Quality Meets Growth: Why Quality Matters in Growth Investing

As the growth investing landscape continues to evolve, it’s worth remembering a timeless expression: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Growth investing, by its nature, tends to get energized by new and exciting themes, and investors’ enthusiasm is frequently concentrated on a handful of companies that disproportionately impact the market. Such frenzied moments in growth investing are often short-lived, however. When the excitement fades, one enduring trait stands apart: quality.

If we look to the past, it’s easy to come up with examples of stocks that, at one time, fit neatly into the market-driving investment theme of the day. Consider the examples below from three notable periods of high growth. Microsoft and Coca-Cola remain leading businesses in their industries today, while companies like Polaroid and Peloton may have failed to meet investor growth expectations in the long run. Ask yourself, which of the other names may have possessed the attributes of quality?

Our analysis shows that an investment strategy anchored in genuine quality demonstrates resilience through business cycles and can offer compounding benefits. Though many market participants may claim to adhere to a quality approach, we think there’s often a gap between the philosophical narrative and the reality. What accounts for that gap? Investor behavioral tendencies and biases. (More on that later.)

Inefficiency in growth investing

Active investing requires market inefficiencies – i.e. mispriced securities – to generate superior returns over time. These inefficiencies can sometimes be obscured by market sentiment or by other factors, but empirical evidence supports that stocks are often either over- or undervalued. In the growth universe, one of the primary signs of inefficient market behavior, in our experience, is the advantage one can gain by investing in high-quality companies instead of focusing solely on high growth.

Figure 1 focuses on growth stocks in two high-ranking categories: (1) the top quintile of “quality,” based on a measure of cash flow return on investment (CFROI), and (2) the top quintile of sales growth. These cohorts’ “persistence” is measured as the percentage of companies that can retain their top-quintile characteristics each year, through year five. The results show that companies with high growth rates are rarely able to maintain them and ultimately slow down. In fact, nearly 50% of top-quintile growth companies failed to retain their top-quintile characteristics after just one year. High-quality companies, on the other hand, have a much better track record of maintaining their high-quality characteristics. Conceptually, the data speak to the laws of capitalism: High-growth companies attract competitive pressures, which can erode their growth rates, market share, margins, and returns, unless they have a moat protecting their business model. Such a protective moat can be observed for quality companies in their sustained levels of CFROI, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: High-quality vs. high-growth companies (1990-2022)

Sources: Credit Suisse HOLT, Macquarie. Companies are equally weighted, rebalanced monthly for the top 1,000 US companies by total market cap. The quality growth group is designed to identify firms with competitive advantages, above-average growth characteristics, and valuations that confirm the market’s favorable outlook. The hyper growth group is designed to identify early lifecycle growth companies, committed to high rates of reinvestment but showing limited profitability due to the pursuit of growth. Chart is for illustrative purposes only. **Past performance does not guarantee future results.**

Quality growth companies also display better stock return characteristics. Over time, quality growth companies within the Russell 1000^® Growth Index have a higher frequency of excess returns than hyper growth companies. Notably, there are periods where hyper growth outperforms. Look no further than the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2021, as seen in Figure 2. But the high failure rate of these companies ultimately destroys their value in the long run. Meanwhile, quality growth companies have higher odds of preserving value and, as a result, can provide more attractive long-term benefits for investors.

Figure 2: Compounding advantages of quality growth vs. hyper growth (1994-2022)

Performance over the long term hinges on the strength of returns during up markets as well as resilience during down markets. Figure 3 shows the performance differential between quality growth and hyper growth companies during significant market drawdowns since 2006. Generally, quality growth companies experience less-severe drawdowns than hyper growth companies do, offering further evidence of the benefits that quality companies can provide investors in the long run.

