Key insights
- The post questions the relevance of traditional value investing in a market dominated by growth stocks, particularly large tech companies. It highlights the underperformance of classic value plays despite solid fundamentals and asks whether value investing has evolved into a growth-at-a-reasonable-price (GARP) strategy. The post implies a slightly bearish outlook for pure value strategies in the current market environment.
Genuine question for people who follow value investing.
When you look at the last 10–15 years, it feels like growth has dominated almost everything. The S&P 500 itself returned roughly ~10% annually long term, but a huge part of that recently came from a handful of large tech names.
Meanwhile, a lot of traditional “value” plays just sat there or underperformed for long stretches. Low P/E, solid cash flow, decent balance sheets… and still no real multiple expansion.
I get the core idea: buy something below intrinsic value and wait. But it feels like the market is less willing to re-rate these companies unless there’s a clear growth story attached.
Even when value works, it often requires a lot of patience and sometimes looks like dead money for years.
So I’m trying to understand where the actual edge is today.
Is value investing still about classic metrics like low P/E, strong free cash flow, margin of safety, or has it shifted into something more like “growth at a reasonable price”?
For those actively using a value approach, what are you actually looking for in 2026 that gives you confidence the market will eventually recognize that value?
Not financial advice.