> The burden of proof is on the person claiming no form of value investing will have passed a backtest over the last decade
Says who?
In my book the burden of proof is on the argument being the less in line with general consensus.
Value being a bad investment in the last decade is not an argument, it's a fact. Value is not something you find, it is a defined factor with academic consensus on the definition. You can have some leaway and build a portfolio highly correlated to value, but that only goes so far.
Claiming to have found a good value signal is then akin to claiming being able to doing consistently good factor timing on value.
This is a feat the top hedge funds on the planet would be weary to claim. Allow me to be skeptical when someone on HN claims to have done so with "basic value indicators" and found something that "prints money".
Says who?
In my book the burden of proof is on the argument being the less in line with general consensus.
Value being a bad investment in the last decade is not an argument, it's a fact. Value is not something you find, it is a defined factor with academic consensus on the definition. You can have some leaway and build a portfolio highly correlated to value, but that only goes so far.
Claiming to have found a good value signal is then akin to claiming being able to doing consistently good factor timing on value.
This is a feat the top hedge funds on the planet would be weary to claim. Allow me to be skeptical when someone on HN claims to have done so with "basic value indicators" and found something that "prints money".