Value Investing Is Back. But for How Long?
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,666,984 (-0.52%)       Melbourne $1,025,140 (-0.29%)       Brisbane $1,079,790 (+0.21%)       Adelaide $987,421 (+0.48%)       Perth $959,727 (+1.13%)       Hobart $774,699 (-0.85%)       Darwin $821,142 (+4.72%)       Canberra $946,671 (-0.99%)       National $1,096,933 (+0.01%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $779,804 (-0.05%)       Melbourne $501,457 (-0.97%)       Brisbane $680,117 (+0.71%)       Adelaide $516,640 (-0.17%)       Perth $539,067 (+1.01%)       Hobart $528,172 (+0.12%)       Darwin $391,098 (+0.26%)       Canberra $495,303 (+3.15%)       National $576,956 (+0.40%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 12,076 (-85)       Melbourne 14,218 (-287)       Brisbane 8,085 (-106)       Adelaide 2,943 (+40)       Perth 7,410 (-63)       Hobart 1,202 (-4)       Darwin 165 (-4)       Canberra 1,087 (-18)       National 47,186 (-527)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,230 (-171)       Melbourne 7,611 (-611)       Brisbane 1,520 (-30)       Adelaide 404 (-17)       Hobart 212 (+1)       Hobart 215 (-13)       Darwin 287 (+2)       Canberra 1,186 (-1,198)       National 22,003 (-2,039)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 ($0)       Melbourne $595 ($0)       Brisbane $650 ($0)       Adelaide $640 (+$10)       Perth $700 ($0)       Hobart $583 (+$3)       Darwin $720 (-$30)       Canberra $710 ($0)       National $681 (-$3)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $750 ($0)       Melbourne $590 ($0)       Brisbane $650 (+$10)       Adelaide $550 (+$15)       Perth $665 (+$15)       Hobart $500 (+$18)       Darwin $550 (+$35)       Canberra $590 (+$5)       National $615 (+$10)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,732 (-16)       Melbourne 7,664 (+4)       Brisbane 3,892 (-6)       Adelaide 1,458 (-8)       Perth 2,305 (-13)       Hobart 236 (+7)       Darwin 76 (-1)       Canberra 465 (+5)       National 21,828 (-28)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 7,852 (-14)       Melbourne 5,484 (0)       Brisbane 1,900 (+20)       Adelaide 413 (-1)       Perth 778 (+6)       Hobart 90 (-8)       Darwin 86 (+7)       Canberra 544 (-22)       National 17,147 (-12)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 2.50% (↑)      Melbourne 3.02% (↑)        Brisbane 3.13% (↓)     Adelaide 3.37% (↑)        Perth 3.79% (↓)     Hobart 3.91% (↑)        Darwin 4.56% (↓)     Canberra 3.90% (↑)        National 3.23% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 5.00% (↑)      Melbourne 6.12% (↑)      Brisbane 4.97% (↑)      Adelaide 5.54% (↑)      Perth 6.41% (↑)      Hobart 4.92% (↑)      Darwin 7.31% (↑)        Canberra 6.19% (↓)     National 5.54% (↑)             HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 2.0% (↑)      Melbourne 1.9% (↑)      Brisbane 1.4% (↑)      Adelaide 1.3% (↑)      Perth 1.2% (↑)      Hobart 1.0% (↑)      Darwin 1.6% (↑)      Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National 1.7% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 2.4% (↑)      Melbourne 3.8% (↑)      Brisbane 2.0% (↑)      Adelaide 1.1% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.4% (↑)      Darwin 2.8% (↑)      Canberra 2.9% (↑)      National 2.2% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND       Sydney 33.9 (↑)        Melbourne 32.6 (↓)     Brisbane 35.9 (↑)      Adelaide 30.2 (↑)      Perth 41.5 (↑)      Hobart 37.1 (↑)        Darwin 23.7 (↓)     Canberra 35.3 (↑)      National 33.8 (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND       Sydney 32.6 (↑)      Melbourne 32.8 (↑)        Brisbane 31.9 (↓)     Adelaide 29.3 (↑)      Perth 41.0 (↑)      Hobart 37.4 (↑)        Darwin 41.2 (↓)     Canberra 42.9 (↑)      National 36.1 (↑)            
Share Button

Value Investing Is Back. But for How Long?

A bounce in bond yields is good news for dividend payers.

By James Mackintosh
Wed, Feb 2, 2022 10:04amGrey Clock 3 min

Value investing—buying stocks that are cheap on measures such as earnings or book value—is having a renaissance. Up to last Thursday, large value stocks beat more expensive “growth” stocks by the most of any 50-day period since the technology bubble burst in 2000-01, with the exception of the post-vaccine rebound early last year.

