Thanks Brad for your comment. As a value investor myself, I truly believe that "value" will continue to outperform "growth", if I have to use that two classifications. Fama-French Three-Factor Model makes perfect sense to me (but not Efficient Market theory though).

My point is not about that. Comparing "value" and "growth" is like comparing apple and orange. It makes more sense to compare "value" with "non-value/expensive" and "growth" with "no/low growth" but nobody would do that because the results are super obvious. So people just split the stocks into "value" and "growth" for whatever sophisticated reasons they have.

To simplify my point, as a value investor myself, there are stocks in the "value" segment that I wouldn't buy and there are stocks in the "growth" segment that I would buy. Growth is always a component in the calculation of value.