Bogle on Equity Styles: Why Growth vs Value Is Like Tick-Tack-Toe
Book: Common Sense on Mutual Funds: Fully Updated 10th Anniversary Edition by John C. Bogle ISBN: 978-0-470-59748-4
If you’ve ever seen a Morningstar style box, you know what equity styles are. There’s a 3x3 grid. One axis is size: large-cap, mid-cap, small-cap. The other axis is style: growth, blend, value. Every stock fund gets placed in one of those nine boxes.
The fund industry loves this grid. It became the framework for building portfolios. Pick a growth fund here, a value fund there, mix in some small-cap. It sounds very organized and professional.
Bogle thinks it’s basically tick-tack-toe.
A Game Nobody Wins
Here’s the thing about tick-tack-toe. If both players know what they’re doing, nobody wins. The game always ends in a draw. And Bogle argues that style investing works the same way.
Sometimes growth stocks beat value stocks. Then value stocks come roaring back. Sometimes small-caps crush large-caps for a few years. Then large-caps take over again. These cycles have repeated over and over throughout market history, and there’s no reliable way to predict which style will win next.
“Style purity” became the catchphrase of the fund industry in the 1990s. Fund companies marketed funds as strictly growth or strictly value, and investors were told to allocate between styles for optimal performance. But Bogle saw through this. It was just another way to sell more funds and generate more fees.
The evidence is clear. Over long periods, the different styles tend to revert to the market mean. Growth outperforms for a while, then underperforms. Value does the same thing in reverse. If you keep switching between them trying to ride the hot style, you’ll probably end up buying high and selling low. Which is the opposite of what you want.
But Style Does Tell You Something
Now, Bogle doesn’t say styles are completely useless. He makes an important distinction. Styles are bad for predicting returns but good for understanding risk.
And that’s why it matters.
Large-cap value funds tend to have about 50% less volatility than the overall market. Small-cap growth funds tend to have about 50% more. So if you’re picking funds based on style, you should be thinking about how much risk you’re comfortable with. Not about which style is going to “win” next year.
This is a really practical insight. If you’re someone who panics when your portfolio drops 30%, maybe you want more large-cap value in your mix. Not because it’ll give you higher returns, but because it’ll help you sleep at night. And sleeping at night matters a lot more than most investors realize. The best investment plan is the one you can actually stick with.
The Style Box Problem
The Morningstar style box is useful as a description tool. It tells you what kind of stocks a fund holds right now. But people started using it as a prescription tool. They’d look at the box, see they were “missing” small-cap growth, and go buy a small-cap growth fund to fill in the gap.
That sounds logical. But it assumes that having exposure to every style box is better than just owning the whole market. And there’s no evidence for that.
If you own a total market index fund, you already own all nine style boxes in proportion to their actual market values. You’re not “missing” anything. The market has already decided how much of each style you should own.
The style box approach also creates a weird incentive. Fund managers feel pressure to stay within their designated box. A value manager who finds a great growth stock might skip it because buying that stock would drift the fund’s style. That can’t be good for returns.
Most Investors Should Keep It Simple
Bogle’s recommendation is pretty straightforward. For most people, a large-cap blended fund (or better yet, a total market index fund) should be the core of your equity portfolio. It gives you exposure to all styles without the need to pick winners.
If you really want specific style exposure, Bogle says go ahead. But use index funds for those style categories too. Because on top of the style rotation problem, actively managed style funds also have the same cost problem as every other active fund. They charge more, trade more, and tend to deliver less.
So even if you believe in tilting toward value or small-cap (and there are academic arguments for that), you’re still better off using cheap index funds to get that exposure. Paying an active manager to pick value stocks is adding a second layer of uncertainty on top of style rotation. You’re betting on the right style AND the right manager. That’s a lot of hoping.
What This Looks Like Today
This chapter feels even more relevant now than when Bogle wrote it. Over the past couple of decades, we’ve seen exactly the kind of style rotation he described. Growth stocks dominated for years, led by tech companies. Value investors spent a long time in the wilderness. Then there were periods where value came back with a vengeance.
Every time one style surges, the financial media tells you it’s a “permanent shift.” Growth is the new normal. Or the value comeback is real this time. And every time, eventually, things rotate again.
Social media has made this worse. People see a stock or style that’s up 50% in a year and feel like they’re missing out. So they pile in just in time for the reversal. The fear of missing out is real, and it’s expensive.
Bogle’s advice cuts through all of that noise. Don’t play the style game. Own the whole market. Let the growth and value stocks do their thing within your total market fund. You’ll capture whatever wins are happening without having to predict them in advance.
The Bottom Line
Style investing is a distraction dressed up as sophistication. The fund industry benefits from it because it creates more products to sell and more reasons for you to trade. But for actual investors trying to build wealth over decades, it’s a game that can’t be won.
Like tick-tack-toe, the only winning move is not to play. Just own the whole board.
Previous: Chapter 5: On Indexing Next: Chapter 7: On Bonds