What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Stock Thread (21 Viewers)

2008 is not a good example to cite either. There were many of us on this very message board calling that crash out plain as day before it happened and why. The sagacious @RedmondLonghorn had an exceptional thread titled "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" or something. That crash was a result of bad mortgages, bad banking governance and a government that turned a blind eye to it all before it was too late.

Some of us (me) had their best financial years in 2007-2008. The catalysts were all there for those that looked. Books were written, movies were made, it was cataclysmic in nature and the aftermath resulted in MAJOR changes to the way we do things in banking, finance, mortgages, etc.

This is not that. Period.

You think we're in a bubble, fine. But using the dot com bubble or 2008 or the Great Depression as examples of why we're about to go into a tailspin is poor due diligence and lacks a historical understanding of then vs now.
Don’t be so sure man. I’m not calling a top yet but check these out:

1. Palantir has a 600+ P/E ratio and they are profitable and have been for a while. This isn’t a small company. They are worth almost half a trillion dollars.
2. Tesla is not a dot com pumping all profits into growth. They are a 1.5 trillion dollar company whose current revenue is lower than their 2024 and 2024 revenue numbers. Negative revenue growth excepted for this quarter because EV tax credits are gone. P/S of almost 20 and P/E ratio of 260+.
3. Drones, quantum, raw materials, AI and energy stocks on tears with a ton of no revenue companies.
4. There are tons of “expensive” stocks.
5. We’ve got hundreds of billions or dollar deals that are a wee bit questionable and these deals have propped up a lot of big market cap companies. Open AI is not far from a trillion dollars valuation and if you followed the dot com craze, the first mover is not always the winner. Google wasn’t even a thing when tons of search engines were public.

Never say never. As bagel said, if there’s a big drop, there’s going to be a bit more blood than a nice controlled drop.

Also, can someone actually tell me what this project Stargate will actually be? It seems like future revenues of several companies are propped up by that $500B thing that once built will likely be out of date.
 
Last edited:
2008 is not a good example to cite either. There were many of us on this very message board calling that crash out plain as day before it happened and why. The sagacious @RedmondLonghorn had an exceptional thread titled "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" or something. That crash was a result of bad mortgages, bad banking governance and a government that turned a blind eye to it all before it was too late.

Some of us (me) had their best financial years in 2007-2008. The catalysts were all there for those that looked. Books were written, movies were made, it was cataclysmic in nature and the aftermath resulted in MAJOR changes to the way we do things in banking, finance, mortgages, etc.

This is not that. Period.

You think we're in a bubble, fine. But using the dot com bubble or 2008 or the Great Depression as examples of why we're about to go into a tailspin is poor due diligence and lacks a historical understanding of then vs now.
I agree that 1929 and 2008 were unique situations and that it is very unlikely that we'll see drops like those again. The historical setups were far different than now. However, it should also be noted that there are circumstances this time around that were not present in those cases, things that could cause bad cascading effects that could make the next downturn unique as well. I'm thinking about algorithms and quant trading, geopolitical issues (even civil unrest issues), incredibly wide gaps in income inequity, and with an unusually frothy market. The SPY would need to lose almost one third of its value for its PE to be in line with historic averages. I'm not a doomsayer but at the same time, I don't think this is a great time to be pollyanna about the state of things. This is not that, agreed. We won't know exactly what *this* is until after the fact.

Known values:​


  • Overall SPY P/E: 31.23
  • Group weight (Mag 7 + Tesla): 37.31 % (= 0.3731)
  • Group composite P/E: 55.99
  • Rest of SPY weight: 62.69 % (= 0.6269)
  • Rest of SPY P/E: x



Equation:​

31.23=(0.3731×55.99)+(0.6269×x)31.23 = (0.3731 \times 55.99) + (0.6269 \times x)31.23=(0.3731×55.99)+(0.6269×x)

Step 1: Multiply the first term​


0.3731 × 55.99 = 20.89

31.23=20.89+0.6269x31.23 = 20.89 + 0.6269x31.23=20.89+0.6269x

Step 2: Subtract 20.89​


31.23 − 20.89 = 10.34 = 0.6269x


Step 3: Solve for x​


10.34 ÷ 0.6269 = 16.50

If ChatGPT treated me right, if you back out Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Broadcom, Navida, and Tesla, the current SPY PE is 16.5. I originally ran those numbers excluding Tesla because I feel like the valuations are warranted on the others based on their growth prospects. The weighted remaining Spy PE was 25.9. Looks like the main variable in the current high valuations is mostly based on Tesla's absurd valuation.

