Sign Up For The Next
New Constructs Webinar






Navigation

Proof Is In Performance Through 4Q12

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

There are many ways to define the qual­ity and merit of equity research. One mea­sure stands tallest: per­for­mance of stock rec­om­men­da­tions. And by that mea­sure, New Con­structs’ research is of very high quality. See our lat­est Proof Is In Per­for­mance Thru 4Q12 Report for more details.

As you can see in the post on our stock-picking acco­lades, we have plenty of inde­pen­dent, 3rd-party val­i­da­tion of our stock-picking suc­cess. So, you don’t just have to take our word for it.

Our suc­cess comes from being able to iden­tify groups of stocks that are most likely to be re-priced as the mar­ket, over time, rec­ti­fies mis­per­cep­tions of eco­nomic value cre­ated by investors employ­ing less ana­lyt­i­cal rigor than we. We derive our advan­tage from the in-depth analy­sis of finan­cial state­ments, espe­cially the notes to the finan­cial state­ments, which we apply to the analy­sis of the under­ly­ing eco­nomic value of 3000 firms. We believe our exact­ing approach to research gives us advan­tage in the selec­tion of indi­vid­ual secu­ri­ties for our long and short portfolios.

Our Large-Cap Long strategy (7.4%) outperformed the S&P 500 in 4Q12 by 6.7%, our Small-Cap Long strategy (6.9%) outperformed the Russell 2000 in 4Q12 by 2.1%, and our combined Large and Small-Cap Long strategy (7.2%) outperformed the S&P 500 in 4Q12 by 4.4%.

The cumulative returns of our rec­om­men­da­tions since Jan­u­ary 2005:

Long/Short Strat­egies:

  • Most Attractive/Dangerous (Large and Small stocks): 61.2%
  • Most Attractive/Dangerous (Large cap stocks only):  64.8%
  • Most Attractive/Dangerous (Small cap stocks only): 48.9%

Long Strat­egies:

  • Most Attrac­tive  (Large and Small stocks): 72.4%
  • Most Attrac­tive (Large cap stocks only): 76.2%
  • Most Attrac­tive (Small cap stocks only): 61%

These returns com­pare well to the major indices over the same time frame:

  • S&P 500: 24.1%
  • Rus­sell 2000: 44.2%
  • Risk-Free Rate: 15.4%


Suggested Stories

3 Comments

  1. varadha says:

    Terrific, yet simple analysis. I’ve always been a fan of ROIC as a measure of capital efficiency and believe that no size/growth outperformance can replace the quest for efficiency.

    Sort of like a big gas guzzling v8 that needs ever increasing gallons of fuel to keep its engine running

  2. David says:

    But Angie’s $90 per user acquisition cost is going to go away. That’s what their approach probably is. How would their outlook be if that $90 cost dropped down to a total cost of $3 per user?

  3. David:

    That would be great, but cost per user acquisition is not something that’s very easy for a company to fix. ANGI can slash their marketing budget to the bone, but then they would stop acquiring new members. They would probably lose members in fact, as their membership renewal rate is at ~75% and declining. If they cut marketing expense by ~95% as you seem to be suggesting, ANGI might be able to eke out 1 year of slight profits, but they would start shedding members and losing money very quickly. ANGI’s only hope is to keep its marketing budget high and hope it can reach the scale and brand awareness to be able to sustain its business while scaling back marketing costs enough to turn a profit. The fact that ANGI’s revenue growth is slowing down even as its marketing costs keep increasing makes it very unlikely it will achieve that goal.

Leave a Message

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *