IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/revfec/v44y2026i1ne70034.html

Does Ben Graham's net current asset value investing continue to generate excess returns?

Author

Listed:
  • Sunil K. Mohanty
  • Jeffrey J. Oxman

Abstract

This study investigates the long‐term performance of Benjamin Graham's net current asset value (NCAV) strategy, one of the most stringent forms of value investing, in U.S. equity markets using data from 1969 to 2019. The NCAV criterion identifies firms trading at less than two‐thirds of current assets minus total liabilities, effectively pricing them below their estimated liquidation value. Using a sample of 648 unique firms, we find that a value‐weighted NCAV portfolio earns an average monthly return of 1.94%, significantly outperforming market benchmarks. After controlling for the Fama–French five factors, the Pastor–Stambaugh liquidity factor, and the January effect, NCAV portfolios deliver a statistically and economically significant alpha of 1.09% per month (13.9% annually). In contrast, industry‐ and size‐matched control portfolios exhibit no abnormal returns, indicating that the NCAV premium is not driven by small‐firm effects. The strategy's profitability, however, declines in the 2004–2019 period, consistent with structural changes in the U.S. economy, increased institutional participation, and evolving factor exposures. Our findings provide new evidence on the persistence, limitations, and conditional nature of deep‐value investment strategies, with implications for market efficiency and contrarian investment approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunil K. Mohanty & Jeffrey J. Oxman, 2026. "Does Ben Graham's net current asset value investing continue to generate excess returns?," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:revfec:v:44:y:2026:i:1:n:e70034
    DOI: 10.1002/rfe.70034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/rfe.70034
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/rfe.70034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. De Bondt, Werner F M & Thaler, Richard, 1985. "Does the Stock Market Overreact?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 793-805, July.
    2. Vu, Joseph D, 1988. "An Empirical Analysis of Ben Graham's Net Current Asset Value Rule," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 23(2), pages 215-225, May.
    3. Liu, Weimin, 2006. "A liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 631-671, December.
    4. Pastor, Lubos & Stambaugh, Robert F., 2003. "Liquidity Risk and Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(3), pages 642-685, June.
    5. Orbay Arkol & Asil Azimli, 2024. "Pricing the common stocks in emerging markets: The role of economic policy uncertainty," Modern Finance, Modern Finance Institute, vol. 2(1), pages 31-50.
    6. Shumway, Tyler, 1997. "The Delisting Bias in CRSP Data," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 327-340, March.
    7. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "The Limits of Arbitrage," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 35-55, March.
    8. Bildersee, John S. & Cheh, John J. & Zutshi, Ajay, 1993. "The performance of Japanese common stocks in relation to their net current asset values," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 197-215, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cohen, Randolph B. & Gompers, Paul A. & Vuolteenaho, Tuomo, 2002. "Who underreacts to cash-flow news? evidence from trading between individuals and institutions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 409-462.
    2. Hoang, Khoa & Huang, Ronghong & Truong, Helen, 2023. "Resurrecting the market factor: A case of data mining across international markets," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. Yukun Liu & Aleh Tsyvinski & Xi Wu, 2022. "Common Risk Factors in Cryptocurrency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 77(2), pages 1133-1177, April.
    4. Wu, Yuliang & Mazouz, Khelifa, 2016. "Long-term industry reversals," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 236-250.
    5. Hou, Kewei & Xue, Chen & Zhang, Lu, 2017. "Replicating Anomalies," Working Paper Series 2017-10, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    6. Asness, Clifford & Frazzini, Andrea & Israel, Ronen & Moskowitz, Tobias J. & Pedersen, Lasse H., 2018. "Size matters, if you control your junk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 479-509.
    7. Bali, Turan G. & Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar & Wen, Quan, 2021. "Long-term reversals in the corporate bond market," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 656-677.
    8. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, January.
    9. Geertsema, Paul & Lu, Helen, 2020. "The correlation structure of anomaly strategies," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    10. Wang, Yuming & Ma, Jinpeng, 2014. "Excess volatility and the cross-section of stock returns," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 1-16.
    11. Bartram, Söhnke M. & Grinblatt, Mark, 2018. "Agnostic fundamental analysis works," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 125-147.
    12. Sanjay Sehgal & Srividya Subramaniam & Florent Deisting, 2014. "Tests of Equity Market Anomalies for Select Emerging Markets," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 8(3), pages 27-46.
    13. Weimin Liu & Di Luo & Seyoung Park & Huainan Zhao, 2022. "The cross‐sectional return predictability of employment growth: A liquidity risk explanation," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 57(1), pages 155-178, February.
    14. Ijaz Ur Rehman & Nurul Shahnaz Mahdzan & Rozaimah Zainudin, 2016. "Is the relationship between macroeconomy and stock market liquidity mutually reinforcing? Evidence from an emerging market," International Journal of Monetary Economics and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(3), pages 294-316.
    15. Hagströmer, Björn & Hansson, Björn & Nilsson, Birger, 2013. "The components of the illiquidity premium: An empirical analysis of US stocks 1927–2010," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4476-4487.
    16. Cynthia M. Gong & Di Luo & Huainan Zhao, 2021. "Liquidity risk and the beta premium," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 44(4), pages 789-814, December.
    17. Li, Xiafei & Luo, Di, 2019. "Financial constraints, stock liquidity, and stock returns," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    18. Dang, Tung Lam & Moshirian, Fariborz & Zhang, Bohui, 2019. "Liquidity shocks and institutional investors," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 184-209.
    19. Ali, Ashiq & Chen, Xuanjuan & Yao, Tong & Yu, Tong, 2020. "Can mutual funds profit from post earnings announcement drift? The role of competition," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    20. Bernd Huefner & Marcel Rueenaufer & Martin Boesch, 2023. "Value investing via Bayesian inference," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(4), pages 465-492, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:revfec:v:44:y:2026:i:1:n:e70034. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1873-5924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.