Note: The Mag 7 reference above includes both googles and not tesla.
 
So the Mag 7 + TSLA are driving up P/E because they have so much market cap compared to the other 492 companies. I wonder if you go back to 2008 and dot-com era and took out the top 10 market cap players from SP500 what the other 490 P/E was.
 
So the Mag 7 + TSLA are driving up P/E because they have so much market cap compared to the other 492 companies. I wonder if you go back to 2008 and dot-com era and took out the top 10 market cap players from SP500 what the other 490 P/E was.
Data is sketchy....

Top 10 S&P 500 / SPY names (as of 12/31/2007) — with weights & indicative P/Es​

RankCompany (Ticker)Market cap 12/31/2007 (USD B)Approx. weight in SPY (%)Indicative trailing P/E ~FY2007*
1Exxon Mobil (XOM)504.243.92%~11× FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
2Microsoft (MSFT)332.112.58%~17× FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
3Procter & Gamble (PG)225.911.76%~20× FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
4General Electric (GE)221.411.72%~17× (GE then included Capital; pre-crisis) FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
5Google/Alphabet (GOOG)**216.301.68%~50× FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
6Chevron (CVX)195.061.52%~11× FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
7Walmart (WMT)190.281.48%~18× FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
8AT&T (T)190.181.48%~19× FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
9Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)189.431.47%~16× FinHacker.cz Companies Market Cap
10Bank of America (BAC)183.281.42%~10× (pre-GFC) FinHack
 
And here's the end of 2008

Here’s the end-of-2008 snapshot for the S&P 500’s top 10 constituents—each name’s market cap, its approximate S&P 500 weight, and a late-2008 trailing P/E (when I could pin down a dated figure):
RankCompany (Ticker)Market cap ($B)Weight in S&P 500P/E (date)
1Exxon Mobil (XOM)406.15.17%~8–10 (late ’08, oil earnings high / price low; precise dated point hard to source cleanly on public pages)
2Walmart (WMT)219.942.80%15.28 (11/14/2008) FinanceCharts
3Procter & Gamble (PG)181.192.31%~14–16 (late ’08; precise daily read not readily published; PG’s cap on 12/31/2008 confirms the timing.) FinanceCharts
4Microsoft (MSFT)172.942.20%9.74 (12/01/2008) FinanceCharts
5Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)166.032.11%13.20 (11/21/2008) FinanceCharts
6Chevron (CVX)148.231.89%6.24 (12/01/2008) FinanceCharts
7AT&T (T)127.161.62%2.90 (year-end 2008) Companies Market Cap
8JPMorgan Chase (JPM)117.671.50%14.3 (year-end 2008) Companies Market Cap
9Pfizer (PFE)113.171.44%16.56 (06/30/2008; closest reliable 2008 datapoint) FinanceCharts
10IBM (IBM)107.641.37%n/a (year-end daily P/E not cleanly published; IBM’s year-end P/E series on freely available sites starts 2009) Companies Market Cap
 
The other area that will be affected by AI will be enterprise SaaS businesses. You are going to see a lot more disruption with vibe coding, agents, etc. New challengers can appear overnight and some companies might choose to build vs. buy in the future because it will be easy to create your own custom version of software that you want.
 
And currently

Here are the top-10 SPY holdings today (Oct 9, 2025) with their latest fund weights and each company’s trailing P/E (TTM) from free sources:
RankCompanyTickerSPY weightP/E (TTM) & source
1NVIDIANVDA8.01%53.4× (CompaniesMarketCap). SSGA+1
2MicrosoftMSFT6.77%38.3× (CompaniesMarketCap). SSGA+1
3AppleAAPL6.65%39.1× (CompaniesMarketCap). SSGA+1
4AmazonAMZN3.79%33.7× (CompaniesMarketCap). SSGA+1
5BroadcomAVGO2.82%85.9× (CompaniesMarketCap). SSGA+1
6Meta PlatformsMETA2.70%25.4× (CompaniesMarketCap). SSGA+1
7Alphabet (Class A)GOOGL2.47%26.17× (Macrotrends). SSGA+1
8TeslaTSLA2.14%232× (CompaniesMarketCap). SSGA+1
9Alphabet (Class C)GOOG1.99%25.9× (CompaniesMarketCap). SSGA+1
10Berkshire Hathaway (B)BRK.B1.59%17.1× (StockAnalysis). SSGA+1
 
