How Persistent Are Quality and Growth?

By Safia Williams, CFA, Associate Analyst | February 28, 2024

At Harding Loevner, we are quality growth investors, which means we seek to invest in well-managed, financially sound businesses that can sustain profitable growth across economic cycles. But what do we mean when we talk about quality and growth as attributes of a company? While there is no standard definition of quality or growth in the investing world, our quality rankings consider factors such as the stability, level, and trend of a company’s profitability as well as its balance-sheet strength, and our growth rankings consider historical and estimated future changes in sales, earnings, and cash flows.

How companies perform on those measures can change over time. Industry dynamics evolve, which can lead to a shift in competitive positioning. Macroeconomic cycles and deviations in management strategy can also alter the long-term outlook. Even companies that consistently rank highly for quality and growth must be continuously assessed for signs of deterioration in their financial health, competitive advantages, and other factors. The challenge isn’t just determining the businesses that meet our criteria today, but also which businesses will sustain their quality and growth characteristics over the long run.

The charts below illustrate how variable those characteristics are. The bubbles represent the roughly 2,700 stocks that were in the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) at the end of 2018. In the tab for 2018, they’re split down the middle such that the top half of stocks (the orange portion) were considered high quality, based on their Harding Loevner quality scores at the time. But over the next five years, the characteristics of the companies changed. Now click the tab for 2023. It shows that only 25% of index members were also above the threshold that was set in 2018.

2018
2023

2018

2023

HOLT, FactSet, MSCI, data as of December 31, 2023

In fact, in any five-year period only about a quarter of companies were in the top half of quality at the start and the end of the period:

HOLT, FactSet, MSCI, data as of December 31, 2023

Identifying a persistently high-quality and fast-growing company is even more difficult, as the following charts show. Clicking the tab for 2023 reveals that only 10% of companies in the index remained above the threshold for quality and growth that was set in 2018. This means investors can expect that the majority of high-quality, growing businesses today will not score as high-quality, fast growers in five years.

2018
2023

2018

2023

HOLT, FactSet, MSCI, data as of December 31, 2023

TSMC and France-based Dassault Systèmes are among companies that, because of their strong competitive advantages, have managed to sustain their quality and growth rankings in our measurements. TSMC is one of the few reliable, high-volume global manufacturers of advanced and specialty semiconductor chips, a strength that stems from decades of proprietary technology development and disciplined execution. Dassault is a provider of software for virtual product design that has one of the broadest offerings in the space, able to be used by customers in multiple industries. Its high proportion of recurring revenue from software subscriptions and a loyal customer base have insulated the business from economic downturns. In fact, both TSMC and Dassault have remained in the top quadrant of quality and growth every year for the past 15 years (and have been owned in Harding Loevner’s International Equity model portfolio for that entire time). But as the data show, such companies are the outliers.

Quality growth investing also isn’t as simple as buying and holding companies that score in the top quadrant of our rankings—or immediately discarding the stock of a company that has strayed from that territory. These scores are merely proxies that attempt to capture each company’s financial strength, competitive advantage, and the projected trajectory of their growth. Indeed, fundamental analysis can sometimes lead us to identify companies that meet our investment criteria even if they don’t, at the moment, score in the top quadrant. Therefore, it’s better to analyze and monitor a business’s quality and growth through the fundamental research that informs these scores rather than speculate on potential movements in the scores themselves.

At Harding Loevner, this process begins with an analyst examining a company’s competitive position within its industry using the framework of Porter’s Five Forces, which is based on Harvard University professor Michael Porter’s book, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Once a company is affirmed to meet our investment criteria, analysts continue to track and debate the strength of its fundamentals and growth potential, communicating with colleagues when these factors are at risk of deterioration. It’s because we know quality and growth may not always persist that our research process to evaluate these characteristics must.

What did you think of this piece?

Low Debt Companies Fare Better in High Interest Rate Times

By Andrew West, CFA, Analyst and Portfolio Manager | February 08, 2024

Portfolio manager Andrew West, CFA, explains how selecting companies with strong balance sheets and low debt safeguards against the potential erosion of the value when interest rates are elevated.

What did you think of this piece?

Experience in a “Wicked” World

By Simon Hallett, Vice Chairman | December 20, 2023

We often hear about the value of experience in the investment business. But what, really, is that value? Implicit in the idea that experience is valuable is a belief that experience necessarily leads to expertise. (I’m using psychology professor Gregory Northcraft’s definition of being a expert here—experts have superior predictive models that work.)

In many areas of our lives, we can, in fact, learn from our experiences. Over time we start to see patterns in events and that pattern recognition enables subjective judgment, or what is often called intuition. But those patterns need to be recurrent, in environments where there is a clear and stable relationship between cause and effect, so that history really does repeat itself.

In his book Range, David Epstein described that sort of learning environment as “kind”—patterns repeat, feedback is immediate, and experience can lead to expertise. As he writes, “In golf or chess, a ball or piece is moved according to rules and within defined boundaries, a consequence is quickly apparent, and similar challenges occur repeatedly…. the player observes what happened, attempts to correct the error, tries again, and repeats for years.”

In contrast, in the sorts of learning environments that Epstein describes as “wicked” there are few (or no) clear rules and feedback is limited at best. In these kinds of environments, experience teaches you little. Indeed, it can be dangerous. Experience can lead us to over-interpret, to see patterns where there are none, and to become entrenched in our ideas.

Once we have an idea, it is extremely hard to change our minds. Confirmation bias means that we see evidence that confirms our views and ignore that which challenges them. When facts change, we should change our minds, but we rarely do. And cognitive entrenchment means that the more experience we have, the more difficult we find it to adapt to changing circumstances. With greater experience comes rigidity.

The fact that more experience can lead to these behavioral pitfalls is a good reminder that it’s important to pay attention to smart, inexperienced people. Often in organizations, seniority can lead to one’s views being accorded more weight, while more inexperienced colleagues’ views are often dismissed as lacking sufficient wisdom.

Investing, obviously, takes place in a wicked learning environment. The relationship between cause and effect on market prices is highly obscure. Few patterns repeat and, once identified, are arbitraged away and do not persist. There is no evidence, for example, that market participants can forecast the direction of markets, let alone macroeconomic or political variables.

Furthermore, for long-term investors such as us, it is hard to identify the right feedback to our decision-making. Our goal is to construct portfolios that outperform the broad markets on a risk-adjusted basis over extended periods. But returns are very time dependent, and short-term price movements are a poor guide to long-term returns, offering us poor feedback on our decisions. We must look at our investment theses and create our own feedback loops so that we can test whether the fundamental insights we are relying on to forecast outperformance of the stock of a particular company remain valid. And to overcome cognitive entrenchment, we must be prepared to update our beliefs—our forecasts—if the facts change.

This sort of learning environment is why when it comes to investing, experience doesn’t lead to expertise. It leads, simply, to experience—more opportunities to learn, more chances to understand the boundaries of our knowledge. But those chances are very, very valuable.

One of our basic beliefs about equity markets is that they are efficient, but not entirely so. There are inefficiencies that result from the biases of market participants, and to overcome our own biases and exploit those of others, we have structure and process—or rules—that govern how we do research and provide the background to the judgment required about when to buy and sell stocks.

But are there any permanent rules in investing? Rules are important for controlling cognitive biases, but they are not unchanging dogma. We should be prepared to change our rules when the environment changes or when they do not work. In an investment firm, humility about our ability to forecast accurately is important, and so is an open-mindedness about rules. More experience gives us the ability to look at our own behavior, to observe the errors that we make—usually because of our own biases—and to implement structures and processes that help mitigate the all-too-human tendency to make decisions where the results do not contribute to achieving our goals.

I know less now than I thought I did when I was new to the investment business 45 years ago. What experience has taught me is the importance of being aware of market history but not relying on it to make forecasts. It has taught me that how we behave is more important than what we know. And most importantly, experience has given me more chances to test ideas in the marketplace, receive feedback, and use that feedback for continuous improvement.

What did you think of this piece?

Analyzing Industry Structure through Porter’s Five Forces Model

By Yoko Sakai, CFA, Director of Research | December 13, 2023

As bottom-up investors, we aim to invest in high-quality growth businesses at reasonable prices to provide superior risk-adjusted returns over the long term. To determine what constitutes a high-quality growth business, we research a company’s management, financial strength, growth prospects, and we closely examine the industry in which it operates to determine the company’s competitive advantage.

It’s as important to examine a company’s industry as it is to examine the fundamentals of a company. An analysis of industry structure can inform how well-positioned a company is relative to competitors, as well as the profit potential for the company.

Our analysis is guided by Harvard University professor Michael Porter’s Five Forces, which were first introduced in a 1979 issue of Harvard Business Review and later detailed in his 1980 book, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors.

In this six-part video series, we examine each Porter Force and discuss how we use them to analyze industries. Watch the series introduction below and click through to see how we leverage Michael Porter’s Five Forces framework for industry analysis.

Porter’s Five Forces: A Framework for Competitive Analysis

What did you think of this piece?

Out of Our Minds

How Persistent Are Quality and Growth?

2018

2023

HOLT, FactSet, MSCI, data as of December 31, 2023

HOLT, FactSet, MSCI, data as of December 31, 2023

2018

2023

HOLT, FactSet, MSCI, data as of December 31, 2023

Low Debt Companies Fare Better in High Interest Rate Times

Experience in a “Wicked” World

Analyzing Industry Structure through Porter’s Five Forces Model

Disclosures