RETURN ON EQUITY:

A COMPELLING CASE FOR INVESTORS by Adam Calamar, CFA, Porfolio Manager

WHITE PAPER A Series of Reports on Quality Growth Investing jenseninvestment.com

Introduction selecting stocks that can provide

At Jensen Investment Management, we believe that Return on Equity (ROE) is attractive returns over long periods of
a very useful criterion for identifying companies that have the potential to time. We will cover the basics of the
provide attractive returns over long periods of time. Our experience and calculation, why we use a time period of
research suggest that our requirement of consistently high Return on Equity ten consecutive years, and why we use a
results in a universe of high-quality, profitable companies that are able to threshold of 15% per year. Finally, we
generate returns above their costs of capital in a variety of circumstances and will examine the persistence of Return
economic environments. Further, we believe that this universe produces on Equity, as well as a few interesting
companies with sustainable competitive advantages, strong growth potential characteristics of high-ROE companies.
and stocks with a lower beta relative to broad market indices. This paper
serves to illustrate the reasons why we use Return on Equity the way we do,
and why we use it for the first step of our fundamental investment process. An Overview of Return on
Equity
From the beginning, now more than twenty-five years ago, Return on Equity has been Return on Equity effectively measures
a key component of Jensen’s investment process. We start by annually selecting only how much profit a company can generate
those U.S. companies that have earned a Return on Equity of 15% or greater for the on the equity capital investors have
last ten consecutive years, as determined by Jensen’s Investment Committee.1 From deployed in the business, and can be
there, we narrow down this universe of high Return on Equity companies through used over time to evaluate changes
fundamental research based on their growth potential, financial strength, competitive in a company’s financial situation.
advantages and their lines of business. Finally, we seek to identify the undervalued At Jensen, we calculate ROE as the
securities – those that are the ‘best deals’ of the companies that we follow. company’s annual net income after taxes
(excluding non-recurring items), divided
We seek to invest only in quality growth businesses that we can reasonably
by the average shareholder equity. Net
understand, whose outlooks are favorable and that can be acquired at sensible
Income is the amount of profit that a
prices. Our investments remain unless business fundamentals deteriorate below our
company has made after all expenses
strict standards, we identify a more compelling opportunity or the stocks become
and taxes are deducted from revenues.
overpriced based on our metrics.
Shareholder equity is the value that the
This paper, however, is about Return on Equity, how we use it in the first step of our owners of the company have invested
investment process and why we believe that it can be a very useful criterion for that has not been paid out in dividends.

1For example, this “universe” of companies developed by the Investment Committee may include companies with negative equity that have engaged in large debt-financed share
repurchases.
2 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors

Simply put:

Net Income Revenues-Expenses-Taxes

ROE = =
Average Shareholder Equity Average Total Assets - Average Total Liabilities

In other words, Return on Equity indicates the amount of earnings generated by each dollar of equity. It can be a valuable
insight into a company’s operations. In general, the higher the ROE the better, as high ROE companies, all other things being
equal, will produce more earnings and free cash flow that can be used to support a higher level of growth, keep the company
financially strong, and provide cash returns to shareholders.

This concept is shown in the following table (Figure 1) wherein Company A has an ROE of 20% and Company B has an ROE of
10%. Each has a dividend payout ratio of 30%:

Figure 1: The Link Between High ROE and Instrinsic Value*

Time Period Company A Company A Company B Company B
(years) Item Value ($) Change (%) Value ($) Change (%)
Initial equity investment $100.00 $100.00
0 Net income 20.00 10.00
Absolute reinvestment** 14.00 7.00
Ending equity value 114.00 14% 107.00 7%
1 Net income 22.80 10.70
Absolute reinvestment 15.96 7.49
Ending equity value 129.96 14% 114.49 7%
2 Net income 25.99 11.45
Absolute reinvestment 18.19 8.01
3 Ending equity value $148.15 14% $122.50 7%

* This is a hypothetical, simplified example (based on beginning of year equity) and is for illustration purposes only. These
figures are not indicative of the actual returns likely to be achieved by an investor.
**The absolute reinvestment is the hypothetical percentage of net income that is retained after the 30% dividend payout; in
this example, 70% of net income is retained and reinvested.

As shown by the ending equity values in Figure 1 above, all else being equal, the intrinsic equity value of high Return on Equity
companies grows at a faster rate than low ROE companies. Assuming that markets are relatively efficient over the long term
and the market price of a company’s equity approximates the intrinsic value of a company’s equity, it can be argued that the
price of the stock of a high ROE company should increase at a faster rate than the price of the stock of a low ROE company.
Furthermore, over long periods of time, the compounding effect of high ROE enables the company to sustain a higher level of
growth without taking on debt or issuing additional stock and provides excess cash that can be used to reward shareholders
through dividends and share repurchases.
 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors 3

The Components of Return on Equity

To understand what drives a company’s Return on Equity, it is possible to break down ROE into several parts, deconstructing the
ratio of Net Income to Shareholder Equity into other ratios to evaluate how each affects the company’s total ROE. While this kind
of analysis is not a specific part of the first stage of Jensen’s investment process, it illustrates how ROE works alongside some of
the other measures that we study when performing further due diligence on a company.

