Bakgrund: Antalet aktieägare i Sverige har ökat markant de senaste åren vilket innebär att inflödet av kapital på Stockholmsbörsen ökat markant. De alla investerare strävar efter att åstadkomma är att överprestera marknaden och således har flertalet investeringsstrategier presenterats genom åren. Två av de mest frekvent använda är värde- samt tillväxtstrategin som studerats under flertalet tidsperioder samt på en rad olika marknader. Däremot har tidigare studier genomgående definierat värde- samt tillväxtbolag utifrån värderingsmultiplar och ej beaktat att de båda strategierna möjligtvis kan definieras och identifieras utifrån andra finansiella nyckeltal.  Syfte: Studiens syfte är att analysera huruvida vilken av de två populära investeringsstrategierna värde- respektive tillväxtstrategi som har genererat högst riskjusterad avkastning under perioden 2014–2024.  Metod: För att uppfylla studiens syfte har en kvantitativ forskningsansats med ett deduktivt tillvägagångsätt tillämpats. Två portföljer har konstruerats med årlig rebalansering baserat på de uppsatta kriterierna för värde samt tillväxtbolag. Dessa två portföljer har sammansatts baserat på konsensus erhållet från aktörer på den svenska aktiemarknaden som insamlats med hjälp av intervjuer. De båda portföljerna har sedan utvärderats utifrån årlig och ackumulerad avkastning samt riskjusterade mått i form av Sharpekvot, Treynorkvot och Jensens alpha.  Resultat: Både tillväxt- samt värdeportföljen genererade ackumulerad överavkastning gentemot index, respektive portfölj har även överavkastat index sett till riskjusterade mått över studiens tioåriga tidsperiod. Högst absolut avkastning samt avkastning justerad för risk genererade tillväxtportföljen. / Background: The number of shareholders in Sweden has significantly increased in recent years, leading to a substantial influx in the Stockholm stock market. All investors aim to outperform the market, and as a result, several investment strategies have been proposed over the years. Two of the most frequently used strategies are value and growth strategies, which have been studied across various time periods and markets. However, previous studies have consistently defined value and growth companies based on valuation multiples, without considering that these strategies may also be defined and identified using other financial metrics.  Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze which of the two popular investment strategies – value and growth – has generated the highest risk-adjusted returns during the period from 2014 to 2024.  Methodology: To achieve the study’s objective, a quantitative research approach with a deductive methodology has been applied. Two portfolios were constructed with annual rebalancing based on predefined criteria for value and growth companies. These portfolios were assembled based on consensus obtained from stakeholders in the Swedish stock market, collected through interviews. The performance of both portfolios was evaluated in terms of annual and cumulative returns, as well as risk-adjusted measures such as the Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio, and Jensen’s alpha.  Results: Both the growth and value portfolios generated cumulative excess returns compared to the market index. Furthermore, both portfolios outperformed the index in terms of risk-adjusted measures over the ten-year study period. The growth portfolio exhibited the highest absolute return and risk-adjusted return.

The credit crunch that started the 9th of August 2007 is generally viewed as the most significant crisis to affect the financial markets and the global economy since the 1930s.The UK financial sector was heavily hit by the crisis which resulted in a dry up in lending and left a black hole in the British banks‟ finances. During the last quarter of 2010 the GDP shank unexpectedly with 0.5 percent from the third quarter which created concerns about going back into the recession. Contrarily, for Swedish economy 2010 was an impressing year with an unexpected GDP growth of 7, 3 percent in the last quarter.The purpose of this study is to analyse how the finance crisis has affected the leading banks‟ performance within the two countries and see whether the differences in values can explain the difference in GDP growth during the last quarter of 2010. The analyse is performed through a financial ratio analysis of the different banks.The final results of the research indicates to that the Swedish banks have been more profitable, have had a more secure and higher quality of lending and more capacity to lower cost related to income than the British banks. The more distinctive negative influence is mostly based on the larger amount of credit losses the British banks had to experience which contributed to their significant decrease in earnings per share which created scepticism on the credit market followed by a severe slowdown in consumption and in GDP growth. Since the credit losses never got to same levels in Sweden as in the UK the scepticism of the Swedish banking system did not affect the reduction in credit use and house prises to the same extent and GDP growth could recover back to normal levels sooner than in the UK.