Value stocks have been hands-down winners over the long termThis, to my thinking, is pure drivel. Not only do a disagree with the contention, but you'd have a hard time defining what exactly a "value" stock is. It's very open to interpretation. The fact is that any stock could be considered on a valuation thesis, but that doesn't define the business. I purchased AAPL for value, yet few would consider it a "value" stock. At the heart of even the most admired "growth" stocks is an expectation of future value. If the price isn't reflective of that growth potential, then it is reasonable to consider it for value.There's a tendency in the investment community to attach a label to everything. I suppose the closest one could come to defining a value stock would be to start with ruling out potential for growth. If it's not growth, then it must be value (or income). Why else would you invest in it? The reality is that as a business growth slows, you look for another angle to base your investment thesis around. It's somewhat more unusual, but stocks typically considered in this category can significantly retool their business and become a growth opportunity. Before the iPod, few considered AAPL for growth. Little more than a decade later it bears the mantle of largest market cap on the planet. That doesn't preclude it from being a value play for some investors.Doug
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra