Has The Magic Formula Lost It’s Sparkle

HFA Padded
VintageValueinvesting
Published on
  • Joel Greenblatt documented his “Magic Formula” in 2005.
  • His strategy showed 24% gains between 1988 and 2009.
  • The last 8 years have shown much more ordinary returns.
  • You can bring some of the sparkle back by adding a few new factors.

Q1 hedge fund letters, conference, scoops etc, Also read Lear Capital: Financial Products You Should Avoid?

Joel Greenblatt published his magic formula in The Little Book That Beats The Market in 2005, in which he described a very simple stock selection system that in backtests showed 24% annual returns between 1998 and 2009.

Thousands of websites reference Greenblatt’s research and provide stock screeners and tips based on the formula, so it’s a popular subject and is enticing to those investors who want to follow a mechanical strategy.

But how has it fared since the book was published in 2005? I ran some research through the InvestorsEdge platform to find out (you can see more statistics and risk information together with individual position data for the backtests by clicking here).

Recent Performance

The polite answer to our performance question is “not that great”:

Magic Formula
The first few years after the book was published showed on-track returns of 23% or so, 2008 showed an expected drop and 2009 saw the inevitable bounce back as prices and heart rates stabilized. However, from 2010 onwards the strategy has taken a downturn in fortunes that can be seen very clearly when you look at the strategy’s equity curve:

Magic Formula
You can see the strategy would have returned just 5.5% over the period in question, a significant drop from the expected 24%. The culprit is the last four years where returns have barely broken even.

How The Strategy Worked

The strategy selects all stocks from the US and discards depository receipts, financials, utilities and any companies valued at less than $50m. It then ranks the resulting list by two factors:

  • Earnings Yield
  • Return On Capital (ROC)

Earnings Yield is calculated as Ebit / Enterprise Value, and tells us if a stock is trading at a good price or not.

Return On Capital is an efficiency ratio calculated by Ebit / (Average Total Assets – Average Current Liabilities) and shows us how efficiently a company utilizes its capital.

Each year the strategy selects the top 30 stocks in the list and holds them for the next 12 months, whereupon it rebalances and selects the top 30 stock from the new list.

So the strategy works on the basic principles that we select the most efficient companies with the cheapest relative valuations – so far so sensible.

What Went Wrong

One of the key problems with publishing the inner workings of a strategy is that the anomaly that you have discovered stops working.

Sometimes this is because it stops being an anomaly and becomes the default behavior for stocks, often because investors pile in and begin to buy and sell the same stocks at the same time.

2009 also saw a big change in the macroeconomic landscape – an abrupt change in sentiment during the financial crisis saw a whole series of historically profitable trading strategies become obsolete. The “death” (read underperformance) of value strategies in the last 6-7 years is a well-documented phenomenon on SeekingAlpha that the Magic Formula has fallen prey to as well.

Lastly, access to data and investor education has seen the more simplistic strategies relegated to the substitutes bench. It is not rocket science to state that efficient companies that are cheap will do well in the future, and we can identify candidate companies at the press of a button with the latest technologies.

So, can we evolve the Magic Formula to give it back some sparkle?

A New, Improved Magic Formula

Well, yes – sort of. I’ve made four changes to the Magic Formula to improve returns:

  • Drop the number of stocks bought each year from 30 to 20. This focuses the strategy on the most efficient and cheapest stocks.
  • Rebalance more frequently. A lot can happen in a year – switching to rebalancing monthly allows stocks with poor results to be swapped with better candidates.
  • Require stocks to have a Piotroski F Score of 6 or greater. The Piotroski Score is a value of 0 to 9 that assesses the quality of a company’s results.
  • Add a third ranking factor, Dividend Yield. I often find you can use the fact a company pays a dividend as the sign of a healthy balance sheet, and quality dividend stocks have been in great demand over the last few years.

These new factors result in an improved set of results:

Magic Formula
The average return throughout the 13-year backtest period was 10.5%, significantly better than the Greenblatt’s original version.

Magic Formula

Conclusions

Greenblatt’s Magic Formula has shown poor returns since its release in 2005, partly because of a changing investment landscape and partly through the physical act of publication.

While you can evolve the basic concept to improve returns, I’ve documented other slightly more complex mechanical strategies here that have performed significantly better over the periods discussed here).

What this research does highlight is that strategies of all types, mechanical or other, do stop working, sometimes because of a change to the investing world and sometimes due to the strategy becoming a crowded place to trade in.

Article by Vintage Value Investing

HFA Padded

Ben Graham, the father of value investing, wasn’t born in this century. Nor was he born in the last century. Benjamin Graham – born Benjamin Grossbaum – was born in London, England in 1894. He published the value investing bible Security Analysis in 1934, which was followed by the value investing New Testament The Intelligent Investor in 1949. Warren Buffett, the value investing messiah and Graham’s most famous and successful disciple, was born in 1930 and attended Graham’s classes at Columbia in 1950-51. And the not-so-prodigal son Charlie Munger even has Warren beat by six years – he was born in 1924. I’m not trying to give a history lesson here, but I find these dates very interesting. Value investing is an old strategy. It’s been around for a long time, long before the Capital Asset Pricing Model, long before the Black-Scholes Model, long before CLO’s, long before the founders of today’s hottest high-tech IPOs were even born. And yet people have very short term memories. Once a bull market gets some legs in it, the quest to get “the most money as quickly as possible” causes prices to get bid up. Human nature kicks in and dollar signs start appearing in people’s eyes. New methodologies are touted and fundamental principles are left in the rear view mirror. “Today is always the dawning of a new age. Things are different than they were yesterday. The world is changing and we must adapt.” Yes, all very true statements but the new and “fool-proof” methods and strategies and overleveraging and excess risk-taking only work when the economic environmental conditions allow them to work. Using the latest “fool-proof” investment strategy is like running around a thunderstorm with a lightning rod in your hand: if you’re unharmed after a while then it might seem like you’ve developed a method to avoid getting struck by lightning – but sooner or later you will get hit. And yet value investors are for the most part immune to the thunder and lightning. This isn’t at all to say that value investors never lose money, go bust, or suffer during recessions. However, by sticking to fundamentals and avoiding excessive risk-taking (i.e. dumb decisions), the collective value investor class seems to have much fewer examples of the spectacular crash-and-burn cases that often are found with investors’ who employ different strategies. As a result, value investors have historically outperformed other types of investors over the long term. And there is plenty of empirical evidence to back this up. Check this and this and this and this out. In fact, since 1926 value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by an average of four percentage points annually, according to the authoritative index compiled by finance professors Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago and Kenneth French of Dartmouth College. So, the value investing philosophy has endured for over 80 years and is the most consistently successful strategy that can be applied. And while hot stocks, over-leveraged portfolios, and the newest complicated financial strategies will come and go, making many wishful investors rich very quick and poor even quicker, value investing will quietly continue to help its adherents fatten their wallets. It will always endure and will always remain classically in fashion. In other words, value investing is vintage. Which explains half of this website’s name. As for the value part? The intention of this site is to explain, discuss, ask, learn, teach, and debate those topics and questions that I’ve always been most interested in, and hopefully that you’re most curious about, too. This includes: What is value investing? Value investing strategies Stock picks Company reviews Basic financial concepts Investor profiles Investment ideas Current events Economics Behavioral finance And, ultimately, ways to become a better investor I want to note the importance of the way I use value here. It’s not the simplistic definition of “low P/E” stocks that some financial services lazily use to classify investors, which the word “value” has recently morphed into meaning. To me, value investing equates to the term “Intelligent Investing,” as described by Ben Graham. Intelligent investing involves analyzing a company’s fundamentals and can be characterized by an intense focus on a stock’s price, it’s intrinsic value, and the very important ratio between the two. This is value investing as the term was originally meant to be used decades ago, and is the only way it should be used today. So without much further ado, it’s my very good honor to meet you and you may call me…

Leave a Comment