> Intrinsic value can be measured

No, it can't. It can only be guessed at. Everybody knows that "book" value isn't terribly reliable.

> Value investors have in fact gotten rich

Here's a simple test for your theory. You're sure you're right. If so, you have invested in "undervalued" stocks and gotten rich. If you haven't invested based on your theory, are you sure you're right?

As for me, I invest my money where my mouth is.

I have actually invested a substantial (for me) portion this way. It’s performed better on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis than either the additional speculative growth or index strategies I’ve employed.

I’d also avoid absolute terms like “everybody”, “always”, etc. because they’re easily falsifiable

You're way up on others if you actually invest in your theories. Congratulations!

But I do suggest caution. A strategy that works for 3 years may not play out well over 10, 20, 30 years.

Yeah, I know I wrote "everybody knows". I meant "it is generally known".

I appreciate the advice. While I’ve only been investing this way for about 11-12 years, back testing has been statistically valid to the early 2000s (limited by the availability of index funds for comparison). You’re right though, who knows if it’ll work in 30 years. There’s some evidence that it may based on trends in institutional investing. That enough uncertainty to avoid putting all my eggs in that basket.

> early 2000s

I got hammered really hard by the 2000 crash. Down something like 75%. I thought I was smart by not investing in bubble stocks. But the secondary die-off caught me. It was a bitter pill.

It’s certainly possible something similar can happen to me. Part of this is mitigated, I think, by the fact that the overall volatility is reduced. That’s one of the pitfalls I’ve seen in contrast to the growth plays not based on intrinsic value. I think it’s the main reason the risk-adjusted returns are better but time will tell. Black swan events always seem obvious only in hindsight.