Someone made this comment recently:
"When a growth stock becomes a value stock, the growth index sells it and the value index buys it"
Which implies that a stock is either a Growth stock, or a Value stock. Nothing in between.
But Morningstar categorizes fund portfolio holdings as Growth/Core/Value (sometimes they use the term 'Blend' instead of 'Core'). This implies a 'Core' stock is neither a Growth stock, or a Value stock.
This is interesting because if, say Vanguard, uses the Growth/Value methodology in picking stocks, Morningstar comes along and redefines it. Oops!
I love Cowboy movies, but this seems like the wild-wild west in terms of basic financial nomenclature and definitions. And methodologies in selecting stocks. Am I interpreting this correctly? Are there even more ways to categorize Growth/Value?
For Reference, to see how MS categorizes stocks: go to Morningstar.com, type in VTSAX (upper left), select 'Portfolio', then in the Style box on the right, select 'weight'
"When a growth stock becomes a value stock, the growth index sells it and the value index buys it"
Which implies that a stock is either a Growth stock, or a Value stock. Nothing in between.
But Morningstar categorizes fund portfolio holdings as Growth/Core/Value (sometimes they use the term 'Blend' instead of 'Core'). This implies a 'Core' stock is neither a Growth stock, or a Value stock.
This is interesting because if, say Vanguard, uses the Growth/Value methodology in picking stocks, Morningstar comes along and redefines it. Oops!
I love Cowboy movies, but this seems like the wild-wild west in terms of basic financial nomenclature and definitions. And methodologies in selecting stocks. Am I interpreting this correctly? Are there even more ways to categorize Growth/Value?
For Reference, to see how MS categorizes stocks: go to Morningstar.com, type in VTSAX (upper left), select 'Portfolio', then in the Style box on the right, select 'weight'
Statistics: Posted by LISD — Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:32 am — Replies 0 — Views 35