[nostrademons]

That's a really rough valuation heuristic that can lead you very far askew.

A P/E of 30 is appropriate for a value stock (steady earnings) at 3% interest rates. (How did I get that figure? P/E of 30 is about a 3% earnings yield, and if earnings are steady the stock is effectively equivalent to a bond at that rate.)

For a growth stock, you have to ask yourself "How much growth do I believe is left in this market?" A company that's growing at 20% annually but has only a year left before it plateaus (like FB or NFLX last year) should trade at about a 20% premium; that'd imply a P/E of 35. But a company that's growing at 20% annually and has a decade of growth left (like FB at IPO) should trade at about 6x that original multiple, for a P/E of 180. An earnings yield of 0.17% implies a P/E of about 600, which implies that earnings should grow 20x before the company reaches a steady state. That's a little high but not totally out of the ballpark for Coinbase (earnings: $3B, market cap $21B) if you assume its comps are companies like Bank of America (earnings: $32B, market cap $293B) or J.P. Morgan Chase (earnings: $48B, market cap $363B).

Also note the effect of interest rates on valuation. At 10% rates, a value stock should have a P/E of about 10. For a growth stock, the effect is much more pronounced, because in the decade that it takes for the company to start raking in serious cash, that bond will be worth 2.6x as much and the company's long-term earnings need to be discounted accordingly, on top of the lower steady-state P/E. That's the real reason why tech growth stocks shot up so high after the pandemic and now have crashed so hard. With higher rates, large cash flows in the future are worth relatively less because you can earn more with safe investments now.

[smaryjerry]

P/E ratios have been pretty insane lately and just came back down to earth and I think your right that interest rates have a lot to do with stock price valuation of growth stocks but it’s not just growth stocks taking a beating right now. Why not grab a safe 3% return investment instead of a risky 6% return investment - or if both are 10% in your example I wouldn’t even consider that a value stock because it would be riskier with no reward. Of course a lot of the growth stocks have negative eps so near impossible to use this measure.

[baskethead]

A PE ratio of 30 for a value stock? You have got to be kidding me. Average PE ratio for the SP500 was about 15 until the pandemic.

[nostrademons]

It's all dependent on interest rates, because that sets the discount rate that all investments are compared to.

A P/E of 30 is an earnings yield of about 3% (1/30). A steady cash-flowing stock will compare favorably to any bond with an interest rate of < 3%. When bonds are yielding < 3%, that's a good deal.

A P/E of 15 is an earnings yield of about 6% and change. When rates are in the 6% range, this is fairly valued.

A P/E of 6-10, like what was considered good in the late 70s, is an earnings yield of 10-18%. Sure enough, in the late 70s when you could actually get these P/Es, interest rates were around 18%.

There's math behind these rules of thumb. It all comes down to discounted cash flow analysis - if you understand the inputs that go into that formula, what the market does makes a lot more sense.

[baskethead]

Except that's not how the markets work. Historically the PE ratios were much lower and the rates were much higher. Your model doesn't even work 5 years ago.

[bb88]

Tech stocks should be around 30 right now, due to expected growth. 10/15 is (at least what I consider) the expected for normal stocks.