So heading into 2008 the top ten companies represented 20% of of SPY, now it's 35%. The PEs of the top ten in 2008 were much lower. It's looks like the froth then was int he smaller companies and now the froth is in the top 10. If you move Telsa to a 23 PE, the entire SPY PE drops 26.7. Seems to me that the biggest issue right now is Tesla.
 
2008 is not a good example to cite either. There were many of us on this very message board calling that crash out plain as day before it happened and why. The sagacious @RedmondLonghorn had an exceptional thread titled "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" or something. That crash was a result of bad mortgages, bad banking governance and a government that turned a blind eye to it all before it was too late.

Some of us (me) had their best financial years in 2007-2008. The catalysts were all there for those that looked. Books were written, movies were made, it was cataclysmic in nature and the aftermath resulted in MAJOR changes to the way we do things in banking, finance, mortgages, etc.

This is not that. Period.

You think we're in a bubble, fine. But using the dot com bubble or 2008 or the Great Depression as examples of why we're about to go into a tailspin is poor due diligence and lacks a historical understanding of then vs now.
I agree that 1929 and 2008 were unique situations and that it is very unlikely that we'll see drops like those again. The historical setups were far different than now. However, it should also be noted that there are circumstances this time around that were not present in those cases, things that could cause bad cascading effects that could make the next downturn unique as well. I'm thinking about algorithms and quant trading, geopolitical issues (even civil unrest issues), incredibly wide gaps in income inequity, and with an unusually frothy market. The SPY would need to lose almost one third of its value for its PE to be in line with historic averages. I'm not a doomsayer but at the same time, I don't think this is a great time to be pollyanna about the state of things. This is not that, agreed. We won't know exactly what *this* is until after the fact.

Known values:​


  • Overall SPY P/E: 31.23
  • Group weight (Mag 7 + Tesla): 37.31 % (= 0.3731)
  • Group composite P/E: 55.99
  • Rest of SPY weight: 62.69 % (= 0.6269)
  • Rest of SPY P/E: x



Equation:​

31.23=(0.3731×55.99)+(0.6269×x)31.23 = (0.3731 \times 55.99) + (0.6269 \times x)31.23=(0.3731×55.99)+(0.6269×x)

Step 1: Multiply the first term​


0.3731 × 55.99 = 20.89

31.23=20.89+0.6269x31.23 = 20.89 + 0.6269x31.23=20.89+0.6269x

Step 2: Subtract 20.89​


31.23 − 20.89 = 10.34 = 0.6269x


Step 3: Solve for x​


10.34 ÷ 0.6269 = 16.50

If ChatGPT treated me right, if you back out Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Broadcom, Navida, and Tesla, the current SPY PE is 16.5. I originally ran those numbers excluding Tesla because I feel like the valuations are warranted on the others based on their growth prospects. The weighted remaining Spy PE was 25.9. Looks like the main variable in the current high valuations is mostly based on Tesla's absurd valuation.

Note: The Mag 7 reference above includes both googles and not tesla.
Tesla and Palantir are outliers that mess up the numbers. Together their market cap is $2T and they have a combined P/E of 350ish. That’s why your “rest” of the S&P goes from 16.5 to 26. That’s an almost 60% jump just taking out Tesla. I’d bet if you took out the $500B Palantir, the rest would jump to over 30.

That’s why the overall market is still a bit rich and why the others in the Mag 7 aren’t really that bad because they are actually growing. Take Amazon for instance. Their earnings growth for the past year is 57% and their P/E is 34. Their revenue growth is 13%. The S&P revenue growth last year is in the 5-6% range and earnings growth is 13%.

The non-Tesla/Palantir huge guys are actually “cheaper” if you go by their numbers because even with dominating the S&P returns, they are doing very well. The rest of the index minus those outliers isn’t crazy expensive, but is a bit because their growth doesn’t support the current ratios. Heck, I didn’t even do your math to remove the fact that their growth doesn’t huge guys minus outliers are driving the revenue and earnings growth.

We talked about this before in here a while back looking at the Walmart’s and Costco’s and IBM’s when they had P/Es higher than Mag 7 (minus you know who) but much lower growth rates. I definitely think the market overall is frothy but their are companies that have the growth to support the numbers.
 
The other area that will be affected by AI will be enterprise SaaS businesses. You are going to see a lot more disruption with vibe coding, agents, etc. New challengers can appear overnight and some companies might choose to build vs. buy in the future because it will be easy to create your own custom version of software that you want.
I’m not sure I agree. I’ve worked with internal IT teams and to expect them to create an ERP with AI today is a bit of a stretch. There are so many scenarios and so much testing that won’t ever happen. What happens when POs and invoices just disappear or payments are missed. If AI hallucinations still happen a lot, I don’t see any way near term that it will be that easy to make business critical software that in some cases have been refined for years and years without having so many issues that it takes/costs more to address than buying software.

I think agents and add ons could work well but I work in the SaaS world and I think you are giving too much credit to what businesses can do with current resources.

Maybe down the road but maybe at that point companies can use the AI enhanced enterprise software that removes the need for the same people you think will build their own products. I would bet the enterprise software is a lot cheaper than the amount of resources needed to support an homegrown ERP and all the testing, maintenance and new features needed.
 
2008 is not a good example to cite either. There were many of us on this very message board calling that crash out plain as day before it happened and why. The sagacious @RedmondLonghorn had an exceptional thread titled "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" or something. That crash was a result of bad mortgages, bad banking governance and a government that turned a blind eye to it all before it was too late.

Some of us (me) had their best financial years in 2007-2008. The catalysts were all there for those that looked. Books were written, movies were made, it was cataclysmic in nature and the aftermath resulted in MAJOR changes to the way we do things in banking, finance, mortgages, etc.

This is not that. Period.

You think we're in a bubble, fine. But using the dot com bubble or 2008 or the Great Depression as examples of why we're about to go into a tailspin is poor due diligence and lacks a historical understanding of then vs now.
I agree that 1929 and 2008 were unique situations and that it is very unlikely that we'll see drops like those again. The historical setups were far different than now. However, it should also be noted that there are circumstances this time around that were not present in those cases, things that could cause bad cascading effects that could make the next downturn unique as well. I'm thinking about algorithms and quant trading, geopolitical issues (even civil unrest issues), incredibly wide gaps in income inequity, and with an unusually frothy market. The SPY would need to lose almost one third of its value for its PE to be in line with historic averages. I'm not a doomsayer but at the same time, I don't think this is a great time to be pollyanna about the state of things. This is not that, agreed. We won't know exactly what *this* is until after the fact.

All fair. And I do agree about current valuations. We exited rational long ago. Also, we got a taste earlier this year about how quickly and harshly stocks can go down with little regard for which sectors are hit hardest. A good reminder that things can turn on a dime.

But we have geopolitical issues and civil unrest. We have for years now if we want to use Ukraine and Israel as examples or the trade/tarrif wars or political turmoil and uncertainty. And yet.....the stock markets have not only shrugged; they've acted as if immune and unconcerned. It's strange for sure but I'm benefiting from it and so are many others.

I also think we are witnessing a massive resurgence in resource related names as attention is focused on securing critical minerals and powering AI, just two examples. Precious metals are at all time highs, focus is on nuclear again, unmanned warfare stocks are gaining traction and capital.....it's not just the Big 7 or whatever FANG dragging the market higher. Those of us that deployed capital into small cap resource names are probably doing well today in a red tape. Opportunities abound for those seeing them out. I don't see the climate changing to reverse this push. We aren't going to just declare world peace and stop building up our military might. We aren't going to stop building data centers, power stations, or decoupling ourselves from China. Chips are all in.

It is good to be cautious but as I said yesterday, a correction could come and many of us in here could raise our umbrellas, seek safety and sit on very handsome profits before getting soaked. The ability to trade stocks has never been easier, faster nor cheaper in the history of investing. Getting out is a click away from your phone.
 
