What Is Growth Investing?

Growth investing is one of the two classical styles of investment. There are numerous different definitions of the style and some confusion about the precise relationship between growth companies and growth stocks. But a focus on growth is generally contrasted with value investing, which tends to rely more on quantitative methods of analysis. Growth investing tends to be based more on qualitative judgments about the kind of companies that will offer remarkable growth rates and exceptional returns performance.

Growth stock investing arose as a definable concept in the United States of the 1930s the counterpoint to the safe, secure income investing of the depression years. It was presumed that companies with a past record of growth in revenues and earnings had the momentum to carry them into the future. And they had to go farther into the future or at greater rates of growth than the market had already accorded in its discounting through current prices. T Rowe Price, who first set out the principles of growth stock valuation in the 1930s, wrote:

Growth stocks can be defined as shares in business enterprise that have demonstrated favorable underlying long-term growth in earnings and that, after careful research study, give indications of continued secular growth in the future.

In order to turn a capital commitment into appreciation, the growth investor needs prescience about earnings or rate of growth or the market's willingness to pay for future events. At certain times in the market for example, in the late 1960s and early 1970s and, more recently, in the late 1990s the growth investor has been rewarded with handsome returns. Those returns have in part been the result of an increase in the number of growth investors rather than a change in the valuation systems used by an existing population of investors.

And the agreement runs backwards in that those equities that have appreciated are assumed to have growth characteristics. Almost any list of the best managed companies a popular and recurring article in business publications will be composed of those stocks that have had an unusually favorable price performance for some past period. Growth stocks may see the future through the rear view mirror.

Future of Global Investing

Recent research indicates that Americans are more likely to invest in their local regional Bell operating company than in any other. Considering that everyone's local operator cannot be a better investment choice than any of the other six, this finding suggests the importance of investors' psychological need to feel comfortable with where they put their money. Perhaps it relates to the endowment effect, a phenomenon noted by behavioral finance, where people set a higher value on something they already own than they would be prepared to pay to acquire it.

But if people still do have a predilection for investing in familiar stocks, they are likely to leave largely unexploited international investment opportunities and hold sub-optimally diversified portfolios. It is tempting to conjecture that such a psychological attitude might be even more pronounced in the highly diverse cultural contexts of European countries. Such an attitude could explain the lack of cross-country portfolio investments within Europe, and suggest that the internationalization of European individual portfolios will be a slow process even in the wake of the euro.

On the other hand, the potential development of a European identity and the increasing tendency to think European rather than French or German a tendency that is likely to be enhanced by the advent of a shared currency could make European investors less reluctant to hold equity stakes in companies residing in a European state different from their own. Perhaps European home bias will fade.

Of course, none of the reasons for home bias apply to the individual global investor with the funds, access to broking services and time to conduct research on the opportunities in the international equity market. It seems likely that home bias and low market correlation will diminish over time as the interconnections of the global economy become closer and the confidence of investors in overseas markets grows. But in the meantime, by leaving some lower risk and higher return possibilities relatively unexplored, they might help an investor to formulate an international investment strategy that can beat the market consistently.

There is also now a vast amount of information on global investment opportunities available on the internet. Any point on the globe is as accessible as next door. It is cheap and often free. It shifts control of time, depth of information and source to empower the user. And it is open: anyone can come in taking its knowledge and offering skills. Financial centers are described on a satellite connection, not geographic coordinates or proximity to other financial talent centers. Work takes a different form in time and space with email, videoconferencing and the internet, all of which are available at a price for the single user at his or her own site. Location becomes irrelevant.

A visit to South Africa from the United States, for example, requires probably a week of preparation, a week there, and a week of decompression on the other side a total of three weeks, assuming we are efficient. Compare that with a day on the internet. How much information could one get on South Africa in the course of a few hours on the web? The information might be different, but it is going to be a large volume in a short period of time. You would understand the culture and the issues, and you could gain a lot of information that is hard to find out otherwise.

According to that well-known fan of investment management, Bill Gates: ''Anyone who is not intimately involved with the internet and the web does so at extreme peril." This statement applies with particular force to investment analysts and private investors. For those of us who are dedicated to moving our craft forward, being ahead of others and using the best tools available, the internet is our mandate.

Critics on Gary Brinson' Theory

If global investing is superior to investing in only one market, why do so many investors hold disproportionate amounts of their portfolios in equities of their own domestic markets? Even sophisticated institutional investors, such as pension funds and insurance companies, tend to concentrate well over three-quarters of their equity funds in domestically quoted shares, a phenomenon known as home bias. Evidence of wide discrepancies between national market performances over certain periods of time suggests that these investors would maximize their returns and minimize their risks more effectively by diversifying more fully across stocks in different countries.

Various explanations for home bias have been advanced. These include IMF officials' arguments that it is, in large part, due to the substantial risks of adverse exchange rate changes, which cannot be guarded against with standard hedging techniques. Currency risks may be compounded by the different supervisory environments in particular markets, by fears that capital controls may be instituted, by taxes on international trading or simply by a wish to avoid the time and expense of maintaining and researching a more widely spread international portfolio.

Such reasoning is supported by arguments that the benefits of international diversification arise merely from the fact that different stock markets have their shares concentrated in different industries. For example, the UK privatization program of the 1980s means that utilities are a more important part of the London market than elsewhere. Similarly, investment in the Swiss market implies a disproportionate bet on banking stocks, and investment in the Swedish market a commitment to basic industries. The implication is that global investing offers nothing more than exposure to additional industries.

Yet home bias on the part of institutional investors seems to be more a result of government restrictions on the amount of foreign assets pension funds and insurance companies in any given country are allowed to hold. It also may arise from the way in which fund managers' performance is assessed through reference to a local market index: even if passive indexing is not their dominant strategy, there is inevitably a strong incentive to own a good slice of the index's components. And industry analysts are often more prevalent than country analysts in fund managers' offices, suggesting a disposition to choose industrial over international diversification.

There is evidence that the covariances of global markets may be sliding closer, though Japan may be a special case. For the other members of the G-7, coordinated banking policies and facilitated information flows should tend to drive markets into a more steady alignment. On the surface, such an increase in stability could be seen as beneficial for business but would be a lessened benefit for portfolio investors attempting to diversify risk.

For example, closer links between European economies following the introduction of the euro will increase the incentive for US investors to diversify into European markets. At the same time, this may also strengthen the relationship between different European stock markets, reducing the incentive for diversification within Europe.