[uejfiweun]

This is probably a hot take and I am by no means a financial expert and this is probably quite wrong. I personally think that attempting to value these companies using the same methodology as the history of all American companies is fundamentally wrong. Sure, some mom and pop small local regional business that overperformed is probably more likely to underperform. But when it comes to big tech companies, these companies are operating a data and capital flywheel that doesn't easily just slow down. I mean, you look at the history of these computer tech companies, especially software companies. They really haven't slowed down. Like, look at Microsoft. It's just been growing from the very beginning, pretty much.

[forlorn_mammoth]

I respect your humility, and agree that you have an insight.

what I am curious about is how you would think about valuing these companies? Let's take it for a given that they are data and capital flywheels, and that this flywheel driven growth will continue for the next 100 years.

And say the valuation based on this measure says the company should be worth X today and X_y = X(growth rate per year)(y years) in y years (yes, I know we should use exponents not multiplication, but that's hard to render in this text editor).

and the price today is P.

What is the ratio of P to X? What is the ratio of P to X_y?

If P today is greater than X_y in 5 years, do you still buy it?

[uejfiweun]

I wish I had a good answer to give you here. I really don't understand financial markets. I more so just have a basic understanding of history and technology - my individual stock purchases are mostly me taking my knowledge base and extrapolating into the future and trying to figure out what companies I think are likely to grow.

As you can probably guess, I mostly try to stick to low-cost index funds, because my above "strategy" is nothing more than gambling.

I'm curious as to what your answers to the question are?