Apple and Berkshire Hathaway pay no dividend. Both were value investments late in 2008 and early in 2009. Any company that can significantly out-earn the cost of capital is better off paying no dividend.
In my experience, all deep value investments I have ever done have resolved the price discount within 2-3 years at most. The longest I had to wait was from September 2001 to late 2003/early 2004. In most cases I was collecting nice fat dividends while I waited. If your life expectancy is less than 2-3 years, then value investing is probably not for you.
In response to the OP's question, there are several active forums on the Morningstar web site that are very useful and interesting to read. You have to join the site for about $150 per year. Morningstar is pretty good at picking funds, but not at picking stocks. They do provide an in-depth analysis of each stock, though, that you could use as a starting point for further research. And they have many nice screening tools.
This is again a trader rather than investor mentality. Even after MSFT and GOOG's "home run", they haven't established a dividend schedule that even begins to pay off their investors. GOOG pays nothing. MSFT pays next to nothing. It seems unlikely either ever will. The only way to have profited on those stocks was to sell and leave someone else holding the non-dividend-paying bag. That's all well and good, but any time your strategy is to leave some other guy holding the bag, you're a trader rather than an investor. I have no problem with the trader mentality, but it's good to be clear about what you're doing.
Neither of those would be value investing by the classic definition. Berkshire DOES value investing, but their own stock in not a value investment in and of itself. AAPL is yet another tech company that never intends to pay off the investors in any way, shape or form if management can help it.
The evidence is mixed, buying high dividend yield stocks tend to be beat the market. but other measures of value such as low pe, low pb tend to lag growth stocks over long-periods of time. check Pratical Speculation by Niederhoffer
WRONG. Stocks are businesses. Businesses are valuable. They have valuable assets. They have future earnings potential, which in turn makes the company more valuable. Dividends are important, but you can certainly make an investment without the company you are buying paying dividends. Limitiing your investments to ONLY dividend paying stocks is a close minded strategy that will limit your portfolio. Any asset that is deemed to be trading below its intrinsic value is an investment. Warren Buffet, the best value investor in the world, has made plenty of investments that did not pay dividends.
It's you vs. Benjamin Graham (who has already been quoted on the subject in this thread). If you don't like what he has to say, take it up with him But while you're waiting to talk to him, you might want to ponder this question: if a company is nominally valuable, but never pays dividends and never intends to, and you have no hope of achieving voting control to force a dividend, how will you as an "investor" ever get access to any of that value?