As an example, Return on Equity can be broken into two fractions: Return on Assets and the Leverage Ratio. Those two fractions
can then be multiplied together to calculate total ROE, as shown below:

ROE = Return on Equity = Return on Assets * Leverage Ratio

Net Income Net Income Average Total Assets

ROE = = *
Average Shareholder Equity Average Total Assets Average Shareholder Equity

This simple analysis shows that a company can make an impact on its ROE by increasing its Return on Assets (ROA) or by
increasing its Leverage Ratio.

However, this example is incomplete as Return on Assets can be further broken down into its own components. This
segmentation of Return on Equity is often called DuPont Analysis because it was originally developed by the DuPont Corporation
in the 1920s. We can view this analysis as a pyramid (Figure 2) where the fractions in each level are multiplied together to
determine the company’s total ROE.

Figure 2: DuPont Analysis ROE Breakdown Diagram2

Return on Equity
ROE= Net Income/Average
Shareholder Equity

Return on Assets Leverage Ratio

ROA = Net Income/Average Total Leverage = Average Total Assets/
Assets Average Shareholder Equity

Net Profit Margin (NPM) Leverage Ratio (indebtedness)

Total Asset Turnover (efficiency)
(profitability) Leverage = Average Total Assets/
NPM = Net Income/Revenues
NPM = Net Income/Revenues Average Shareholder Equity

Tax Burden (TB) Interest Burden EBIT Margin (EM) Total Asset Turnover Leverage Ratio
TB = Net Income/ (IB) EM = EBIT/ NPM = Net Income/ Leverage = Average Total Assets/
EBT IB = EBT/EBIT Revenues Revenues Average Shareholder Equity

2 EBT = Earnings Before Tax (Net Income + Tax Expense), EBIT = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (Net Income + Interest Expense + Tax Expense).
4 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors

Keeping in mind the DuPont Analysis pyramid in Figure 2 The Importance of Consistency
above, it becomes clear that there are many aspects of a
Some of the early research on companies with consistent
company that can impact its Return on Equity. In general,
Return on Equity performance was conducted by Professor
investors would prefer a higher ROE to a lower one and a
William E. Fruhan, Jr., of the Harvard University Graduate
stable ROE to a volatile one, but it is also important to pay
School of Business Administration. In 1979 he published
attention to the way a company’s business model, operations,
Financial Strategy: Studies in the Creation, Transfer, and
and financial decisions can impact ROE. If a company’s ROE
Destruction of Shareholder Value, where he focused on
changes, the cause of this change must be examined in detail
methods for identifying firms that continually enhanced
to determine the reason for the change. Examining ROE alone
shareholder wealth and how management decisions affected
will not always answer the question.
shareholders.
Consequently, we recognize
As Fruhan noted in his work, the
that there can be disadvantages
main reason why a high Return
to relying on Return on Equity
on Equity is desirable is that if
alone. ROE may be volatile due “In general, investors would a company is truly generating
to the business’s normal sales prefer a higher ROE to a profits at a rate that is in excess
cycles, or ROE may be lower or
lower one and a stable ROE of its Cost of Equity capital,
higher depending on the general
to a volatile one, but it is also then it is creating value for its
profitability of the industry in
which the company operates. A important to pay attention to shareholders.3 A company’s Cost
the way a company’s business of Equity capital is an estimate of
company may have an inflated
the return a shareholder expects
ROE because of a very small model, operations, and financial
from an equity security, similar
value of book equity on its decisions can impact ROE.”
to the way a company’s cost of
balance sheet, perhaps due to
debt is the return a bondholder
rapid growth or because the
expects from a debt security.
company has made large share
repurchases. Likewise, the company may have taken on a large Unfortunately, a company with a volatile Return on Equity may
debt burden, increasing its leverage and potentially increasing be earning returns above its cost of capital in one year, but
ROE without increasing profitability or efficiency. may not do so the next, effectively wiping out any gains it had
made relative to its Cost of Equity (COE).
At Jensen, we have generally found these types of companies
to be less likely to pass our requirement of ten years of For example:
consecutive Return on Equity performance. Any that do
• If a company generates an ROE of 15% one year and
manage this feat are carefully evaluated during the later
then 5% the next, its compound ROE over the two
stages of our investment process. Altogether, these issues
years is (1.15)*(1.05)-1 =20.75%.
further drive home the point that while ROE is valuable and
plays in important role in the first step of our fundamental • If its COE is 12% per year, then the compounded COE
investment process, it should not be used as a standalone is (1.12)* (1.12)-1=25.44%.
metric for investment decision-making. Using this template, it is easy to imagine a case where a
company may be profitable (ROE greater than zero), but may

