Schroders’ QEP group has begun a new chapter under the co-leadership of Lukas Kamblevicius and Stephen Langford. The recent and ongoing changes to the team and process limit our conviction at this stage. While the group is trending in a positive direction, Schroder ISF QEP Global Quality’s track record remains weak.
The group has come through an eventful period, which included a review of its lineup; a big step up in its environmental, social, and governance investing efforts; and a change at its helm. Portfolio manager Kamblevicius and former head of research Langford are now in charge. Kamblevicius has ultimate responsibility for the core and quality strategies, while Langford took up the team’s value range. Paul Taylor, Fredrik Regland, Katie Stafford, and David Philpotts round out QEP’s strategic steering group. The new leadership has long average tenure at the firm and is well-versed in the group’s investment approach. While the group's headcount has remained relatively stable throughout and recent senior hires have strengthened the unit, there were multiple changes among its ranks, with about a third of the researchers joining the group in 2022 or later.
The quantitative model here is designed to sweep through a universe of 15,000 stocks and select high-quality names trading at decent valuations while avoiding the riskier segments of the market. Quality is captured by evaluating and ranking the underlying characteristics of each company, namely, profitability, stability, financial strength, governance, and (since 2020) growth metrics. While the firm’s core quant approach is distinctive and sensible, and at a high level remains true to its roots, there are many moving parts here. For instance, the portfolio has gradually shifted toward growth stocks, and the number of portfolio holdings has swung meaningfully over time from around 250 to 500 stocks. Some of these changes have led to a welcome improvement in performance in 2021-22. Still, while risk has been well under control, this strategy’s track record remains uninspiring, as it lags the Morningstar Global Target Market Exposure Index benchmark across most periods, in spite of the style tailwind enjoyed over much of its history. |
|