Hello Rob!

Thanks for taking the time to engage!

I think for me the question has a multi-part, layered answer.

First, I personally do not differentiate between value and growth. I spend my time doing the things in which I think I have skill. Namely, the evaluation of business models, their prospects, and their management; and then in modeling the future performance of the business. Then I decide where in the cash flow stream (i.e. in the income statement) I want to take an interest. Sometimes that means I buy the debt, sometimes the preferred, sometimes the equity, sometimes a combination of all three. There is a name for a company with flat growth prospects: fixed income. So growth is always a part of a valuation. So my own view is that Buffett is correct in his assessment.

That said, I think academics invented a distinction with their famous book to price studies, that was without much meaning. Then the investment company and consulting industry along with investment company evaluators (e.g. Morningstar and Lipper), have forced the creation of these distinct philosophies. So, in practice there is a distinction...nowadays, where once there was not. That leads me to my second point: I think all of the distinctions in the question are real, but I would say the primary distinction is a difference in time horizon and risk. I do not think you can decouple time horizon and risk. Let me explain. Growth investors tend to take more risk than value investors. In order to justify these risks they need to earn higher rates of return, which in turn compresses their time horizons. After all, they don't want to double their money over 100 years, but over the next two years.

By the way, I think you are super smart to be aware of your mental models, one of which you describe above. To know thyself is the key to great investment success.

Big smiles!

Jason