3ROE is a useful measure of this profitability since, as equity shareholders, we are concerned with the amount of money the company is earning relative to the value of the equity
that has been invested in the business. It is important to remember, of course, that we are buying shares in the secondary market, so the book value of equity used for the ROE
calculation may have been skewed since the shares were issued, and that ROE is not a proxy for an investor’s actual return. This is one of the reasons why fundamental research
and an examination of the factors that affect each company’s ROE is an important part of our investment process.
 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors 5

fail to meet shareholder expectations in the long run. Investors ROE universe of companies and its characteristics, which we
must distinguish those firms that have the potential to have written about many times in the past. In this paper, there
consistently generate ROE at rates that are higher than its Cost are three aspects of our ROE requirement that we will revisit
of Equity; otherwise investors may end up with the opposite in turn: the requirement of ten years, the requirement that the
case in the long run. years be consecutive, and the requirement that for each year
the ROE be equal to or greater than 15%.
Fruhan highlighted the importance of consistency in his
research, noting that the firms with the highest economic
values are those that have successively increasing rates of
Our Requirement of Ten Years of Return
Return on Equity, those that maintain the longest periods of
on Equity Performance
high rates of ROE, and those that possess rapidly growing
reinvestment prospects. As an example of the power of From a conceptual standpoint, there is a simple tradeoff
consistent ROE performance, he selected a period of ten regarding the number of years that one requires of consistent
consecutive years at 15% ROE for a screen that would allow Return on Equity performance. For example, three years of high
him to easily identify firms that had, with some certainty, the ROE is going to be a relatively easy bar for many companies
strong, consistent profitability that he was searching for. to meet. On the other hand a longer time period, such as
twenty years, would require a longer track record of consistent
We believe Fruhan’s choice of ten consecutive years at 15%
business performance and would result in far fewer companies
Return on Equity was insightful. After completing our own
making the cut.
research, it became one of the cornerstones of our investment
strategy at Jensen Investment Management. Over the years,Besides simply affecting the number of companies that meet
Jensen has continually monitored and researched this highthe screen, the number of years selected for the screen can
impact the results in many other
Figure 3: Market Cap-Weighted Sector Distribution of Companies That Meet a
ways. For example, if companies
Screen for Five Consecutive Years of 15% ROE, Measured at the End of 2007 and
are selected that have achieved
the End of 2012
a particular minimum Return on
25% Equity for five consecutive years,
and those five years happen to
20%
be 2003 through 2007 (a period of
solid U.S. economic growth), the
15%
results will show a very different
group of companies than if the
10%
years are 2008 through 2012 (a
period of sub-par U.S. economic
5%
growth, including a severe
financial crisis and recession). As
0%
an example, Figure 3 details the
differences in economic sector
distribution of the companies in
these two groups:
5 years of 15% ROE ended 2007 5 years of 15% ROE ended 2012
Source: Thomson-Reuters
6 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors

Naturally, if an investor adopted a strategy of selecting Finally, selecting too long of a period can also result in the time
companies with five years of 15% Return on Equity each period encompassing shifts in the data set or macroeconomic
year, there could potentially be wide swings in the portfolio’s environment that materially affect the results. For example,
characteristics over time. This is a facet of the problem of if there is a major change in accounting regulations halfway
sampling bias; in this case, the time period selected can have through a 20-year period, the companies that pass the test in
a significant impact upon the results of a study. The only the first decade may not pass it in the next (and vice versa).
effective way to mitigate this problem would be to increase
Ultimately, a time period is needed that encompasses a variety
the sample size – in this case, increase the number of years
of economic environments, but also balances the limitations
that we examine so as to include a wider variety of economic
that come with excessively long time periods. If the view
environments. This makes the case for requiring a very large
is taken that a normal fixed investment cycle (or “business
number of years of consistent performance.
cycle”) tends to occur every seven to eleven years, then a
On the other hand, an exceptionally long time period would 10-year period should typically include economic expansions
create its own issues. Such a lengthy period may test the and contractions, as well as the other economic fluctuations
limits of the financial databases used for screening securities that are associated with such a cycle. That 10-year time frame
and increase the likelihood that missing data or errors would would demonstrate a company’s ability to maintain a high level
artificially exclude a company from the results. of performance throughout changes in the economic climate.
Not all companies will be able to do this. An example of how
Furthermore, as the number of years of required ROE increases,
the broader market’s median Return on Equity can fluctuate
companies that only recently became publicly traded must
with economic cycles is graphed below in Figure 4. For this
build a longer track record of audited financial data before they
reason, as well as in consideration of the trade-offs noted
will meet the requirements of the screen.4
above and the results of our own research, Jensen chose a 10-
year period of ROE for our investment process.

Figure 4: The Normal Fixed Investment Cycle and Gross Domestic Product in the United States (Left Axis) Versus
Broad Market Trailing Twelve Months Return on Equity (Right Axis)5
15% 12%
Year-over-year percent change

10% 10%

5% 8% Median Return on Equity

0% 6%

-5% 4%

-10% GDP y/y ROE % 2%

-15% 0%
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Source: Thomson-Reuters, U.S. Department of Commerce
4While companies present audited financial data in their IPO documents, it typically comprises only the most recent three to five years.
5ROE is the trailing one-year median from a financial database that includes all securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), American Stock Exchange (AMEX), and NASDAQ
Stock Market (NASDAQ), measured at quarterly intervals from 6/30/1984 through 12/31/2015. Gross Domestic Product year-over-year percent change data sourced from the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors 7

Our Requirement of Consecutive Years of Return on Equity Performance

Another aspect of our requirement for high Return on Equity companies is that there must be 10 consecutive years of ROE above
15%. It is easy to imagine a screen that did not require consecutiveness -- for example, an ROE greater than 15% for five years
out of the last 10, or an average ROE in excess of a particular number. Naturally, the side effect of this decision would be to
include companies with more volatile profitability, perhaps due to economic factors or company-specific circumstances.

For a quick examination of how a set of less stringent criteria would affect the quality of the companies in our universe, we
compared our screen of 10 consecutive years of Return on Equity greater than or equal to 15% against several scenarios where
the company generated an ROE of 15% or greater, but for only a portion of the last 10 years. In Figure 5, we use the Standard &
Poor’s Earnings and Dividend Quality Ratings as a proxy for the quality of a company’s financial statements and the company’s
financial health.

Figure 5: Standard & Poor’s Earnings and Dividend Quality Ratings of Various Investment Universes Based on 15%
ROE for a Variable, Non-Consecutive Number of Years6

100%

90%
A+
80%
A
70%
A-
60%
B+
50%
B
40% B-
30% C
20% D
7
10% LQ

0%
10/10 yrs 9/10 yrs 8/10 yrs 7/10 yrs 6/10 yrs 5/10 yrs 0/10 yrs

Averages of Annual Data from 12/31/1993-12/31/2015 Source: Thomson-Reuters

(maximum time period with data available)

As demonstrated by Figure 5 above, a screen of 10 consecutive years of 15% ROE produces a universe with about 65% of the
companies having the top ratings of A+, A, or A-. Conversely, requiring that a company only meets this bar for any 5 of the past
10 years produces nearly the inverse situation, where about 67% of the rated companies are NOT rated A+, A, or A-.

Additionally, relaxing the requirement for 10 consecutive years of ROE affects the universe in other ways. To illustrate this point,
Figure 6 below shows some of the relationships that tend to change. As the constraints are eased, the median ROE, Market
Capitalization, P/E ratio, and EPS Growth tend to decrease, while the median Beta tends to increase.
6 The financial database used for this example includes all securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), American Stock Exchange (AMEX), and NASDAQ Stock
Market (NASDAQ), measured at annual intervals from 12/31/1983. Since the universes in this graph examine a minimum of 10 years of data, annual data measurement began at
12/31/1993, the first time period where ten years of data was available. Weights for each Quality Rating were calculated by summing the number of qualifying companies across all
measurement periods and dividing them by the total number of rated companies across all measurement periods. This averaging was done to smooth the effect of temporal fluctua-
tions in the data for a realistic long-term analysis.
7 LQ represents a company in liquidation
8 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors

Figure 6: Example of Characteristics That Change as Consecutiveness Constraint is Eased8

Median Return on Median Market Cap Median Adjusted Median Trailing Median Beta vs.
Time Period Equity ($-million) Trailing P/E Ratio 1-year EPS Growth S&P 500 Index
10/10 years 25.58 5,158 18.68 11.47 0.65
9/10 years 23.15 4,353 18.45 11.67 0.70
8/10 years 21.69 3,479 18.26 11.49 0.75
7/10 years 20.25 2,661 18.00 11.23 0.78
6/10 years 19.14 1,959 17.66 11.23 0.81
5/10 years 18.17 1,355 17.35 11.21 0.84
0/10 years 7.84 79 16.70 9.08 0.81