The big question for investors: Does this mark the rebirth of what was a dying strategy? Or was this just another spasm, already fading as technology stocks rebound?

The answer depends in large part on the role of rising Treasury yields. Bond yields have leapt since early December, as expectations grew that the Federal Reserve would raise rates aggressively this year to tackle inflation. That coincided with a tumble in growth stocks, dragging the Nasdaq index to within a whisker of a bear market, down almost 20% from its November peak.

One interpretation is that the leap in yields was the pin that pricked the bubble in growth stocks, shocking investors out of their lazy assumption that Big Tech just always went up. For hard-core value investors (and after years of underperformance, they have to be hard-core), this marks the moment when the purchase of cheap stocks can return to its rightful place as a leading strategy.

Cliff Asness, founder of quantitative fund manager AQR, thinks it is plausible that the bond-yield rise was the shock that changed investor views on growth stocks. “It’s a catalyst not because of solid economic reasons but because catalysts for when irrationality will blow up are behavioural magic, not economics,” he argues.

I think this explanation works for the truly speculative growth stocks. A cluster of wildly expensive crypto, clean energy, meme stocks and SPACs have been deflating since early last year, when bond yields also soared. They plunged again as yields jumped this year, with the Ark Innovation exchange-traded fund—which holds many highly speculative stocks—falling 34% this year to Friday’s low. (By Monday’s close it was up 17% from that low.)

The link between bond yields and speculative growth stocks is clearly extremely loose, because their price is dominated by sentiment—Mr. Asness’s “behavioural magic”—not by spreadsheets of discounted cash flow.

Larger stocks can, of course, be dominated by sentiment too, as shown by the involvement of huge telecom, media and technology stocks in the dot-com bubble of 2000. But most of the time there is a tighter focus on the outlook for earnings and the discount rate.

It is that discount rate that provides the alternative interpretation for why growth stocks sold off as bond yields rose: mathematics. The valuation even of highly profitable companies such as Microsoft is high because they are expected to keep growing earnings at a high rate for a long time, and those far-in-the-future earnings are worth more today when the discount rate, based on bond yields, is lower. As that discount rate rises, those future earnings should be worth less to an investor.

In the bond market, this idea is known as the duration of a bond, the average time it takes for the cash from it to add up to the price you pay for it. The longer it is, the more sensitive the price is to changes in the yield. One example: The price of the 30-year Treasury bond fell more than 10% from its Dec. 3 high to its mid-January low, as its yield rose just 0.5 percentage point, because the low yield meant it had an exceptionally long duration of 23 years.

Something similar happened to stocks this year. The longer their duration, the more they fell, using the dividend yield as a simple proxy for the duration.

Because growth stocks have the highest duration (the lowest dividends), and value stocks the lowest (the highest dividends), value had a wonderful time. As bond yields have pulled back a bit, or at least their upward climb has been interrupted, growth stocks rebounded.

The trouble with this explanation is that the link between bond yields and bigger gains for value stocks isn’t super strong, and changes over time. Even in the past year, long-dated bond yields and a pure measure of value stocks only moved together about 30% of the time, and that relationship has been weaker recently.

Partly that is because other things matter too; most important, the market’s assessment of the economy’s strength has a big effect on value stocks.

But markets move with the heart as well as the head. Mr. Asness is right that sentiment matters, and it may be turning back in favour of value, helped by the math. I think bond yields are a bigger factor. If I’m right, the danger is that the Fed, geopolitics or supply problems might lead yields to pull back, and value’s recent strength evaporates.

Reprinted by permission of The Wall Street Journal, Copyright 2021 Dow Jones & Company. Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Original date of publication: February 1, 2022.



MOST POPULAR

As Australia’s family offices expand their presence in private credit, a growing number of commercial real estate debt (CRED) managers are turning to them as flexible, strategic funding partners.

Knight Frank’s latest Horizon 2025 update signals renewed confidence in Australian commercial real estate, with signs of recovery accelerating across cities and sectors.

Related Stories
Money
Why Family Offices Are Emerging as Preferred Partners for CRED Managers
By Opinion: Faris Dedic 23/05/2025
Money
STARS AND STRIKING METALS: NEW SOUTHERN CROSS COIN CELEBRATES AUSTRALIA IN GOLD
By Jeni O'Dowd 22/05/2025
Money
7 Ways To Self-Fund Your Retirement Beyond Just Your Super
By Helen Baker 21/05/2025
Why Family Offices Are Emerging as Preferred Partners for CRED Managers

As Australia’s family offices expand their presence in private credit, a growing number of commercial real estate debt (CRED) managers are turning to them as flexible, strategic funding partners.

