Future of Growth Investing

The epitome of growth investing was the one-decision stock era of the bull market of the early 1970s. The notion was that growth of earnings per share could be projected as a straight line on semi-log paper for the most durable, well managed companies. Predictable growth would be valued richly by investors, which would make equity capital cheaper and easier to raise. In turn, this equity could be invested at higher than average rates of return on capital, which cycled into more earnings per share. And so the money machine would turn. The proper investment strategy was to buy the right companies and hold them forever.

The index funds of the late 1990s get some of the same influence although not by overtly selecting highly regarded stocks (see Indexing and Mutual Funds). But the index tends to be more heavily weighted in those stocks. The one-decision phenomenon of the 1970s and the indexing craze of the 1990s may end up at the same place: ownership of a handful of richly valued companies whose history is not a precursor of their future. And the indexer, like the one-decision investor, is disciplined to stay invested no matter what.Jeremy Grantham of Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. LLC comments:

Historically, at the stock levels in the United States, equity investors have over-paid for comfort (stability, information, size, consensus, market domination, brand names). Historically, equity investors have over-paid for excitement and sex appeal (growth, profitability, management skills, technological change, cyclicality, volatility, and most of all, acceleration in the above).

Paying-up for comfort and excitement as growth managers do for example, is not necessarily foolish, for clients also like these characteristics. Conversely, when a value manager is very wrong as he will be sooner or later he will be fired more quickly than a growth manager. To add insult to injury, the data indicates that the best growth managers add more to growth than the best value managers can add to value, probably because the fundamentals and the prices are more dynamic for growth stocks.

Finally, beyond the financial details of potential growth companies and growth stocks, what are the broad requirements of a successful business? And conversely, what are the features of business failure? We suggest three characteristics which, if found together, will guarantee success for failure. If a business has a combination of passion, authenticity and integrity, it will succeed. In contrast, whenever you find together the three ingredients of mediocrity, arrogance and isolation, the business or indeed the country concerned will fail.

Critics on Peter Lynch

Why not? Of course, the purpose of equity investing is growth, is it not? So the two words seem to be inseparably linked. But perhaps we confuse growth with appreciation. And perhaps we automatically associate past growth with future appreciation. They can differ.

Marc Faber, our guru for Manias, Panics and Crashes, points out, there are two reasons why highly popular stocks, which have become viewed as growth stocks, usually end up as costly disappointments:
First, exciting new markets often fail to keep growing as rapidly and profitably as expected. Second, when a business achieves great success, competitors are attracted into the field, slowing growth and shrinking profit margins for the early leaders. Gottaown stocks are very likely to be losers.

Certainly, when growth stocks start to decelerate, when momentum ends, the price of failure is high. Once a growth stock starts to fall, it loses its momentum attractions, followers of the trend start to desert, forcing the price down further and creating a downward spiral. In such circumstances, there can be high penalties for earnings disappointments. Eventually, growth stocks fail to fulfill their original promise and disappoint investors. Then, as fallen angels they become potential seeds for future value stocks.

Some growth industries never produce any growth stocks: competition is so fierce that no one makes any money. And in a classic article published in the Harvard Business Review over 40 years ago, Peter Bernstein (see Economic Forecasting), makes the important distinction between growth stocks and growth companies:

Growth stocks are a happy and haphazard category of investments which, curiously enough, have little or nothing to do with growth companies. Indeed, the term growth stock is meaningless; a growth stock can only be identified with hindsight it is simply a stock which went way up. But the concept of growth company can be used to identify the most creative, most imaginative management groups; and if, in addition, their stocks are valued at a reasonable ratio to their increase in earnings power over time, the odds are favorable for appreciation in the future.

While Peter Lynch likes growth companies, out of self-professed lack of understanding, he has tended to avoid the high-tech area, where many of the biggest individual growth stock gains of the 1990s have been made (see Internet Investing). His style is also limited to investing in US equities. Of course, it is true that the concept of investment in growth companies as a distinct style of equity investing seems to emerge only in maturing economies. Growth is assumed to be an integral element of any stock selection criteria in many other parts of the world

Peter Lynch, Growth Investing Expert

Peter Lynch is one of the best-known names in investing. He ran Fidelity's Magellan Fund for thirteen years from 1977 and in that period, Magellan was up over 2700%. Lynch managed a vast portfolio, containing over fourteen thousand stocks at any time, and turned over the whole portfolio on average once a year. Yet even in difficult markets, he was almost always opposed to assets sitting in bonds and cash. Instead, he advocated holding good quality stocks with low volatility when going defensive.

Lynch's basic message is that an individual investor can actually find great stocks before Wall Street does: using a combination of intelligence, reflection, perseverance and discipline, it is possible for the average person to uncover great investments. His central point is that products and services you use and enjoy are often provided by excellent companies. If you research these companies and find out whether or not the stock that corresponds to them is priced favorably, you have an outstanding chance at compounding market-beating returns industries and businesses; investigating how a company treats its customers and vice versa. This is the only way I know to find great companies, and nothing beats the feeling when it pays off.

While a fund manager is more or less forced into owning a long list of stocks, an individual has the luxury of owning just a few. That means you can afford to be choosy and invest only in outfits that you understand and that have a superior product or franchise with clear opportunities for expansion. You can wait until the company repeats its successful formula in several places or markets (same-store sales on the rise, earnings on the rise) before you buy the first share.

If you put together a portfolio of five to ten of these high achievers, there's a decent chance one of them will turn out to be a ten-, a twenty- or even a fifty-bagger, where you can make ten, twenty or fifty times your investment. With your stake divided among a handful of issues, all it takes is a couple of gains of this magnitude in a lifetime to produce superior returns.

So what advice does Lynch give to the typical individual investor? Writing in his regular column in Worth magazine, he recommends:

Find your edge and put it to work by adhering to the following rules:

With every stock you own, keep track of its story in a logbook. Note any new developments and pay close attention to earnings. Is this a growth play, a cyclical play or a value play? Stocks do well for a reason and do poorly for a reason. Make sure you know the reasons.

Pay attention to facts, not forecasts.

Ask yourself: what will I make if I'm right, and what could I lose if I'm wrong? Look for a risk-reward ratio of three to one or better.

Before you invest, check the balance sheet to see if the company is financially sound.


Don't buy options, and don't invest on margin. With options, time works against you, and if you're on margin, a drop in the market can wipe you out.

When several insiders are buying the company's stock at the same time, it's a positive.

Average investors should be able to monitor five to ten companies at a time, but nobody is forcing you to own any of them. If you like seven, buy seven. If you like three, buy three. If you like zero, buy zero.

Be patient. The stocks that have been most rewarding to me have made their greatest gains in the third or fourth year I owned them. A few took ten years.

Enter early but not too early. I often think of investing in growth companies in terms of baseball. Try to join the game in the third inning, because a company has proved itself by then. If you buy before the line-up is announced, you're taking an unnecessary risk. There's plenty of time (ten to fifteen years in some cases) between the third and the seventh innings, which is where the ten- to fifty-baggers are made. If you buy in the late innings, you may be too late.

Don't buy cheap stocks just because they're cheap. Buy them because the fundamentals are improving.

Buy small companies after they've had a chance to prove they can make a profit.

Long-shots usually backfire or become no shots.

If you buy a stock for the dividend, make sure the company can comfortably afford to pay the dividend out of its earnings, even in an economic slump.

Investigate ten companies and you're likely to find one with bright prospects that aren't reflected in the price. Investigate fifty and you're likely to find five.