Averages of Annual Data from 12/31/1993-12/31/2015 Source: Thomson-Reuters

(maximum time period with data available)

years, as determined by Jensen’s Investment Committee. As

Overall, it appears that relaxing the consecutiveness discussed earlier, to evaluate this threshold of 15% we must
requirement could lead to a lower-quality universe of compare a company’s ROE to the company’s Cost of Equity.
companies from which to choose, in terms of S&P Quality
As equity shareholders, we require a return on our investment
Ratings, profitability (as measured by ROE) and volatility
and this return is typically received as a mix of dividend
(as measured by Beta). Furthermore, such a decision could
payments and capital appreciation. The total amount would be
introduce new companies which may be profitable in most
the return that a shareholder expects from the security.9 Basic
economic environments, but may have devastatingly poor
financial theory tells us that if an investor is risk-averse and
results under certain circumstances, or management decision-
wishes to be compensated for taking risk, then that investor
making that leads to poor profitability. In consideration of
will demand a higher return from a more risky investment.
these issues, and after performing our own research, Jensen
Therefore, not all companies will have the same expected
chose this requirement of continuous, consistent business
return (a.k.a. Cost of Equity) because they have varying levels
performance. We believe that it increases the likelihood that a
of risk. But how do we know that a company is generating
company will continue to perform well in a variety of economic
returns in excess of its Cost of Equity, since the Cost of Equity
environments and situations and effectively disallows many
for each company may be different?
companies with volatile earnings.
There are several different approaches to answering this
question. One method is to attempt to determine each
Our Requirement of Fifteen Percent Return on company’s Cost of Equity separately with one of the many
Equity Performance versions of the Capital Asset Pricing Model, or with an
alternative method, such as one of the various fundamental,
Besides our requirement of 10 consecutive years, we also
economic or statistical multi-factor models. While these
require a Return on Equity of 15% or greater for each of those
methods can be useful for a specific company, they become

8 The financial database and methodology used for this example is the same as that for the preceding graph shown in Figure 5, as described in footnote 6. Medians were taken of all
qualifying companies in each screen for all measurement periods.
9 Of course, actual returns (dividends + capital appreciation) may be higher or lower than hypothetical expected returns.
 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors 9

complex and difficult to implement when applying them to benefits of doing so outweigh the drawbacks. The calculation
a large universe of companies. For example, if one was to is simpler and less dependent on a wide variety of input data
screen a database of 10,000 companies, this would require and the fixed nature of the requirement demands a specific
10,000 separate estimates of each company’s COE for each performance requirement that is immediately quantifiable.
year, and then an examination of whether the company’s ROE Furthermore, using a fixed hurdle rate does not prevent us
had exceeded this COE in each given year. More importantly, from performing company-specific COE evaluations in the later
with each method of discrete COE Equity analysis, certain stages of our investment process.
assumptions must be made and many discrete data inputs
As a demonstration of the power of our 15% Return on Equity
must be used. Furthermore, there is a great amount of
requirement, we examined a large financial database spanning
academic debate over what a
over 30 years, covering over 5,000 equity
particular COE model’s assumptions
securities per year.11 Based on this
signify and what data inputs are the
database, on average only about five
most useful and relevant. “...the companies in percent of the companies would have
Another approach to determining which we ultimately a Cost of Equity of 15% or higher (95th
whether a company is earning Returns invest not only meet [our] percentile), so a COE above 15% is rather
on Equity in excess of its Cost of 15% ROE requirement, uncommon.12
Equity is to simply set a fixed level for but typically exceed it by Therefore, in most cases, a company’s
each company’s COE that is the same
a large margin.” Cost of Equity is very likely to be
for all companies. Often, an estimate
lower than 15% per year. While this
for the long-term return of an equity
COE may fluctuate in different market
market is used as an estimate of
environments, and may vary from
an investor’s required return and there have been numerous
company to company, the high bar that we set provides a
attempts to create such estimates.10 This approach is simple
margin of safety above and beyond the COE assigned by most
to implement and effective, but it does make the assumption
models. In fact, the companies in which we ultimately invest
that all companies’ Equity Costs are the same, which is not
not only meet the 15% ROE requirement, but typically exceed
consistent with modern financial theory. That is, a fixed COE
it by a large margin. The weighted average ROE of our Quality
applied universally will disproportionately benefit riskier
Growth portfolio as of December 31, 2015 was 35%.
companies, whose true costs are likely higher than average,
and disadvantage less risky companies, whose true costs are Additionally, the few companies with a very high Cost of Equity
likely lower than average. would be unlikely to pass our 10-year, 15% Return on Equity
requirement for one simple reason: COE is inversely related
Despite this disadvantage, we believe that for the purposes
to ROE.13 That is, the higher a company’s ROE, generally the
of our initial screen for stable, profitable companies, a fixed
lower its COE, as measured by this particular database’s COE
approach (that is, 15%) is the most reasonable to take as the
and ROE data. The results of this study are shown in Figure 7.14

10 For an example, please see The Equity Premium by Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, University of Chicago School of Business, April 2001.
11 The financial database used for this example is the same as that described in footnote 6.
12 This database’s model for Cost of Equity is based on a modified Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) that includes adjustments for company size and value/growth orientation.