By Opinion: Faris Dedic
Fri, May 23, 2025 3 min

Family offices are increasingly asserting their dominance in Australia’s private credit markets, particularly in the commercial real estate debt (CRED) segment.

With more than 2,000 family offices now operating nationally—an increase of over 150% in the past decade, according to KPMG—their influence is not only growing in scale, but also in strategic sophistication.

Traditionally focused on preserving intergenerational wealth, COI Capital has found that family offices have broadened their mandates to include more active and yield-driven deployment of capital, particularly through private credit vehicles.

This shift is underpinned by a defensive allocation rationale: enhanced risk-adjusted returns, predictable income, and collateral-backed structures offer an attractive alternative to the volatility of public markets.

The Competitive Landscape for Manager Mandates

As family offices increase their exposure to private credit, the dynamic between managers and capital providers is evolving. Family offices are highly discerning capital allocators.

They expect enhanced reporting, real-time visibility into asset performance, and access to decision-makers are key differentiators for successful managers. Co-investment rights, performance-based fees, and downside protection mechanisms are increasingly standard features.

While typically fee-sensitive, many family offices are willing to accept standard management and performance fee structures when allocating $5M+ tickets, recognising the sourcing advantage and risk oversight provided by experienced managers. This has created a tiered market where only managers with demonstrated execution capability, origination networks, and robust governance frameworks are considered suitable partners.

Notably, many are competing by offering differentiated access models, such as segregated mandates, debt tranches, or tailored securitisation vehicles.

Onshore vs. Offshore Family Offices

There are important distinctions between onshore and offshore family offices in the context of CRED participation:

  • Onshore Family Offices: Typically have deep relationships with local stakeholders (brokers, valuers, developers) and a more intuitive understanding of planning, legal, and enforcement frameworks in Australian real estate markets. They are more likely to engage directly or via specialised mandates with domestic managers.

  • Offshore Family Offices: While often attracted to the yield premium and legal protections offered in Australia, they face structural barriers in accessing deal flow. Currency risk, tax treatment, and regulatory unfamiliarity are key concerns. However, they bring diversification and scale, often via feeder vehicles, special-purpose structures, or syndicated participation with Tier 1 managers.

COI Capital Management has both an offshore and onshore strategy to assist and suit both distinct Family Office needs.

Faris Dedic

Impact on the Broader CRED Market

The influx of family office capital into private credit markets has several systemic implications:

  • Family offices, deploying capital in significant tranches, have enhanced liquidity across the mid-market CRE sector.

  • Their ability to move quickly with minimal conditionality has contributed to yield compression, particularly on low-LVR, income-producing assets.

  • As a few family offices dominate large allocations, concerns emerge around pricing power, governance, and systemic concentration risk.

Unlike ADIs or superannuation funds, family offices operate outside the core prudential framework, raising transparency and risk management questions, particularly in a stress scenario.

So what is the answer? Are Family Offices the most Attractive?

Yes—family offices are arguably among the most attractive funding partners for CRED managers today. Their capital is not only flexible and long-term focused, but also often deployed with a strategic mindset.

Many family offices now have a deep understanding of the risk-return profile of CRE debt, making them highly engaged and informed investors.

They’re typically open to co-investment, bespoke structuring, and are less bogged down by institutional red tape, allowing them to move quickly and decisively when the right opportunity presents itself. For managers, this combination of agility, scale, and sophistication makes them a valuable and increasingly sought-after partner in the private credit space.

For high-performing CRED managers with demonstrable origination, governance, and reporting frameworks, family offices offer not only a reliable source of capital but also a collaborative partnership model capable of supporting large-scale deployments across market cycles.

Faris Dedic is the Founder and Managing Director of DIG Capital Advisory and COI Capital Management

MOST POPULAR

As Australia’s family offices expand their presence in private credit, a growing number of commercial real estate debt (CRED) managers are turning to them as flexible, strategic funding partners.

Soneva’s groundbreaking Coral Restoration Program in the Maldives has been endorsed by the United Nations and listed on UNESCO’s Ocean Decade platform, recognising it as a global model for reef regeneration and sustainable marine science.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
‘Snow White’ Review: A Disney Princess’s Pointless Return
By Kyle Smith 20/03/2025
Money
7 Ways To Self-Fund Your Retirement Beyond Just Your Super
By Helen Baker 21/05/2025
Property
Kurralta Village Sells for $75.2 Million in Major Adelaide Deal
By Jeni O'Dowd 06/05/2025
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop