Is growth investing superior to value investing?

Investors in stocks are often divided into two camps: value invests or growth investors. Over the past few years, growth as an investment factor has vastly outpaced the value factor. This has led to renewed calls of "the death of value investing."

Growth investing is superior because it focuses on compounding for the long term, whereas value often buys low quality companies that can't grow

Long term returns in an investment are driven by the growth and capital return prospects of companies, not by how "cheap" the company is.

The biggest driver of long term returns is return on capital, not valuation

“Over the long term, it's hard for a stock to earn a much better return that the business which underlies it earns. If the business earns six percent on capital over forty years and you hold it for that forty years, you're not going to make much different than a six percent return - even if you originally buy it at a huge discount. Conversely, if a business earns eighteen percent on capital over twenty or thirty years, even if you pay an expensive looking price, you'll end up with one hell of a result.” Charlie Munger

No, value investing is superior to growth investing

Explore this question in a whole new way.
This page was last edited on Thursday, 27 Feb 2020 at 12:34 UTC