Some P/E ratios for today, for some companies I find interesting:
- Shopify: 615.12
- Crowdstrike: 455.70
- Datadog: 341.98
- Palantir: 212.34
- Pinterest: 187.67
- Uber: 99.0
- Broadcom: 77.68
- Tesla: 58.33
- Autodesk: 52.36
- Adobe: 49.23
- Microsoft: 37.97
What's going on here? Do investors expect Shopify, for example, to increase their earnings by an order of magnitude despite already having done extraordinarily well in a very competitive market? Can anyone ELI5?
Very generally speaking, trading these companies is kind of more of like placing a bet on whether or not their future top-line growth will be dramatically different than the market's current expectations.
Stock prices have been decoupled from earnings or “value” for a long time now and that’s toothpaste we will never get back in the tube. We are in the Robinhood age where you can buy and sell a stock in seconds with no effort.
No, they aren't, but the market can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent. It doesn't help that our dear government seems loathe to actually ensure competitive markets.
I read somewhere that retail investors are less that 10% of trades.
Essentially, investors buy as long as they think they will be able to sell at a higher price in the future, regardless of economic fundamentals.
not regardless, but only if. The future is unknown, so their bet is also based on that unknown. Is it foolish? Who knows. Did nvidia seem foolish if somebody made that bet before their ai boom?
Now, there are some fools buying these stocks. But to say that each one of these has a high P/E because every shareholder is a fool is very reductionary.
Do you have a better hypothesis that would explain the extreme valuations of those stocks?
> But to say that each one of these has a high P/E because every shareholder is a fool is very reductionary.
That's not what "greater fool theory" means.
This isn't crypto, these are real, well run companies with good fundamentals.
The trade may be a bet that they are able to corner the market and extract more value. Maybe, it's wrong, but doesn't mean it's just empty hype.
I'm not disputing that. But even "real" companies don't warrant P/E multiples in the three-digit range, unless there's a very good reason to expect them to grow their profits by 10x or more in the foreseeable future – and that has to be the expected value of earnings growth (roughly, the average growth over all possible futures), discounted by the time value of the investment.
P/E multiples over 100 are practically never justifiable, except as "someone else will come along and pay even more" – i.e., the greater fool theory.
Grow revenues without substantially increasing costs (i.e running a loss)
Hope you can turn up the profit dial later.
Seems like the modern way?
The earnings are affected by how much the company reinvests (which shows up as a cost) before it becomes earnings on the accounting sheet.
The problem was Windows giving arbitrary access to the kernel to software that can be updated OTA without user intervention and allowing that to crash the kernel, right? Wouldn't this mean that Windows is considerably less secure and stable than assumed?
I don’t know if the absolute amount of profit affects decisions here. It seems if he were more certain of what’s going on he would have bet a lot more.
Outside of the HN bubble, $125K is already a pretty big sum of money to get all at once, and unlikely to bring too much scrutiny, if it was somehow not a coincident. Seems like a smart strategy, if the user was sitting on inside information and didn't want to ring too many alarm bells.
Reading the post its obvious they don’t have a deep understanding of tech, while having that be core to their thesis.
It’s prohibitively hard to hack into a “cloud system” due to few possible entry points - as a reddit commenter said, open S3 buckets are tough to crack!
Especially for the mom/pop investors.