Quote:
Originally Posted by BayMoWe335
Again, I see the value...it’s just not really worth what it’s currently trading. ... how overvalued it is relative to fundamentals
|
It may not be worth it
to you, but it's obviously worth it or the price wouldn't be rising.
And, FYI,
"fundamentals" isn't a justification for anything - it's just one theory of trading; another is "technicals"; another is "buy & hold growth"; and there are others ... none of which is "right", only right for you. Whenever you hear someone decrying "fundamentals" it usually means they've just been caught out being wrong. (or never been right)
In fact,
"fundamentals" fails for most traders:
Warren Buffett famously bet any hedge fund $1M that, over 10 years, they couldn't beat the market. He won the bet. So much for fundamentals.
Show me a purely fundamentals trader and I'll show you someone with a worse investing record than an index fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRS_SN
Who will gain money and lose money when the balloon bursts who knows.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayMoWe335
I’m speaking from a long term business perspective and my guess is we’ll look back on this as a bubble.
|
All bubbles aren't the same, or even bubbles...
Dutch Tulip Bulbs, for example, are an expiring commodity vs TSLA which creates wealth & value:
Patented technology, an ever increasing set of products in an ever increasing number of markets AND industries; they're building new factories that'll produce patented products at higher volumes than anyone on the planet ...
Here's a historical, i.e, "long term business" example of a not-a-bubble stock:
We take air travel for granted, but in the
30 YEARS between 1920 and 1950 it was far from certain air travel would even involve airplanes.
During that time, there was a
platform war between airships, i.e., dirigibles (you might've noticed those large hangers over at NASA Ames Research / Moffett) and airplanes. In those 30 years (and that's a long-ass time - the majority of our lives) airships were thought to be best for ocean aviation / long distance, and airplanes for mail delivery or short hops.
In 1928 only 2 aviation companies had publicly listed stock:
Curtiss & Wright; but between 1928 and 1930 an additional 28 companies went public, a BOOM ... kinda sounds like BEV companies right now ...
speculators/traders who bet right, won big.
One of them was Frederick Rentschler - a founder of Pratt & Whitney and a partner of William Boeing - He famously
invested $253 in a company that would become United Airlines & United Technologies, which by 1934
grew to $30,000,000 (Rentschler stated this figure to a Senate subcommittee in 1934). Was he just lucky? Or maybe, being an industry veteran, he knew what he was investing in and why United would grow so fast and so much -
i.e., maybe his analysis about a growth stock was right even if the "fundamentals" weren't!
Given United is still around today (as of 2020 as Raytheon Technologies & United Airlines) and that stake would be worth much, much more,
we can't call 1934 United a bubble, right?
My point is, parabolic price does not a bubble make:
Growing companies in growing markets in growing industries create wealth and potentially do this at an increasing velocity - forever.
Is TSLA such a company?
but so far they're the first successful company in an expanding industry (energy) profitably making an expanding line of products, in an expanding line of markets, and they can potentially do that forever.
How confident are you TSLA isn't a United Technologies / United Airlines? Or more?
In short, one can make a very reasonable "long term business" data-driven argument that TSLA's current price is actually a bargain!
That is, when you analyze your guess with historical data (i.e, "long term business" data), it can look like a bad guess.