Why are we still focused on Value when it's been a losing trade for almost two decades
u/SnowSilent7695 ·
Reddit — r/ValueInvesting
· June 26, 2026 at 15:44
· ⬆ 22 pts
· 💬 87 comments
| View on Reddit ↗
AI Summary
Summary
The post questions why investors still adhere to value investing when it has underperformed growth/AI for nearly two decades, citing the post-2008 recovery and the recent AI boom.
The author defines value as buying underpriced, lagging stocks with strong businesses, and argues this strategy has not worked since the late 1990s, with only a brief outperformance in 2022.
Quality assessment: This is a speculative discussion / opinion piece, not a well-researched deep dive. It raises a valid historical observation but lacks specific data or stock analysis.
Score22
Comments87
Upvote %70%
▶ Full Post Text
Value has struggled for quite some time now. I'm curious as to why people still cling to it? The AI trade, for example, has left value in the dust. And this is really just a continuation of a trend that has been going since the recovery of the 08' crisis where tech and growth have consistently outperformed value in every way (I think value had a better year in 2022, but that's about it). At what point do you reconsider your commitment to the value thesis?
I think it can be a viable strategy when certain conditions are met, but solely hanging your hat on it strikes me as just burying your head in the sand at this point.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'm just genuinely curious about what drives people to value these days.
EDIT: I'll clarify what I mean by value, since I didn't realize it could mean a hundred different things to people: The historical definition of value is buying underpriced securities that have lagged the market, but have strong underlying businesses, with the expectation that they'll eventually outperform. By this definition, this has not worked out for two decades (but worked really well from the 1970s to the late 1990s).