Vijay Kumar Gaba

The debate over whether “equity investing” is an art or science is never ending. There are arguments on both sides, but none of these appear strong enough to settle the debate. Almost all episodes of this debate usually end with the compromising statement - “Equity investment is both an art and a science.”

The application of quantitative research and financial models does give it a scientific color. But use of quantitative methods and financial models is highly influenced by the personal preferences, experience, estimates and prejudices of the user. Invariably, the forecasts of fundamental analysts vary based on what parameters they have used in forming their respective opinions. For example, a 50bps difference in weighted average cost of capital (WACC) used by two analysts could give dramatically different assessments for the fair value of a stock. As someone pointed out, fundamental analysis of equity stocks is like navigating a car. While all the cars are designed scientifically, the drivers have distinct styles of driving and the results – time to travel a defined distance, safety of the passengers and vehicle, fuel mileage obtained from the vehicle etc. – largely depend on the style and experience of the driver.

The “art” side of equity investing is even more complicated. Most investors view a particular stock from the vista point they are standing at that particular point in time. Their decision to buy or sell stock depends on their financial, psychological, and social condition at that particular point in time. The decision (and therefore view on a stock) can change dramatically if they move to a different vista point, i.e., their financial, psychological and/or social change.

For example, an investor who invested in a portfolio of stocks 10yrs ago for children's college fees, he/she will sell the portfolio as soon as the children get admission in college, irrespective of the future outlook of these stocks.

Parallel to the debate of ‘science” vs ‘arts”, a lot of mythical investment strategies are also commonly discussed and marketed. The investors, analysts and money managers use terms like “value vs growth”; “cyclical vs defensive”; “large cap vs midcap”; “financials vs technology”, which are mostly mythical and have no scientific basis.

·         Most large IT Services companies count BFSI as their primary customer segment. Most large financial firms are reporting spend on technology as their primary capex. How could possibly the investment in these two sectors be alternative.

·         Auto, Energy, and Banks sector equities have given positive returns over the past 3yr, 1yr and YTD2022 horizon. This period saw one of the most pervasive socio-economic disruption globally and triggered a global recession. Whereas, media, pharma and IT services are the sector that are down on 1yr and YTD2022 basis, though IT and Pharma sectors have given strong returns over the past 3yrs. The question is how would define what is cyclical and what is secular or defensive in this scenario.

·         Midcaps have outperformed Nifty over past 1yr and 3yr timeframe. So what is the relevance of largecap vs midcap debate?

The point I am trying to make is that the investors must avoid these mostly redundant and mythological distinctions and debates and focus on their investment objectives and strategy to achieve those objectives.