Daily reminder that the Industrial Revolution was characterized in part by a series of market bubbles that formed in response to the introduction of exciting new technologies.
And it got us to today after we went through some things. And today is better than then what with the germ theory of disease, the genetic code, modern agriculture, and HVAC. Haters gonna hate, but there's nothing else they can do about that. But that won't stop them from trying, no sir!
Short term, AI is overrated. Long term, you ain't seen nuthin' yet... Now vote down that positivity, we're doomed! DOOMED!
Going on about a 30X PE ratio as excessive in an age of 336(TSLA), 178(PLTR), 154(AMD) etc...
You guys never stop.
But 20 is a classical and fundamentally healthy PE ratio for a healthy business and that would value Anthropic at ~$1.3T if that's what you're getting at and the early employees would all still be billionaires.
Mind you, I hate both Anthropic and OpenAI for their conduct in this space, but I wouldn't argue with the numbers. I'd argue with the blatant fearmongering towards regulatory capture but that's galaxy brain nonsense I know.
> But 20 is a classical and fundamentally healthy PE ratio for a healthy business
This essentially means that it takes twenty years to recover the price through earnings. The US market has been super strange since the GFC, and with higher interest rates, I don't see these prices continuing unless the machine god is invented real soon.
Then get your vision checked. PEs over 100 are ludicrous, sure, but picking a fight with 30 or 20 is picking a fight the historical market averages of growing and healthy companies respectively. Or, or, or...
No machine god needed. Just more applied AI and there's plenty of it clogged in the FDA pipeline already. That clog is more about the limitations of people and who they elect than it is about limitations of AI. I has fansee peehud 2 BTW. AI doesn't disgruntle me, but both sides of the AI psychosis coin sure do and that coin absolutely 100% has 2 equally ridiculous sides.
> Then get your vision checked. PEs over 100 are ludicrous, sure, but picking a fight with 30 or 20 is picking a fight the historical market averages of growing and healthy companies respectively. Or, or, or...
In the US market, with 4% of the world's population and 60% of equity value.
Even if it's been common for a while, just taking a step back shows you that it's a pretty wild metric.
> I has fansee peehud 2 BTW
I picked this username 15 odd years ago, not sure why you felt the need to call it out.
Listing a bunch of tech stocks’ high P/E ratios doesn’t seem likely to convince someone who’s criticizing tech stock P/E ratios for being to high that tech stock P/E ratios are not too high.
I gave up on convincing people the sky is blue or that they need to breathe if they don't want to suffocate a while ago. And now we all have personal chatbots to confirm every single one of our biases on demand, hooray!
But the tech industry PE ratio is about 28. Since 30 is crazy, what's a reasonable PE ratio and when are you going to short the NASDAQ on margin and make your first billion, you market genius you?
I’m not expressing an intent to short anything; I’m pointing out that that argument didn’t carry any rhetorical weight. A stronger argument for tech stocks tending toward higher P/E ratios than many other market segments would be something like suggesting they have higher upside potential because it’s still a growth industry.
That's clearly the response you want to read, but also, I'm not your you-know-what. Whereas my point is why pick on stocks that are within a single standard deviation (~3 over the past 5 years) of the market average for tech when there are crazy outliers with questionable futures? That doesn't seem very data-driven, now does it?
IMO there's a silly agenda in play here driven by prominent influencers and notorious hedgers who were recently forced to buy calls on their favorite short (insert Nelson laugh). The financing thing will take care of itself in the long run just like the dark fiber did. And just like VC loses most of their bets and makes it up on the winners or we wouldn't have so many expensive houses in Woodside.
I find it fascinating that your response to me pointing out that these two positions are not opposed because they can quite easily both be right at the same time is to use quite hyperbolic language to accuse me of holding hyperbolic opinions.
Rest assured that it did not, in fact, disabuse me of my belief that I’m at least partially successful in retaining a level head.