An analysis of this data generated a median COE of 11.90%, with a 25th percentile of 10.55% and a 75th percentile of 13.19%. The data generally followed a normal distribution,
with a mean of 11.34%. This calculation is as follows: ERi = α + br (βi) + bs (log of sizei) + by (yieldi), where ERi = expected return for Security i; α = return for hypothetical security
with zero beta and yield, and $1 million market capitalization; br = Slope of security beta line; βi = Beta of Security i; bs = Slope of security size line; sizei = Market capitalization of
Security i by = Slope of security yield line; and yieldi = Dividend yield of Security i
13 The correlation between Return on Equity and Cost of Equity was measured at -88% (r2 of 78%). R-Squared: r-squared measures how well the Capital Asset Pricing Model

predicts the actual performance of an investment or portfolio. A Correlation is a statistical measurement of the relationship between two variables.
14 It is important to remember that while Cost of Equity can be a proxy for risk, as a higher COE implies a higher return demanded by shareholders for taking on additional risk, Return

on Equity is not necessarily a proxy for the actual return an investor may receive in terms of dividends and capital appreciation. The financial database used for this example is the
same as that described in footnote 6.
10 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors

Figure 7: Return on Equity and Cost of Equity for a Large Securities Database, Showing Median Values of ROE and
COE in Each Decile

16
Cost of Equity % / Return on Equity %

14
12
10
8
6 ROE within group (median)
4
COE within group (median)
2
-

Cost of Equity Percentile Groups

Medians of Annual Data from 12/31/1984-12/31/2015

(maximum time period with data available) Source: Thomson-Reuters

In terms of medians, the companies to the left of the intersection point in Figure 7 (above) are generating a Return on Equity in
excess of their Cost of Equity, while the companies to the right – about 90% of them – are not creating as much shareholder
value as investors may have hoped. So, when performing an initial screen of companies, we must select only those companies
that have truly generated returns well in excess of their capital costs. At Jensen, we believe our 15% ROE requirement helps
accomplish this goal. Furthermore, our long experience studying high ROE companies demonstrates to us that this requirement
results in a robust universe of high-quality companies from which to select our investments.

The Persistence of Return on Equity over Time

A logical question that arises from our discussions in this paper is whether it is possible for a company to consistently maintain
a return on capital above its cost of capital over long periods of time. On one hand, conventional economic theory would predict
that return on capital and cost of capital converge over time as competitors enter market niches to extract economic profits.
Conversely, our research indicates that a company with a high ROE for a number of consecutive years is likely to maintain a
high ROE in subsequent years. We believe that this phenomenon can be explained by some of the common characteristics
shared by the high ROE companies. Specifically, we have found that companies with consistently high Return on Equity typically
have sustainable competitive advantages and do business in industries with strong barriers to entry. It follows that these
 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors 11

characteristics should allow these companies to stave off the impact of competition and continue to capture economic profits
above their capital costs – that is, they can defend their “economic moats” by being able to consistently maintain returns above
their capital costs.

Our ongoing research has consistently found that the persistence of a high Return on Equity is remarkably strong. For this paper,
we analyzed a large securities database and found that the probability of a company obtaining a 15% ROE in any given year
is approximately 19.9%.15 If a company’s ROE is not persistent, and each year’s ROE is a completely independent event from
the previous year’s ROE, then the probability of obtaining a 15% ROE each year for 10 years is 19.9%10 = 0.0001%. Naturally,
if this was the case, there would not be any companies in our investable universe at all. Rather, what we observe is that the
probabilities are dependent events, as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Probabilities of a Company Repeating the Achievement of a Return on Equity Above 15%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Probability

50%
Dependent Probability (Observed)
40%
30%
Independent Probability (Estimated)
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of Years
Source: Thomson-Reuters

Using the results depicted in Figure 8 we can determine that, in general, for each year a company generates an Return on Equity
of 15% or greater, it is increasingly likely to repeat that feat in the future, with the probability leveling off between 85% and
90%. Note also that this plateau occurs after nine to ten years of consistent performance, in line with the number of years that
we require at Jensen.

To further study the stability of Return on Equity with different requirements for ROE performance, we can also look at the
percentage of an investment universe that remains the same from year to year – that is, what percentage of companies from last
year’s universe are still present in this year’s universe?

15 The financial database used for this example is the same as that described in footnote 6.
12 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors

Figure 9: Average Percentage of Companies Retained in Universe from Previous Year, for Various Combinations of
Consecutive Years (5, 10, and 15 years) and Percentages of ROE (10%, 15%, 20%)16

5-Consecutive-Year Universes: 10-Consecutive-Year Universes: 15-Consecutive-Year Universes:

Averages of Annual Data from Averages of Annual Data from Averages of Annual Data from
12/31/1988-12/31/2015 12/31/1993-12/31/2015 12/31/1998-12/31/2015

100%
90%
Percent of Universe Retained Y/Y

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5y10% 5y15% 5y20% 10y10% 10y15% 10y20% 15y10% 15y15% 15y20%

(maximum time periods with data available) Source: Thomson-Reuters

As shown by Figure 9, even universes with relatively relaxed requirements (such as five consecutive years of Return on
Equity above 10%) retain about three-quarters of their companies from year to year. As one increases the number of years of
consecutive ROE required, the persistence of companies in the universe increases slightly, further suggesting that companies
with longer records of high ROE are more likely to continue to achieve them in the future.

