Value vs. Growth

Yesterday we had our first chance to meet a program "Alum" (albeit an honorary one). He had some really neat things to say, and with 40+ years of experience, he also had a sense of humbleness to him, in that it really is true that you just don't know what a stock's price will do in the future.

Mostly my takeaway from his short talk reinforced a key belief that I have: "Value" stocks and "Growth" stocks, and the "Value vs. Growth" investing styles are not polar opposites.

I have believed that, while there are certainly some characteristics of the styles, the two are not mutually exculsive. I once read that Growth should be simply considered as an element of overall Value. I think that is wise.

What this alum did, however, was redefine "Growth" investing as "Surprise" investing, wherein "Surprise" refers to revisions in expectations. His style was very much suited to my own - cut losses quickly, and let winners run. I was surprised at that, given that he started as an investment professional in the early 60's, yet he was not an exact "value" person, in its purest definition. That's not to say that he doesn't believe in what Value investing is, or running valuation models on companies - that's important! But, in an era like the 60's, where nearly everyone who owned stock was a long term, buy, hold, and forget about the stock kind of an investor, this man certainly was not. At least, not anymore. I didn't find out if he'd changed along the way, but as we talk more, I will be sure to find out.