2008 is not a good example to cite either. There were many of us on this very message board calling that crash out plain as day before it happened and why. The sagacious @RedmondLonghorn had an exceptional thread titled "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" or something. That crash was a result of bad mortgages, bad banking governance and a government that turned a blind eye to it all before it was too late.

Some of us (me) had their best financial years in 2007-2008. The catalysts were all there for those that looked. Books were written, movies were made, it was cataclysmic in nature and the aftermath resulted in MAJOR changes to the way we do things in banking, finance, mortgages, etc.

This is not that. Period.

You think we're in a bubble, fine. But using the dot com bubble or 2008 or the Great Depression as examples of why we're about to go into a tailspin is poor due diligence and lacks a historical understanding of then vs now.
I agree that 1929 and 2008 were unique situations and that it is very unlikely that we'll see drops like those again. The historical setups were far different than now. However, it should also be noted that there are circumstances this time around that were not present in those cases, things that could cause bad cascading effects that could make the next downturn unique as well. I'm thinking about algorithms and quant trading, geopolitical issues (even civil unrest issues), incredibly wide gaps in income inequity, and with an unusually frothy market. The SPY would need to lose almost one third of its value for its PE to be in line with historic averages. I'm not a doomsayer but at the same time, I don't think this is a great time to be pollyanna about the state of things. This is not that, agreed. We won't know exactly what *this* is until after the fact.

Known values:​


  • Overall SPY P/E: 31.23
  • Group weight (Mag 7 + Tesla): 37.31 % (= 0.3731)
  • Group composite P/E: 55.99
  • Rest of SPY weight: 62.69 % (= 0.6269)
  • Rest of SPY P/E: x



Equation:​

31.23=(0.3731×55.99)+(0.6269×x)31.23 = (0.3731 \times 55.99) + (0.6269 \times x)31.23=(0.3731×55.99)+(0.6269×x)

Step 1: Multiply the first term​


0.3731 × 55.99 = 20.89

31.23=20.89+0.6269x31.23 = 20.89 + 0.6269x31.23=20.89+0.6269x

Step 2: Subtract 20.89​


31.23 − 20.89 = 10.34 = 0.6269x


Step 3: Solve for x​


10.34 ÷ 0.6269 = 16.50

If ChatGPT treated me right, if you back out Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Broadcom, Navida, and Tesla, the current SPY PE is 16.5. I originally ran those numbers excluding Tesla because I feel like the valuations are warranted on the others based on their growth prospects. The weighted remaining Spy PE was 25.9. Looks like the main variable in the current high valuations is mostly based on Tesla's absurd valuation.

Note: The Mag 7 reference above includes both googles and not tesla.
Tesla and Palantir are outliers that mess up the numbers. Together their market cap is $2T and they have a combined P/E of 350ish. That’s why your “rest” of the S&P goes from 16.5 to 26. That’s an almost 60% jump just taking out Tesla. I’d bet if you took out the $500B Palantir, the rest would jump to over 30.

That’s why the overall market is still a bit rich and why the others in the Mag 7 aren’t really that bad because they are actually growing. Take Amazon for instance. Their earnings growth for the past year is 57% and their P/E is 34. Their revenue growth is 13%. The S&P revenue growth last year is in the 5-6% range and earnings growth is 13%.

The non-Tesla/Palantir huge guys are actually “cheaper” if you go by their numbers because even with dominating the S&P returns, they are doing very well. The rest of the index minus those outliers isn’t crazy expensive, but is a bit because their growth doesn’t support the current ratios. Heck, I didn’t even do your math to remove the fact that their growth doesn’t huge guys minus outliers are driving the revenue and earnings growth.

We talked about this before in here a while back looking at the Walmart’s and Costco’s and IBM’s when they had P/Es higher than Mag 7 (minus you know who) but much lower growth rates. I definitely think the market overall is frothy but their are companies that have the growth to support the numbers.
Here you go....remove Palantir and Tesla and the market is at 22.84 trailing PE. Pretty average.

Inputs​



Calculation (rest of SPY, excluding PLTR)​

PEex-PLTR=31.23−0.0071×5741−0.0071≈27.35×\text{PE}_{\text{ex-PLTR}}= \frac{31.23 - 0.0071 \times 574}{1 - 0.0071}\approx \mathbf{27.35\times}PEex-PLTR=1−0.007131.23−0.0071×574≈27.35×
So, SPY excluding Palantir trades at an average ~27.35× (TTM).


Sensitivity: If you use Macrotrends’ higher PLTR P/E (~828×), the ex-PLTR P/E would be ~25.53× instead. Macrotrends



(Optional) Apply your prior “Tesla at 23×” what-if too​


If we also keep your last assumption (TSLA P/E forced to 23×) and drop PLTR, the composite P/E (renormalized) comes out to ~22.84× using SPY weights (TSLA ≈ 2.14%). Slickcharts
 
I feel like most of the criticisms I read are coming from the people who used to say, "EVs will never work. They can only travel 180 miles at a time."

If people have a different opinion than yours then you make believe that they have made wrong opinions in the past?

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

And no, I have thought opposite on electric cars for what it is worth, I am surprised they have not taken off more, but that probably is because battery prices have not dropped as much as car companies were predicting 5 years ago.

I reserved a 40k lightning on first day it was available and that turned out to be vaporware.
 
Last edited:
2008 is not a good example to cite either. There were many of us on this very message board calling that crash out plain as day before it happened and why. The sagacious @RedmondLonghorn had an exceptional thread titled "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" or something. That crash was a result of bad mortgages, bad banking governance and a government that turned a blind eye to it all before it was too late.

Some of us (me) had their best financial years in 2007-2008. The catalysts were all there for those that looked. Books were written, movies were made, it was cataclysmic in nature and the aftermath resulted in MAJOR changes to the way we do things in banking, finance, mortgages, etc.

This is not that. Period.

You think we're in a bubble, fine. But using the dot com bubble or 2008 or the Great Depression as examples of why we're about to go into a tailspin is poor due diligence and lacks a historical understanding of then vs now.
Don’t be so sure man. I’m not calling a top yet but check these out:

1. Palantir has a 600+ P/E ratio and they are profitable and have been for a while. This isn’t a small company. They are worth almost half a trillion dollars.
2. Tesla is not a dot com pumping all profits into growth. They are a 1.5 trillion dollar company whose current revenue is lower than their 2024 and 2024 revenue numbers. Negative revenue growth excepted for this quarter because EV tax credits are gone. P/S of almost 20 and P/E ratio of 260+.
3. Drones, quantum, raw materials, AI and energy stocks on tears with a ton of no revenue companies.
4. There are tons of “expensive” stocks.
5. We’ve got hundreds of billions or dollar deals that are a wee bit questionable and these deals have propped up a lot of big market cap companies. Open AI is not far from a trillion dollars valuation and if you followed the dot com craze, the first mover is not always the winner. Google wasn’t even a thing when tons of search engines were public.

Never say never. As bagel said, if there’s a big drop, there’s going to be a bit more blood than a nice controlled drop.

Also, can someone actually tell me what this project Stargate will actually be? It seems like future revenues of several companies are propped up by that $500B thing that once built will likely be out of date.
Yeah, OpenAI is at the heart of it. Would have one of the most absurd P/S ever if it were public.

A lot of circular funding promises about the same purposed data centers. Already expensive stocks going up 30% from a vendor financing deal with a company is a bad sign. I think we're past the point of this being funded out of free cash flow and even some of the Mag7 are turning to debt financing for their AI promises.

With Stargate, seems like it is expecting to power 1GW in less than two years but half of that capacity is still in design/hasn't been permitted? And what happens if OpenAI cannot convert to public at the end of the year and get their Softbank round? Could be an SVB type of regional out there with exposure.
 
Last edited:
So heading into 2008 the top ten companies represented 20% of of SPY, now it's 35%. The PEs of the top ten in 2008 were much lower. It's looks like the froth then was int he smaller companies and now the froth is in the top 10. If you move Telsa to a 23 PE, the entire SPY PE drops 26.7. Seems to me that the biggest issue right now is Tesla.

Following this thread, few of the companies mentioned in the last 20 pages are SP500 companies.