Naturally, if the persistence is too low, it becomes difficult to be a long-term investor because the list of investable companies
is always changing. On the other hand, if the persistence is too high, then not enough new opportunities will be available for
research and investment, and the universe may become stale. Overall, we believe that the combination of 10 years and 15%
return on equity provides a reasonably stable, persistent universe while also providing new research opportunities.

The Shared Characteristics of High ROE Companies

Finally, we turn to a quick review of some of the characteristics of high Return on Equity companies. As we’ve discussed in past
white papers, we believe that our ROE screen allows us to identify companies that possess sustainable competitive advantages,
produce returns in excess of their capital costs, have the ability to sustainably grow at faster rates than lower-ROE businesses,
and generate a great deal of excess cash that they can use to fund growth and reward shareholders. Our experience over the

16The financial database used for this example is the same as that described in footnote 6. Simple averages were taken of the percentage of qualifying companies retained (from the
prior year) in each screen.
 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors 13

past two decades suggests that these characteristics translate into good long-term investment opportunities. We believe that
overall, the stocks of these companies can outperform the broader market with relatively lower risk.

In addition to these characteristics, there are also some interesting relationships that appear as we examine the effect of
different consecutive time periods and different hurdle rates for ROE. First, we compare a handful of descriptive characteristics,
as shown in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10: Comparisons of Various Subsets of Database Based on Required Return on Equity Per Year and the
Number of Consecutive Years Required for Various Characteristics

Median Return Required ROE Median Cost of Required ROE Median Beta vs. Required ROE
on Equity 10% 15% 20% Equity (CAPM) 10% 15% 20% S&P 500 Index 10% 15% 20%

5 years 17.4 23.5 32.0 5 years 10.8 10.8 10.7 5 years 0.72 0.77 0.75

10 years 18.8 25.9 39.6 10 years 10.2 10.1 9.9 10 years 0.62 0.63 0.59

15 years 20.7 27.9 49.0 15 years 9.9 9.7 9.5 15 years 0.55 0.56 0.51

Required ROE Required ROE Median Trailing Required ROE

Median Market Median Adjusted
1-year EPS
Cap ($-million) 10% 15% 20% Trailing PE Ratio 10% 15% 20% 10% 15% 20%
Growth
5 years 1,720 2,623 2,812 5 years 16.2 17.4 17.8 5 years 10.4 12.7 12.6

10 years 3,634 5,536 6,569 10 years 17.4 19.0 19.3 10 years 9.3 10.3 8.8

15 years 6,543 9,397 8,662 15 years 18.2 20.1 19.4 15 years 9.0 9.1 7.1

5-Consecutive-Year Universes: Medians of Annual Data from 12/31/1988-12/31/2015 Color Key

10-Consecutive-Year Universes: Medians of Annual Data from 12/31/1993-12/31/2015 Teal = more desirable
15-Consecutive-Year Universes: Medians of Annual Data from 12/31/1998-12/31/2015 Orange = less desirable

(maximum time periods with data available) Source: Thomson-Reuters

As the tables in Figure 10 show, there can be a complex relationship between these characteristics and the parameters used to
make the screen, but in general, they tend to change in a diagonal manner from the least-restrictive screen (upper left) to the
most-restrictive screen (lower right). Some of the most significant relationships along this diagonal appear to be median Beta
which drops significantly, and market capitalization which increases five-fold. This is to be expected, as larger, more stable
companies are likely to be able to meet the requirements of high profitability over a number of years.

Finally, we return to the relationship between high Return on Equity companies and the Standard & Poor’s Earnings and Dividend
Quality Ratings. As the data in Figure 11 indicate, increases in constraints tend to improve the overall quality of the universe,
although not in a specifically linear fashion.
14 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors

Figure 11: Standard & Poor’s Earnings and Dividend Quality Ratings for All Rated Stocks in the Investment Database
Versus All Rated Stocks in Various Subset Universes

100%
A+
90%
80% A
70% A-
60%
B+
50%
40% B
30% B-
20%
C
10%
0% D
All 5y10% 5y15% 5y20% 10y10% 10y15% 10y20% 15y10% 15y15% 15y20% LQ 17
Shares

All Shares: Averages of Annual Data from 12/31/1988-12/31/2015

5-Consecutive-Year Universes: Averages of Annual Data from 12/31/1988-12/31/2015
10-Consecutive-Year Universes: Averages of Annual Data from 12/31/1993-12/31/2015
15-Consecutive-Year Universes: Averages of Annual Data from 12/31/1998-12/31/2015
(maximum time periods with data available) Source: Thomson-Reuters

Conclusion
At Jensen Investment Management, we believe that Return on Equity is a very useful criterion for identifying companies that
may provide attractive returns over long periods of time. Throughout this paper, we have discussed how and why we use
ROE in the first stage of our investment process and why we believe that it results in an identifiable universe of high-quality,
profitable companies that are able to generate returns above their costs of capital in a variety of circumstances and economic
environments. While ROE by itself is not suitable as a standalone metric for investment decision-making, we believe that it
provides valuable insight into companies’ business models and provides an effective and efficient means for screening out all but
the very best companies, upon which we perform further research in the later stages of our investment process.

