Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 123

Irrational exuberance in growth versus value

Now is a good time to remember the lessons of history about growth shares versus value shares.

Imagine that your rich aunt has passed away and left you a parcel of shares, but you must make a choice, and there is a condition. The choice is between receiving either $1 million worth of Amazon shares or $1 million of Walmart shares. The condition is that you can never sell the shares. You can only receive the dividends from the chosen parcel in perpetuity. Which would you prefer?

This choice comes to mind because recently Amazon became a more valuable company than Walmart. The market capitalisation of Amazon is $244 billion versus $230 billion for Walmart (all figures in USD).

If we didn't know better, we might think that since the market value of the two companies is similar their profits must be similar. But in fact in 2014 Walmart's net income was $15.7 billion whereas Amazon lost $0.2 billion. In its whole 20 year history the cumulative profits of Amazon are less than $2.0 billion. In the last 50 days Walmart has made more money than Amazon has in the last 20 years.

Figure 1: Return premium of Value stocks over Growth stocks, US 1927-2013


Source: Dimensional Fund Advisors

The graph shows, for each year, the return on a portfolio of the 20% of US stocks that have the strongest 'value' characteristics minus the return on the 20% of stocks with the strongest 'growth' characteristics. US stocks have 'value' phases (blue) when value stocks outperform and 'growth' phases (red) when growth stocks do better, but on average value stocks deliver much higher returns over time.

Give me the Walmart dividends

Obviously, the stock market is ignoring the difference in today's earnings and focusing on the higher expected growth in earnings of the two companies. The market sees a bright future of rapidly growing earnings for glamorous, high tech, disruptive Amazon and dim growth prospects for boring, old economy, sitting duck Walmart.

That may be so, but I will take the Walmart shares thanks. I want today's big Walmart dividends ($27,000 annually) versus the promise of large dividends from Amazon in the future.

We can't see into the future to which stock will outperform. But we can see into the past to the historic record of stock returns and that record is very clear - in the long run 'value' stocks like Walmart have higher returns than 'growth' stocks like Amazon.

Definition of value and growth

'Value' stocks are defined by their low share price relative to some objective measure of value. The share price of value stocks is low relative to:

  • Dividends (a high dividend yield)
  • Earnings (a low price to earnings (PE) ratio)
  • Book value of equity (a low market value to book value ratio).

'Growth' stocks are the opposite to value stocks.  That is, growth stocks have low dividend yields, high price-to-earnings ratios and high market value to book value ratios. High PE ratios are especially indicative of 'growth' stocks.  Investors who will pay a high share price today per dollar of today's earnings must be expecting substantial growth in earnings in the future.

The graph above shows that, on average, across stocks and through time, value stocks outperform growth stocks by a lot. That is not only true for US stocks but around the world. There is no bulletproof theoretical explanation for why value stocks outperform growth stocks in nearly every country and through time (on average), but it is an undeniable regularity in the data.

The best explanation (to simplify somewhat) is that investors get too excited about stocks in new glamorous industries that are expected to deliver large dividends in the future. Those stocks on average don't deliver the expected dividends and then growth stocks underperform. Investors pay too much for stocks that promise large growth in dividends.

Value phases and growth phases

There are periods of multiple years in which excitement about growth stocks bids them up and they outperform boring value stocks that pay high current dividends but have low growth prospects. The US market may be in such a period now with digital technology stocks like Amazon, Facebook or Netflix.

So now is a good time to remember that investors who don't buy into over-hyped growth promises earn higher returns in the long run. That is an enduring lesson of not just the history of stock markets, but property market investments as well.

 

Dr Sam Wylie is a director of Windlestone Education and a Principal Fellow of the Melbourne Business School. Sam consults and teaches programmes for corporate and government clients and can be contacted on LinkedIn. This article is for general education purposes and does not address the needs of any individual investor.

 

  •   20 August 2015
  • 4
  •      
  •   
4 Comments
Gary M
August 20, 2015

A couple of points. 1) You picked a mature star (Walmart) and a company that spends more than it earns (Amazon). It would be better to have at least picked a decent non-dividend paying star (like Google). Amazon may never be profitable.

