
<v Speaker 2>and not seeing increases in revenue? Apple and Amazon. I'm

0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:39.279
<v Speaker 2>just spitballing.

0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:40.200
<v Speaker 1>You got one out of two.

0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:41.600
<v Speaker 2>So Apple is the first.

0:05:41.800 --> 0:05:47.040
<v Speaker 1>Amazon, Amazon and Microsoft both were growing incredibly fast into

0:05:47.040 --> 0:05:49.680
<v Speaker 1>the twenty tens and have been growing nicely in the

0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:52.480
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenties, but not fast enough to make the cut,

0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:56.360
<v Speaker 1>so they're left out of the Raffie Growth Index. The

0:05:56.440 --> 0:05:59.440
<v Speaker 1>index is on Bloomberg has been since last March, and

0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:04.080
<v Speaker 1>it's already thirteen percentage points in less than a year

0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:11.360
<v Speaker 1>ahead of Russell growth. So the idea works and it's exciting.

0:06:11.400 --> 0:06:15.160
<v Speaker 1>I wish I was on your show to announce that

0:06:15.360 --> 0:06:19.360
<v Speaker 1>it's an investible ETF for mutual fund. Not yet.

0:06:19.720 --> 0:06:22.400
<v Speaker 2>When it comes out, when it becomes investible, we'll have

0:06:22.480 --> 0:06:25.640
<v Speaker 2>you back. I want to ask you a question about

0:06:26.279 --> 0:06:31.359
<v Speaker 2>dollar magnitude as opposed to percentage magnitude of growth. This

0:06:31.560 --> 0:06:35.600
<v Speaker 2>is something that every metric I see is almost always

0:06:36.240 --> 0:06:41.600
<v Speaker 2>a percentage. You're looking at absolute dollars of growth. Explain

0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:45.120
<v Speaker 2>the thinking behind this. How does it manifest in performance?

0:06:45.120 --> 0:06:49.120
<v Speaker 1>How does it work? We select based on percentage growth.

0:06:49.320 --> 0:06:53.920
<v Speaker 1>You could have a huge company that has sales grow

0:06:54.040 --> 0:06:58.440
<v Speaker 1>by one hundred billion in a year and it's only

0:07:00.040 --> 0:07:04.400
<v Speaker 1>ten percent growth five percent growth, and if that's the case,

0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:08.159
<v Speaker 1>it's not a particularly growth company. So percentage growth is

0:07:08.240 --> 0:07:12.640
<v Speaker 1>used to choose the companies. Now, the two biggest stocks

0:07:12.680 --> 0:07:19.320
<v Speaker 1>in Raffie growth are in Nvidia and Apple. One has

0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:23.000
<v Speaker 1>had stupendous growth from a low base. One has had

0:07:23.120 --> 0:07:27.400
<v Speaker 1>good growth from a high base. Both have had percentage

0:07:27.440 --> 0:07:30.600
<v Speaker 1>growth fast enough to make the cut. They are both

0:07:30.760 --> 0:07:34.280
<v Speaker 1>a little over ten percent of our index. Now, think

0:07:34.320 --> 0:07:37.680
<v Speaker 1>what that means. If it's a ten percent weight, that

0:07:37.840 --> 0:07:43.920
<v Speaker 1>means that Nvidia has singularly, all by itself been ten

0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:47.360
<v Speaker 1>percent of these sales or profit growth in the aggregate

0:07:47.480 --> 0:07:52.960
<v Speaker 1>US economy. Wow, huge Apple has been ten percent of

0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:57.520
<v Speaker 1>the aggregate growth in sales or profits of the US economy.

0:07:58.280 --> 0:08:02.360
<v Speaker 1>So by weighting company in proportion to the dollar magnitude,

0:08:02.600 --> 0:08:06.200
<v Speaker 1>you're not going to introduce a bias towards frothy, tiny

0:08:06.240 --> 0:08:09.280
<v Speaker 1>companies that have had just a big percentage search. You

0:08:09.320 --> 0:08:12.680
<v Speaker 1>could have a tiny company that's grown tenfold, and if

0:08:12.680 --> 0:08:15.400
<v Speaker 1>you wait it by that tenfold growth, it's going to

0:08:15.400 --> 0:08:17.520
<v Speaker 1>get a huge weight and it's a tiny company and

0:08:18.320 --> 0:08:19.560
<v Speaker 1>it might be a flash in the pan.

0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:23.200
<v Speaker 2>So, in other words, the percentage gains matter, but so

0:08:23.440 --> 0:08:27.840
<v Speaker 2>too do the real dollar gains. Exactly right, I understand that.

0:08:28.280 --> 0:08:33.000
<v Speaker 2>So curious about the volatility of this versus traditional capwaiting indexes.

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:37.600
<v Speaker 2>How does this compare? Are you getting better performance but

0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:39.520
<v Speaker 2>you have to live with a little more volatility.

0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:41.920
<v Speaker 1>The short answer is you have to live with a

0:08:41.920 --> 0:08:44.400
<v Speaker 1>little bit more volatility, and you have to live with

0:08:44.480 --> 0:08:48.960
<v Speaker 1>occasional periods when it will underperformed on average over the

0:08:49.000 --> 0:08:51.640
<v Speaker 1>last twenty eight years, it adds four and a half

0:08:51.640 --> 0:08:58.199
<v Speaker 1>percent a year, plus or minus seven percent. So in

0:08:58.320 --> 0:09:03.559
<v Speaker 1>just a normal disappointing year, it's going to underperform by

0:09:03.600 --> 0:09:06.839
<v Speaker 1>about two In a normal excellent year, it's going to

0:09:06.880 --> 0:09:12.680
<v Speaker 1>outperform by about twelve. So since we launched in last March,

0:09:12.880 --> 0:09:17.000
<v Speaker 1>the thirteen percent out performance means this is a very typical,

0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:21.760
<v Speaker 1>very normal good year, and so you have to be

0:09:21.800 --> 0:09:24.360
<v Speaker 1>willing to take a little bit of volatility. But if

0:09:24.360 --> 0:09:27.120
<v Speaker 1>you go back, you find that it wins about seven

0:09:27.160 --> 0:09:29.360
<v Speaker 1>out of ten years. Wow, that's pretty cool.

0:09:29.640 --> 0:09:32.880
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, to say the very least. So, since we're talking

0:09:32.880 --> 0:09:36.320
<v Speaker 2>about a lot of not just large cap companies, but

0:09:36.480 --> 0:09:42.120
<v Speaker 2>companies with a substantial economic footprint, my assumption is there

0:09:42.120 --> 0:09:45.600
<v Speaker 2>are a whole lot of capacity or liquiditly constraints. I'm

0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:48.839
<v Speaker 2>assuming this can ramp up just like an S ANDP

0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:50.240
<v Speaker 2>index or what have you.

0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:54.240
<v Speaker 1>Short answer your question is current AUM is zero, so

0:09:54.240 --> 0:10:01.240
<v Speaker 1>there's loads of capacity. Longer answer is a educated guess

0:10:01.280 --> 0:10:04.200
<v Speaker 1>would be it could. It has about four times the

0:10:04.240 --> 0:10:07.600
<v Speaker 1>turnover of the S and P maybe five, So just

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:09.959
<v Speaker 1>on that alone, its capacity would be a fourth or

0:10:10.000 --> 0:10:12.079
<v Speaker 1>a fifth out of the S and P. It's also

0:10:12.160 --> 0:10:16.040
<v Speaker 1>tilted towards a particular category, not the whole broad market,

0:10:16.559 --> 0:10:19.760
<v Speaker 1>so that would suggest another haircut. I think its capacity

0:10:19.800 --> 0:10:22.000
<v Speaker 1>would be ten to twenty percent of the S and P.

0:10:22.440 --> 0:10:25.520
<v Speaker 1>Given that there's about fifteen trillion index to the S

0:10:25.600 --> 0:10:28.320
<v Speaker 1>and P that would be that would give us something

0:10:28.360 --> 0:10:30.080
<v Speaker 1>on the order of one and a half to three

0:10:30.160 --> 0:10:32.520
<v Speaker 1>trillion as a capacity.

0:10:32.000 --> 0:10:36.360
<v Speaker 2>So plenty of capacity. Last question, I've been watching various

0:10:36.480 --> 0:10:39.960
<v Speaker 2>narratives come into favor and then fade. We went through

0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:44.840
<v Speaker 2>a whole blockchain crypto set of narratives. AI seems to

0:10:44.880 --> 0:10:48.800
<v Speaker 2>be in the midst of its various narratives.

0:10:48.960 --> 0:10:50.120
<v Speaker 1>When you think.

0:10:49.840 --> 0:10:56.920
<v Speaker 2>About the Research Affiliates Growth Index Fundamental Growth Index, does

0:10:57.040 --> 0:11:01.560
<v Speaker 2>the dominant narrative matter or is it us redefining its

0:11:01.640 --> 0:11:07.640
<v Speaker 2>constituents based on what is best working today, what is

0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:12.920
<v Speaker 2>seeing the highest increases in revenue, profits and research and developments.

0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:18.360
<v Speaker 1>Mended well between RAFI, the fundamental index, which has stark

0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:21.640
<v Speaker 1>value tilt, and RAFFI growth, which has a stark growth tilt.

0:11:22.200 --> 0:11:25.040
<v Speaker 1>I like to think that we're launching a revolution in indexing.

