← Back to list
Oakmark FundsQuarterly30 Sep 2023Source: oakmark.com

Value vs. growth: Then and now | U.S. Equity market commentary 3Q23

Oakmark is the mutual fund family launched in 1991 by Harris Associates, the Chicago deep-value firm founded in 1976 (about $105bn AUM). Bill Nygren runs the flagship Oakmark Fund and David Herro the Oakmark International Fund, buying businesses at large discounts to intrinsic value and holding them like owners — publishing quarterly fund commentaries, market commentaries and insight articles.

Bill Nygren、David Herro · 1991 · 美国芝加哥Deep value / contrarian long-term

In plain words

This report argues that value investing isn't just about buying cheap stocks; it's about buying great businesses at a discount to what they're worth, even if they have high growth. Right now, the gap between cheap stocks (price-to-earnings ratio around 8) and expensive ones (P/E around 60) is near an all-time high, and the cheap stocks aren't lower quality—so they may be a better bet. The author gives examples like buying Uber and Adobe in 2022, then selling them for even cheaper CVS Health in 2023. For everyday investors, don't get stuck on labels; focus on what a company is truly worth.

AI SummaryAI-generated · may contain errors · verify against the original

The Oakmark report explores the definitional divergence between value and growth investing and the current market opportunities. The core argument cites Buffett: growth is part of the value equation. Data shows that over the decade ending in 2021, the Russell 1000 Growth Index outperformed the Russe

~4 min full read · 5 sections
Deep Analysis

Theme and Background

This chapter discusses the traditional definitional divergence between value investing and growth investing, as well as opportunities for price-sensitive investors in the current market environment. The report notes that in 2022, value indices outperformed growth indices by 22 percentage points, but in 2023, growth indices reversed the trend by 24 percentage points, completely erasing the gains of value stocks. This rare and significant volatility has made "growth vs. value" a hot topic, yet the market still lacks consensus on the definitions of these two terms.

Core Viewpoint

The author argues that pitting value against growth is a misclassification—growth is part of the value equation. Oakmark adheres to value investing but defines it more broadly: value investing is not simply buying stocks with low price-to-book or low price-to-earnings ratios, but rather purchasing high-quality companies at prices below their intrinsic value, including growth companies with P/E ratios higher than the S&P 500 (e.g., Alphabet). Counterintuitive insight: Currently, the valuation gap between low-P/E stocks (the 50th lowest P/E in the S&P 500 is only 8 times) and high-P/E stocks (the 50th highest is 60 times) has reached 7 times, far exceeding the historical average of 4 times. However, the business quality of low-P/E stocks has not deteriorated, making them a better hunting ground than in normal times.

Key Arguments and Data

  • Historical Performance Comparison: Over the decade ending in 2021, the Russell Growth 1000 Index performed twice as well as the Russell 1000 Value Index. In 2022, Value outperformed Growth by 22 percentage points; in 2023, Growth led Value by 24 percentage points.
  • Valuation Gap Data: The 50th lowest P/E stock in the S&P 500 is about 8 times, while the 50th highest is about 60 times, a gap of roughly 7 times. The 30-plus year historical average is about 4 times (fluctuating between 3 and 5 times), only reaching 9 times at the peak of the internet bubble in 2000.
  • Evolution of Value Investing: Benjamin Graham proposed the "margin of safety" in 1934, emphasizing buying stocks below book value. However, the U.S. economy has shifted from an industrial model (where book value served as an anchor) to a knowledge-based economy, where intangible assets (brands, R&D, customer acquisition costs) have become key. When Warren Buffett bought Coca-Cola in 1988, he noted that its brand value was zero on the balance sheet, while its actual intrinsic value far exceeded book value.
  • Oakmark Operational Cases: In 2022, Oakmark bought Uber (double-digit free cash flow yield), Workday (low price-to-sales ratio), and Adobe (slightly above average P/E). In 2023, it sold these stocks and bought CVS Health at a lower P/E. Specific trades: In 2022, 1 share of Adobe (under $300) was exchanged for about 3 shares of CVS (under $100); in 2023, 1 share of Adobe (over $400) was exchanged for over 6 shares of CVS ($70).

Companies/Assets Involved

  • Alphabet: Has a P/E higher than the S&P 500, but Oakmark considers it value investing (growth is undervalued).
  • Amazon, Salesforce: Also high-P/E growth stocks held by Oakmark, but the firm is only willing to pay a premium for growth within the next 7 years.
  • Uber, Workday, Adobe: "Undervalued high-growth stocks" bought in 2022, sold in 2023 due to excessive price appreciation.
  • CVS Health: A low-P/E stock bought in 2023, with its price falling from under $100 to $70; Oakmark believes its valuation is more attractive.
  • General Motors, Capital One: Traditional value stocks (near book value, single-digit P/E), but the author notes that such stocks do not represent the entirety of Oakmark's value investing.
  • Historical "Compound Growth" Failure Cases: Pitney Bowes, Yellow Pages, newspapers, cable TV, landline phones, pharmaceutical companies (before patent cliffs), TV broadcasting, mainframes, mutual funds, etc., serving as warnings about the risks of long-term growth assumptions.

Investment Insights

  • Directional Judgment: The current valuation gap between low-P/E stocks (the 50th lowest in the S&P 500 at about 8 times) and high-P/E stocks (the 50th highest at about 60 times) is at an extreme historical level, and the business quality of low-P/E stocks has not declined. Therefore, low-P/E stocks represent a better investment direction.
  • Operational Strategy: Investors should avoid equating "value" with low price-to-book or low price-to-earnings ratios, and instead focus on a company's intrinsic value, including intangible assets. For growth companies, they are worth buying only if they can grow to a P/E below the market average within the next 7 years.
  • Risk Warning: Do not blindly trust "long-term compound growth" stories; history is filled with companies once regarded as "compound growers" that ultimately failed.