2) Then that opens up the debate about what dividends actually are. They are not ‘income’ (apart from in a very narrow accounting sense in the eyes of the recipient only). Dividends are capital and they reduce the future growth and earning capacity of the company.

Sam Wylie
August 25, 2015

Hi Gary
We should look beyond any specific examples to the average over all growth stocks and all value stocks. Then the record is very clear. Value strategies outperform growth strategies in the long run.
Cheers
Sam

David Bell
August 25, 2015

Hi Sam, I always find articles on value and growth stocks interesting but I have concerns about the way you have defined 'growth' stocks. In my opinion 'growth' stocks are companies whose earnings are growing fast or are forecast to grow quicker than the earnings of other companies. To me it appears that you have defined 'growth' stocks to be the opposite of value stocks, namely expensive stocks. This may not always be the case: stocks can be expensive for many reasons. It could even be possible that there are some stocks out there which appear cheap and have growth characteristics. If in your analysis you have defined 'growth' to have simply the opposite characteristics of 'value' stocks then in my opinion this could potentially be a flawed analysis. I am unsure however what makes up your chart - could you clarify please.
Regards, David

Sam Wylie
August 25, 2015

Hi David
The main way that people define growth stocks is by the PE ratio. Growth stocks have high PE ratios, which means that investors are willing to pay a lot today per dollar of today's earnings. They do that because they are expecting growth in earnings in the future. That is the most standard meaning of 'growth'.
Cheers
Sam

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

The power of dividends

The best strategy to build income for life

Why the ASX 200 has gone nowhere in 16 years

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

How to minimise tax with a will

Inheritance tax implications in Australia may surprise some, as poor estate planning without proper wills or trusts can lead to costly tax bills and delays for beneficiaries.

Testamentary trusts post-budget: Estate planning, tax reform and the ‘death tax’ debate

Proposed Budget changes to taxation are casting new uncertainty over testamentary trusts, prompting closer scrutiny of estate planning structures and the real implications of reforms still taking shape.

Meg on SMSFs: The CGT changes don’t impact super but what about Div 296 tax decisions?

New CGT rules could tip the scales in the super vs non-super debate. For those facing the Division 296 tax, the case for withdrawing has gotten more complex. A "comparison rate" tool may help assess decisions.

High quality businesses are on sale

Beneath the dominance of the ASX's largest stocks, much of the market has been left behind. High-quality companies are now trading at levels rarely seen, offering opportunities for investors willing to look deeper.

The investment mistake killing your returns

Retail investors face an increasingly complex product environment, but simplicity may be the most overlooked advantage in building a portfolio you can actually live with.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 667 with weekend update

The downfall of the giant and three lessons for investors.

  • 18 June 2026

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: How wide is the ban on LRBAs?

The government's recent deal with the Greens has put SMSF property borrowing on the chopping block. The change raises tricky questions about timing, exceptions and what SMSFs will still be able to buy.

Shares

Why Australian shares are falling behind the world

Australia’s market boasts a long record of outperformance, but recent results tell a different story. Is the ASX’s lagging performance a temporary setback or evidence that structural forces will keep global markets ahead?

Taxation

The strange effect of the 30% minimum capital gains tax

The 30% minimum tax on capital gains sits at the heart of the budget's proposed reforms. Yet the mechanics reveal anomalies that introduce unexpected distortions that raise questions about its design.

Shares

The next phase of Australian equity leadership

For years, banks have powered Australian sharemarket returns. But changing economic conditions, stretched valuations and global trends suggest the next generation of winners may not be found in familiar domestic sectors.

Economy

Global market growth hinges on Iran War and AI rollout

Global growth is facing mounting pressure from war, higher oil prices, inflation and trade tensions. But a wave of AI-related investment may prove powerful enough to support economic activity and reshape the outlook for markets.

Retirement

The retirees who can't spend

Why do so many retirees pass away with their wealth intact? Conventional wisdom blames pension rules for the reluctance to spend, but a case study from New Zealand shows that the answer may not be as predictable.

Investment strategies

Here’s my investment philosophy. What’s yours?

Investors often hear they need an “investment philosophy,” yet few know what that really means. Beneath the jargon sits a simple idea: a handful of core beliefs that shape every financial decision, for better or worse.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.