[ralfd]

> Sidenote: 3 is actually high.

Do you mean low? AAPL has a ps of 10.

[BobbyJo]

Generally < 1 is low, between 1 and 3 is in the middle ground, and > 3 is high. However, that all depends on margins, which is why people generally use P/E or forward P/E rather than P/S to compare multiples. Issue here being that P/E is nonsensical for unprofitable companies or companies with very low margins. Spacex's P/E after Google pushed them into profitability by a slim margin would look absolutely stupid.

I would also like to point out, that on a forward P/E basis, AAPL is quite overvalued compared to historical norms, but basically every tech company is right now.

[marcosdumay]

Most companies have a P/S of 1 or 2, almost all have it bellow 4.

A few segments of the economy are known to have low revenue/investment ratios, and companies there get P/S up to 7 or so.

Then, very few companies have people betting on their growth so much that their P/S get as high as 15.

And then you have literally about half a dozen exceptions on the ones S&P tracks that get higher than that.

[burnte]

Nothing about Apple is representative of a normal business.

[rbanffy]

It’s an interesting phenomenon: being Apple is one of their key sales drivers. The brand is worth more than the business itself.

[doctorpangloss]

You're arguing with people who have no idea what they're talking about.

[BobbyJo]

Who's arguing?