A significant shift in financial markets occurred roughly twenty years ago. It was June 2000, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had just raised the short-term interest rate to 6.5%. Within months, a falling stock market would lead the economy into a short and shallow recession.  Unbeknownst to anyone at that time, the central bank would soon begin cutting rates further than they ever had before. In so doing, they would usher in a new era of easy credit. In this commentary, we make a case for investing in quality, especially during this ultra-easy credit era.

Why do we call this an “easy credit” era? Because interest rates are being held at or below the inflation rate, a signal of “accommodative” or “easy” monetary conditions. The chart below shows the relationship between interest rates and inflation. The interest rate shown is the policy rate set by the Federal Reserve. The inflation rate is the broad measure of economy-wide inflation called the “deflator.” Note that after the 2001 recession, the rate of interest tended to be below inflation (except for a short period in 2006-2007). Such low rates tend to encourage borrowing, thereby stimulating the economy.

Easy Credit Era (2001-Today)

In the twenty years since the easy credit era began, total debt has grown to $80 trillion — 3.8 times the size of the U.S. economy. By this measure, borrowings have returned to levels last seen in 2008. In 1980, 1990, and 2000, the ratio was 1.6 times, 2.3 times, and 2.7 times, respectively. The reality of rising debt, especially for some businesses, adds an element of risk. Interest cost on debt, after all, is a fixed cost that can amplify swings in income and profitability and raises the likelihood of default. However, above-average stock multiples and tight credit spreads suggest markets are not focused on these risks. If the legacy of twenty years of easy credit is heightened risk, it makes sense to lean against those trends when constructing a portfolio.

Rising Significance of “Quality”

An oft-overlooked dimension of investing, “quality” denotes dependability, sturdiness, and consistency. It can contribute to return, but it is harder to quantify. For us, it means three things: financial flexibility, productive assets, and consistency. What’s more, the market should recognize and reward these positive characteristics versus riskier companies, especially during uncertain or difficult times.

To test this hypothesis, we performed a rigorous statistical analysis (charts below) based on a set of fundamental factor return indices. These indices are designed to isolate returns to a given factor such as leverage (debt/equity), profitability (return on assets), earnings consistency (volatility of operating earnings), dividend yield, etc. Using these fundamentally-driven returns, we examined the relationship between “quality” and “risk.” In the analysis below, “quality” is the average factor return based on profitability, earnings consistency, and balance sheet leverage. Return to “risk” is evaluated as the return on a portfolio of stocks based on rolling 60-month betas versus the Russell 1000 index of large-cap domestic stocks.

As you can see in the charts below, the linkage between these factors became far more significant since the beginning of the easy credit era in 2001 through today than before the era began (1993-2001). The increased importance of quality is evidenced by a steeper slope of the line and higher explanatory power (r-squared) in 2001-2020 versus 1993-2001. The evidence is clear — markets are now more discerning over issues like debt, profitability, and consistency that determine “quality” than in the past. In past decades, when interest costs were high and falling and economic growth was faster, “quality” was less important. But that is no longer the case — now, it is crucial to focus on “quality” in stock selection.

Quality More Significant Now

Analysis of Fundamental Factor Returns (1993-2001 vs. 2001-2020)

Chart Explanation: When quality decreases, risk increases. When quality increases, risk decreases. There is a trade-off between quality and risk. And since 2001, the trade-off between risk and quality has become larger and more explicit.

Conclusion

Easy credit and rising debt often lead to excesses that get corrected through painful defaults, dilution, or business failure. Evidence suggests that markets may be underestimating risks such as wider cyclical swings or default associated with today’s extended credit cycle. To compensate for these risks, focusing on the “quality” dimension of investing is of increasing importance.