Figure 3: Down markets favor quality

Source: Credit Suisse HOLT. Chart represents quality growth stocks’ performance relative to hyper growth stocks during significant market drawdowns, from 2006 to 2024. Companies are equally weighted, rebalanced monthly for the top 1,000 US companies by total market cap. The quality growth group is designed to identify firms with competitive advantages, above-average growth characteristics, and valuations that confirm the market’s favorable outlook. The hyper growth group is designed to identify early lifecycle growth companies, committed to high rates of reinvestment but showing limited profitability due to the pursuit of growth. Chart is for illustrative purposes only. **Past performance does not guarantee future results.**

Confronting investor biases

Extensive research has been conducted on investor behavior and biases, as the abundance of quantifiable data in investing provides fertile ground for gaining concrete insights into investor psychology. Studies have shown that investors often deviate from optimal judgment and decision making. The spectrum of behavioral tendencies contributing to bad investment decisions includes a host of common human biases, including the following examples showing how they could even play out in succession.

Recency bias. As investor behavior is often driven by a propensity to pursue “shiny objects,” recency bias could be observed, for example, when a company reports a quarter of exceptional growth, thereby reshaping investors’ expectations and perceptions of the business.

Extrapolation. Following this recalibrated perception of a company’s growth prospects, investors may then, in turn, extrapolate the company’s future growth expectations.

Fear of missing out (FOMO). As the stock price ascends on the revised expectations, the desire to partake in its success – the FOMO – intensifies.

Confirmation bias. Subsequently, the investment research process often becomes a quest to validate the continued stock appreciation and transformative shift in the company’s business model.

These ingrained human behaviors pose significant challenges for growth investors. The unpredictability of the future, coupled with a broad spectrum of possible outcomes, tends to magnify the appeal of potential returns and can lead investors away from a rational process. Growth investors frequently mistake high growth for a sign of quality, despite the contradictory evidence.

Changing the order of operations: Putting quality first

It would seem to make sense that growth investors should focus on growth first and foremost, right? But we know from empirical data that focusing on quality before growth has the potential to increase the odds of success. Importantly, because quality growth investing requires discipline, it’s critical to understand the common behavioral tendencies that can sabotage the search for quality names.

An investment process that prioritizes quality could look something like this:

Solve for quality. Determining quality is foundational. Focus on this, first and foremost, before exploring a company’s growth prospects.
Apply systematic tools. Define a research process and stick with it. This may help eliminate emotional biases.
Create a focus universe. Construct a universe of only the highest-caliber companies, to block the inherent distractions – yes, those shiny objects – associated with growth investing.

Conclusion

Quality investing is not immune to challenges and adverse sentiment, but it has historically navigated most market environments to emerge as one of the most reliable avenues for compounded investment returns. Our empirical evidence and experience affirm that quality investing has the potential to provide consistent, long-term value creation for investors.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

As of December 1, 2025, Nomura Holding America Inc. completed the acquisition of Macquarie Asset Management's US and European public investments business.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) as of the date indicated and may change based on market and other conditions. The accuracy of the content and its relevance to your client's particular circumstances is not guaranteed. This market commentary has been prepared for general informational purposes by the author, who is part of Nomura Asset Management International unless otherwise stated is referred to as Nomura Asset Management, part of the Investment Management Division of the Nomura Group (Nomura), and is not a product of the Nomura Research Institute.

Nothing in this market commentary shall be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any security or other product, or to engage in or refrain from engaging in any transaction. Nomura may do, and seek to do, business with any of the companies covered in this market commentary. Nomura may have investment banking and other business relationships with a significant number of companies, which may include companies that are discussed in this commentary, and may have positions in financial instruments or other financial interests in the subject matter of this market commentary. As a result, investors should be aware that Nomura may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this market commentary. In preparing this market commentary, we did not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of any particular client. You should not make an investment decision on the basis of this market commentary. Before making an investment decision you need to consider, with or without the assistance of an adviser, whether the investment is appropriate in light of your particular investment needs, objectives, and financial circumstances.

