pointed towards growth beating value over multiple decades over most time windows unless you jumped in at just the wrong time. Also, the discussion of value vs growth investing is not just a discussion of risk tolerance.

Here's a few other sources with better analysis with windows including crashes and with and without the past decade:

"Since May 1995 value stocks have returned 624%, while growth has gained 1,072%, according to analysis by UK wealth management firm Brewin Dolphin." - https://money.com/stocks-growth-vs-value/ there it is with a giant recession.

"The Wiesenberger Mutual Fund report traced fund performance by style each year from 1959 through 2004. It found that a $100 investment in growth funds in 1958 would have grown to $9,380 by the end of 2004. The same $100 investment in value stocks would have grown to $7,046. Hence, the growth style established a premium of 33% relative to the value style over 46 years." - https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2021/04/26/growth-stocks-vs-value-stocks-the-untold-reality/?sh=56855ac191ef


I'm not really interested in debating whether doing worse, but still well, is sad or not. That wasn't the point of my post.

[Post edited by jmanatVT at 06/04/2021 11:42AM]