0:11:25.760 --> 0:11:29.559
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the runway for this is huge. One other

0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:36.400
<v Speaker 1>observation we're quantitative investors. We love testing things. Quantitative investors

0:11:36.440 --> 0:11:39.400
<v Speaker 1>are addicted to data mining. Go back historically and ask

0:11:39.800 --> 0:11:42.600
<v Speaker 1>what can I construct that's worked. We don't do that.

0:11:43.559 --> 0:11:46.800
<v Speaker 1>Scientific method means you start with a hypothesis and you

0:11:46.840 --> 0:11:50.040
<v Speaker 1>only use the data to test the hypothesis. Our hypothesis

0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:53.400
<v Speaker 1>was if you select companies on how fast they're growing

0:11:53.840 --> 0:11:56.640
<v Speaker 1>and wait them on how large the magnitude of their

0:11:56.679 --> 0:11:59.520
<v Speaker 1>contribution to the economic growth. This is an idea that

0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:03.240
<v Speaker 1>might work pretty darn well. And lo and behold it does.

0:12:03.840 --> 0:12:06.280
<v Speaker 1>The back tests of RAFFI when we launched it twenty

0:12:06.360 --> 0:12:09.960
<v Speaker 1>years ago showed about two percent value add relative to

0:12:11.440 --> 0:12:14.199
<v Speaker 1>cap weighted value. It's added two to two and a

0:12:14.240 --> 0:12:17.400
<v Speaker 1>half percent live for twenty years. So you don't fall

0:12:17.440 --> 0:12:21.120
<v Speaker 1>into the trap of creating a strategy that looks great

0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:23.840
<v Speaker 1>in back test and falls apart instantly.

0:12:24.200 --> 0:12:26.880
<v Speaker 2>I'm so glad you said that, because when do you

0:12:26.920 --> 0:12:28.720
<v Speaker 2>ever see a bad back test?

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:29.240
<v Speaker 1>Right?

0:12:29.520 --> 0:12:30.760
<v Speaker 2>All back tests are great?

0:12:31.440 --> 0:12:33.600
<v Speaker 1>That I see lots of bad vatus. Oh no, I

0:12:33.640 --> 0:12:35.040
<v Speaker 1>mean that gain never promoted.

0:12:36.200 --> 0:12:39.840
<v Speaker 2>The back tests that get shared are the ones that there's.

0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:40.199
<v Speaker 1>A little worse.

0:12:40.280 --> 0:12:43.520
<v Speaker 2>There are totally and and you know inherent in every

0:12:43.600 --> 0:12:47.360
<v Speaker 2>back test is the concept that the future is going

0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:49.680
<v Speaker 2>to look like the past, and very often we see

0:12:49.679 --> 0:12:53.120
<v Speaker 2>the future does not look like the past. So the

0:12:53.559 --> 0:12:57.760
<v Speaker 2>back tests all fail. Many back tests that look great

0:12:58.400 --> 0:13:03.240
<v Speaker 2>fail to perform in real life. The world changes.

0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:08.239
<v Speaker 1>And if you're doing a back test to create a better.

0:13:08.000 --> 0:13:11.360
<v Speaker 2>Back test, right, that's right, that's.

0:13:11.520 --> 0:13:16.040
<v Speaker 1>That's the epitome of data mining, and it's endemic in

0:13:16.080 --> 0:13:18.319
<v Speaker 1>our business, absolutely so.

0:13:18.920 --> 0:13:24.320
<v Speaker 2>Rob when the when this comes out as an investible product,

0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:27.120
<v Speaker 2>be it an ETF or an SMA or a mutual fund,

0:13:27.760 --> 0:13:29.120
<v Speaker 2>come back tell us about it.

0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:31.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure it will because I'm trying to keep it

0:13:31.200 --> 0:13:32.360
<v Speaker 1>secret because it's so good.

0:13:34.040 --> 0:13:36.760
<v Speaker 2>Well, you and Jim Simon's like, kick out all the

0:13:36.800 --> 0:13:39.800
<v Speaker 2>outside investors and just keep your own money into it

0:13:39.840 --> 0:13:44.600
<v Speaker 2>works well. So to wrap up, if you're concerned about

0:13:44.760 --> 0:13:49.560
<v Speaker 2>cap weight, if you're concerned about market concentration or valuation,

0:13:50.440 --> 0:13:54.760
<v Speaker 2>take a look at the research affiliate's growth index. It's

0:13:54.880 --> 0:13:59.720
<v Speaker 2>not market cap weighted, it's not yet investible. But I

0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:03.920
<v Speaker 2>know research affiliates, and I'm pretty confident there will be

0:14:03.960 --> 0:14:06.800
<v Speaker 2>an ETF for you to put money into at some

0:14:07.000 --> 0:14:10.679
<v Speaker 2>point in the future. I'm Barry results you've been listening

0:14:10.720 --> 0:14:20.360
<v Speaker 2>to Bloomberg's At the Money, you put the load right alone,

0:14:20.560 --> 0:14:20.880
<v Speaker 2>right on