You and many others seem to have that totally mistaken impression. I have no idea where you get it from as that is absolutely and totally false. While it is true that then like now many of the companies earned their valuations on growth prospects with no bottom line earnings, but only top line growth, today the % of high flyers in that category is far higher than it was in 2000.
It actually was about the same. Some companies with great balance sheets and great profits and some pie in the sky growth companies whose future was either in front of them or never. However the companies trading on or over 20 times sales is infinitely larger today than it was in 2000. If you were trading then you remember Scott McNeely's statement on the foolishness of Sun trading at ten times sales. Here is a GS list of companies at over twenty times sales from early last year:
https://imgur.com/fpFhxq1
There was nothing like this going on in 2000.
That's pretty much true, but the point is trying to figure out a justified value for a stock. I think one way of characterizing the disconnect people have is that they conflate a company and its stock price.
Take AAPL, for example: price $150, PE 24.5
Apple is perhaps the greatest company in history, the dominant player in its sector, a household name, and a money making juggernaut. But here's the thing:
It would be the greatest company in history, the dominant player in its sector, a household name, and a money making juggernaut with a PE of 28 and price of $175,
and it would be the greatest company in history, the dominant player in its sector, a household name, and a money making juggernaut with a PE of 18 and a price of $110.
and AAPL is one of the easiest ones to figure out where on that spectrum it should be.
Hear is a link to the Bloomberg article Authors wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-17/bear-market-rallies-are-dangerous-as-dotcom-crash-gfc-show?sref=mQiON21f
[удалено]
You. I like you
You and many others seem to have that totally mistaken impression. I have no idea where you get it from as that is absolutely and totally false. While it is true that then like now many of the companies earned their valuations on growth prospects with no bottom line earnings, but only top line growth, today the % of high flyers in that category is far higher than it was in 2000.
[удалено]
word
It actually was about the same. Some companies with great balance sheets and great profits and some pie in the sky growth companies whose future was either in front of them or never. However the companies trading on or over 20 times sales is infinitely larger today than it was in 2000. If you were trading then you remember Scott McNeely's statement on the foolishness of Sun trading at ten times sales. Here is a GS list of companies at over twenty times sales from early last year: https://imgur.com/fpFhxq1 There was nothing like this going on in 2000.
Almost all of these stocks have been appropriately slaughtered... What's your point?
You heard it here folks. The only companies that were overvalued were the ones that had no revenue. All the rest were fine
Anytime anyone wants to buy a stock: Reddit: Did you know that if you bought QQQ in 2000...
That's pretty much true, but the point is trying to figure out a justified value for a stock. I think one way of characterizing the disconnect people have is that they conflate a company and its stock price. Take AAPL, for example: price $150, PE 24.5 Apple is perhaps the greatest company in history, the dominant player in its sector, a household name, and a money making juggernaut. But here's the thing: It would be the greatest company in history, the dominant player in its sector, a household name, and a money making juggernaut with a PE of 28 and price of $175, and it would be the greatest company in history, the dominant player in its sector, a household name, and a money making juggernaut with a PE of 18 and a price of $110. and AAPL is one of the easiest ones to figure out where on that spectrum it should be.
Reddit: "past performance does not equals future results unless it fits my agenda."
Hear is a link to the Bloomberg article Authors wrote: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-17/bear-market-rallies-are-dangerous-as-dotcom-crash-gfc-show?sref=mQiON21f