17 LQ represents a company in liquidation

15 Return on Equity: A Compelling Case For Investors

All factual information contained in this paper is derived from sources which Jensen believes are reliable, but Jensen cannot guarantee
complete accuracy. Any charts, graphics, or formulas contained in this piece are only for the purpose of illustration and cannot by
themselves be used to make investment decisions. The views of Jensen Investment Management expressed herein are not intended to be
a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results, nor investment advice. Holdings and sector weightings are subject to change
without notice.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Because Jensen’s high ROE Quality Growth investment strategy involves the use of concentrated/non-diversified portfolios (normally
approximately 25-30 holdings), accounts managed by Jensen (including the Jensen Quality Growth Fund (the “Fund”)) invest in only a
small number of securities that qualify for Jensen’s “investable universe” each year (i.e., the group of companies (currently fewer than
250) that have earned a ROE of 15% of greater for the last 10 consecutive years, as determined by Jensen’s Investment Committee). In
addition, a number of the securities that qualify each year exhibit valuations and other characteristics that Jensen considers to be more
indicative of value rather than growth stocks, and as a result such securities are normally excluded from investment consideration for the
accounts of the firm’s high ROE Quality Growth clients. Therefore, the portfolio of securities included in the high ROE universe are not
representative of the current or past securities portfolios for any current or former investment advisory client of Jensen, including the
Fund.
EPS Growth is not a measure or forecast of an account’s (including the Fund’s) future performance.

Beta: A measure of the volatility of a security’s total return compared to the general market as represented by a corresponding benchmark
index. A beta of more than 1.00 indicates volatility greater than the market, and a beta of less than 1.00 indicates volatility less than the
market.
Cost of Equity (COE): The theoretical return that stockholders would require in exchange for owning the stock and bearing the risks of
ownership.
Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM): Is a model that describes the relationship between risk and expected return and that is used in
the pricing of risky securities.
Margin of Safety: When market price is significantly below an investor’s estimation of the intrinsic value of a security, the difference is
the margin of safety. Also, a principle of investing in which an investor only purchases securities when the market price is significantly
below its intrinsic value.
Dividend Payout Ratio: The percentage of earnings paid to shareholders as dividends, calculated as dividends per share divided by
earnings per share.
Economic Moat: A company’s theoretical ability to maintain competitive advantages over its competitors in order to protect its profits
and market share.
Price to Earnings (P/E) Ratio: Is a common tool for comparing the prices of different common stocks and is calculated by dividing the
earnings per share into the current market price of a stock.
Free Cash Flow: Is equal to the after-tax net income of a company plus depreciation and amortization less capital expenditures.
Earnings Per Share (EPS): The net income of a company divided by the total number of shares it has outstanding.
Return on Assets (ROA): The return on assets percentage shows how profitable a company’s assets are in generating revenue.
Market Capitalization: The total value of the issued shares of a publicly traded company; it is equal to the share price times the number
of shares outstanding.
S&P 500 Index: Is a market value weighted index consisting of 500 stocks chosen for market size, liquidity and industry group
representation. The Index is unmanaged, and one cannot invest directly in the Index.
Standard and Poor’s Earnings and Dividend Quality Ratings: The Standard & Poor’s Earnings and Dividend Rankings (also known as
“quality rankings”) score the financial quality of several thousand US stocks from A+ through D, and LQ for in liquidation, with data going
back to 1956. The company rankings are based on the most recent 10 years (40 quarters) of earnings and dividend data. The better the
growth and stability of earnings and dividends, the higher the ranking.

Mutual fund investing involves risk; loss of principal is possible. The high ROE Quality Growth accounts managed by
Jensen (including the Fund) are non-diversified, meaning they may concentrate their assets in fewer individual holdings
than a diversified product, and therefore are more exposed to individual stock volatility than a diversified product.

The Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses must be

considered carefully before investing. The prospectus contains this and other
important information about the investment company, and it may be obtained
by calling 1.800.992.4144, or by visiting jenseninvestment.com. Read it carefully
5300 Meadows Road, Suite 250 before investing.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
800.221.4384 Quasar Distributors, LLC – Distributor jenseninvestment.com

© 2016 Jensen Investment Management. The Jensen Quality Universe is a trademark of Jensen Investment Management. All rights reserved.