Price and value: what you pay versus what you get

10 June 2021

By John Husselbee, Co-Fund Manager WS Verbatim Portfolio Growth Fund  

Growing fears about rapidly inflating bubbles in certain parts of investment markets have led to renewed focus on one of the oldest – and most fundamentally misunderstood – relationships in finance, between price and value.

When it comes to most publicly traded assets, operating without the safety net of a recommended retail price, there is a difference between what something is ‘worth’ based on its fundamentals and how much people are prepared to pay for it. This means it is possible to get bargains from time to time (think of investment trusts trading on a discount, for example) but this disconnect has also fuelled every bubble in history, from the 17th century’s tulip mania through the late 1990s’ technology bubble to the frenzied trading in assets such as Bitcoin and stocks like GameStop and Tesla in recent months.

Going back to first investment principles, the value of an asset is determined by its fundamental properties. With equities, for example, this includes assets and liabilities, earnings, market share, management team, and, for investors, its capacity to provide cashflows over time. There are a huge range of metrics to indicate underlying value, often combining these properties, with the most popular including price to earnings ratio, price to book and debt to equity. 

Price, while encompassing those fundamental elements, is also influenced by shorter-term, sentiment-driven factors, from basic supply and demand (where current fads and fashions come into play in bidding up or pulling down prices) to market noise, whether macro, micro or simply the prevailing news headlines of the day. Most investors understand this trade off and, for the most part, longer-term fundamental factors are reflected in valuations. But there are also times when the value/price spread becomes more than simply attributable to short-term noise and bubbles emerge, with Tesla providing a perfect case study of this. 

If you look at Tesla’s price to book ratio, it was already expensive in 2018 and 2019 at around 12 times but this ballooned last year to over 40, while rival car firm Ford, in comparison, has remained stable at around one times book value. Tesla fans may try to rationalise this with claims the company is at the vanguard of an electronic revolution in the car world, and they may be proved right. But if you just focus on the here and now, Tesla’s 700%-plus share price appreciation during 2020 looks hard to justify: the company sold just 235,000 cars in its home market (the US) last year (versus close to two million for Ford) while its market cap expanded from $75 billion to $668 billion.

For anyone wanting to invest at these multiples, they have to question what value they are getting for their money and, for shareholders, this will ultimately be determined by how far Tesla can keep rising. We harbour serious doubts about stretched valuations across several tech companies in the US and believe recent corrections could continue through this year and beyond.

Theoretically, keeping the above factors in mind should help investors from overpaying for assets, particularly in periods of volatility and overexuberance, but as any student of markets knows, fear and greed continue to dominate decision making and even the most experienced still try to time the market. In a recent paper, behavioural finance expert Oxford Risk claims so-called emotional investing has hit a new peak in environment; on average, these ill-timed decisions cost investors around 3% in lost returns a year over the long term and this figure is rising amid the current crisis. 

From our perspective as multi-asset managers, this question of price versus value is also a key part of fund selection and we have written in the past about potential issues if investors focus too much on cost, running the risk of overlooking more fundamental concerns such as their risk profile or long-term objectives. 

Of course, the amount you pay for something is a major consideration in any transaction but if investors see price as the only factor when selecting financial products, they will largely buy the cheapest options available. This takes no account of desired outcomes and fails to consider the possibility that paying more might produce a better end result.

We add a third element to the price/value question in the shape of value for money, which is the central concern whether selecting funds, buying Bitcoin or day trading Tesla and GameStop shares. Our role in providing managed solutions – as a key part of meeting suitability requirements – is seeking investments that offer value for money, whether active or passive, and then packaging these in the best value funds for our clients. That may seem a simple goal but can often get lost, particularly if people forget the difference between what they pay and what they get.

To find out more about how our investment solutions can support your proposition visit or contact us on 0808 12 40 007

The value of investments and any income from them can go down as well as up and is not guaranteed. Your clients could get back less than they originally invested. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. The portfolios' investments are subject to normal fluctuations and other risks inherent when investing in securities. Verbatim Asset Management has taken due care and attention in preparing this document, which is solely for the use of professional advisers. Verbatim cannot be held responsible for any inaccuracies arising out of information detailed within and will not accept liability for any loss arising out of or in connection with its use. The contents of this article should not be construed as advice and is for information only. Individual stock selection should only be performed by suitably qualified advisers.