Nomura salespeople, traders and other professionals may provide oral or written market commentary, analysis, trading strategies or research products to Nomura's clients that reflect opinions which are different from or contrary to the opinions expressed in this market commentary. Nomura's asset management business (including Nomura Asset Management International), principal trading desks and investing businesses may make investment decisions that are inconsistent with the views expressed in this commentary. There are risks involved in investing. The price of securities and other financial products can and does fluctuate, and an individual security or financial product may even become valueless. International investors are reminded of the additional risks inherent in international investments, such as currency fluctuations and international or local financial, market, economic, tax, or regulatory conditions, which may adversely affect the value of the investment. This market commentary is based on information obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but we do not make any representation or warranty that it is accurate, complete, or up to date. We accept no obligation to correct or update the information or opinions in this market commentary. Opinions, information, and data in this market commentary are as of the date indicated on the cover and subject to change without notice. No member of the Nomura accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect, consequential, or other loss arising from any use of this market commentary and/or further communication in relation to this market commentary. Some of the data in this market commentary may be sourced from information and materials published by government or industry bodies or agencies, however this market commentary is neither endorsed or certified by any such bodies or agencies. This market commentary does not constitute legal, tax accounting, or investment advice. Recipients should independently evaluate any specific investment in consultation with their legal, tax, accounting, and investment advisors. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

This market commentary may include forward looking statements, forecasts, estimates, projections, opinions and investment theses, which may be identified by the use of terminology such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “expect”, “intend”, “may”, “can”, “plan”, “will”, “would”, “should”, “seek”, “project”, “continue”, “target” and similar expressions. No representation is made or will be made that any forward-looking statements will be achieved or will prove to be correct or that any assumptions on which such statements may be based are reasonable. A number of factors could cause actual future results and operations to vary materially and adversely from the forward-looking statements. Qualitative statements regarding political, regulatory, market and economic environments and opportunities are based on the team’s opinion, belief and judgment.

Market risk is the risk that all or a majority of the securities in a certain market – like the stock market or bond market – will decline in value because of factors such as adverse political or economic conditions, future expectations, investor confidence, or heavy institutional selling.

Growth stocks reflect projections of future earnings and revenue. These prices may rise or fall dramatically depending on whether those projections are met. These companies’ stock prices may be more volatile, particularly over the short term.

Governments or regulatory authorities may take actions that could adversely affect various sectors of the securities markets and affect fund performance.

Large-capitalization companies tend to be less volatile than companies with smaller market capitalizations. This potentially lower risk means that the Fund’s share price may not rise as much as the share prices of funds that focus on smaller capitalization companies.

Limited number of securities risk is the possibility that a single security’s increase or decrease in value may have a greater impact on a fund’s value and total return because the fund may hold larger positions in fewer securities than other funds. In addition, a fund that holds a limited number of securities may be more volatile than those funds that hold a greater number of securities.

The Russell 1000 Growth Index measures the performance of the large-cap growth segment of the US equity universe. It includes those Russell 1000 companies with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

Frank Russell Company is the source and owner of the trademarks, service marks and copyrights related to the Russell Indexes. Russell® is a trademark of Frank Russell Company. All third-party marks cited are the property of their respective owners. Nothing presented should be construed as a recommendation to purchase or sell any security or follow any investment technique or strategy.

[5107235]

Quality Meets Growth: Why Quality Matters in Growth Investing

Inefficiency in growth investing

Figure 1: High-quality vs. high-growth companies (1990-2022)

Figure 2: Compounding advantages of quality growth vs. hyper growth (1994-2022)

Figure 3: Down markets favor quality

Confronting investor biases

Changing the order of operations: Putting quality first

Conclusion

Disclosures

Policies

Inefficiency in growth investing

Figure 1: High-quality vs. high-growth companies (1990-2022)

Figure 2: Compounding advantages of quality growth vs. hyper growth (1994-2022)

Figure 3: Down markets favor quality

Confronting investor biases

Changing the order of operations: Putting quality first

Conclusion

Disclosures

Policies

​

Quality Meets Growth: Why Quality Matters in Growth Investing

Inefficiency in growth investing

​

Figure 1: High-quality vs. high-growth companies (1990-2022)

​

​

​

Figure 2: Compounding advantages of quality growth vs. hyper growth (1994-2022)

​

​

​

Figure 3: Down markets favor quality

​

​

Confronting investor biases

Changing the order of operations: Putting quality first

Conclusion

​

​

​

Inefficiency in growth investing

Figure 1: High-quality vs. high-growth companies (1990-2022)

Figure 2: Compounding advantages of quality growth vs. hyper growth (1994-2022)

Figure 3: Down markets favor quality

Confronting investor biases

Changing the order of operations: Putting quality first

Conclusion

Disclosures

Policies