Why We Believe Quality Stocks are Mispriced

Key takeaways

  • Quality stocks have underperformed this year amid a risk-on rally.
  • In small caps, unprofitable firms have outperformed profitable peers by roughly 20% since Liberation Day, highlighting how sentiment has overwhelmed fundamentals.
  • We see this mispricing as structural, not cyclical—a recurring market bias that undervalues durability in favor of near-term excitement.
  • We believe investors with a disciplined, valuation-aware approach can capture the long-term premium embedded in true quality.

The quality paradox

Quality names should command a premium, right?

After all, these are companies with strong earnings, resilient balance sheets, and sustainable margins—attributes that often drive outperformance. But this year, that’s been anything but the case.

High-quality stocks have underperformed sharply across markets in 2025. For instance, in U.S. small caps, companies with negative earnings have outperformed profitable ones by about 20% since Liberation Day, while the Russell 2000’s rally has favored high-volatility, unprofitable names.

This trend took off following the post-Liberation Day rebound, and in the view of one of our money manager/subadvisors, resembles what happens when a piñata bursts at a party. Once the market rallied on tariff truces, a free-for-all emerged among investors, who grabbed whatever names they could scoop up, regardless of fundamentals or valuation.

We call this the quality paradox—when strong fundamentals are ignored in the rush for risk. It’s not that quality has lost its edge. It’s that market psychology has temporarily drowned it out.

Structural blind spots in pricing quality

Quality’s mispricing isn’t new. It’s rooted in the way markets process information and chase cyclicality. In risk-on periods, investors often overvalue short-term earnings growth and underprice steady profitability. That tendency can widen when volatility and momentum dominate flows.