My main thought is that high volatility ("growth?") stocks typically do well in bull markets, which were the bulk of the subject timeframe. When low volatility stocks (especially if these correspond somewhat to "value" stocks) tend to do well is in flat or down markets. Or at least that's often the conventional thinking. We have been in a period when growth has outperformed value for many years now, and I'm wondering if this study is reflecting the same thing. I wonder what the results would be over a longer timeframe or in periods that were not such a strong bull market. Thoughts? Thanks.