If there is a bubble and it bursts, sure TGT isn't going to drop 80%. But there is plenty of stuff that people have made great trades off of in here that absolutely could be what Zoom, Docusign, Alibaba, Inmode, GLBE, etc were to us back in 2022 when a lot of us were trading those kind of names with similar success.

I remember very clearly because I made almost the EXACT same post back then as GM did yesterday about the 15% thing. I was sitting on tons of unrealized gains and wanted to rotate into safer stuff but I was annoyed by the huge tax hit that would create. So I made a very similar post about how I'd rather just hold, because even if the market took a 20% hit that would just be the same amount I was paying in taxes by rotating into safer plays like SPY anyway.

Of course, the market DID take a 20% hit, but boy did those stocks I was up hugely on take a way bigger hit than 20%. Many of them in the 60-90% range.
 
Breaking news....if you're broke you can sell the capital assets you don't have and not pay taxes....

Starting in 2026, single filers will qualify for the 0% long-term capital gains rate with taxable income of $49,450 or less and married couples filing jointly are eligible with $98,900 or less.

For reference, the starting pay for the Chic-fil-a cow around here is $24 an hour or $49.920
 
I feel like most of the criticisms I read are coming from the people who used to say, "EVs will never work. They can only travel 180 miles at a time."

If people have a different opinion than yours then you make believe that they have made wrong opinions in the past?

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

And no, I have thought opposite on electric cars for what it is worth, I am surprised they have not taken off more, but that probably is because battery prices have not dropped as much as car companies were predicting 5 years ago.

I reserved a 40k lightning on first day it was available and that turned out to be vaporware.
Who said they have different opinions than mine? I literally posted in the very next post, "History says it's likely." My opinion is that this market is frothy, that the most influential and cash-rich companies are pouring a #### ton of cash into this thing, and that AI (if for no other reason than that last one) is going to get every chance to prove its worth. I see value in it, in that I know it is already being used in my industry for things that are providing positive ROI. That's about the extent of it. Does that mean it will put all of us out of jobs and become completely game-changing tech that alters the course of history? No. Does that mean we won't see a bubble burst in the market regardless of its success? No.

I'm trying to understand the potential implications IF it doesn't pan out. And maybe even market implications if it does (see Internet, The). I've also yet to find very much that I find convincing in regard to AI's likely failure, other than pointing out flaws that can seemingly be attributable to a youthful product. Much like the ones EV critics trotted out in the early years. And often still do. "ICE cars can still do _____ better!!!!" Well, they do have like 130 year headstart. Should we compare the Model T to them?

Thus the comparison. You're welcome to dislike it.
 
Okay, so let's pretend the AI bubble pops and stocks related to AI take a beating, a lot of us are up massively on these names. Like, we could see a 15% correction and still be well into positive territory. I'm not married to these stocks. If we free fall, we sell, go to cash and look for other opportunities. It's not like owning a home during the great recession where you might feel stuck.

Just trying to understand the continuation of calling for a falling of the AI sky when it's done nothing but make you look like Chicken Little along the way.

Or are you suggesting that an AI bubble popping will somehow ruin our economy? Help me understand your long-standing concern here.

Amazing how fast people forget 2022.

If the market drops 15% based on an AI bubble the AI stocks will drop way more than 15%.

Remember 2022 a lot of the mid cap stuff that people liked in here like SE and SHOP dropped 80-90%. Even large caps like Meta and Netflix dropped 70-80%.

I don't think that is in any way likely here but it's possible, and the exuberance and feelings of invincibility in here are just as high as they were then.

Hoping for the best but I am okay de-risking. So of course things will probably go nutso to the positive.
This is kind of where my mind is, too, but IF the Fed can continue to successfully lower interest rates, money is going to keep flowing into the market. That's a big divergence from 2022. De-risking as rates are decreasing is questionable at best.
 
2008 is not a good example to cite either. There were many of us on this very message board calling that crash out plain as day before it happened and why. The sagacious @RedmondLonghorn had an exceptional thread titled "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" or something. That crash was a result of bad mortgages, bad banking governance and a government that turned a blind eye to it all before it was too late.

Some of us (me) had their best financial years in 2007-2008. The catalysts were all there for those that looked. Books were written, movies were made, it was cataclysmic in nature and the aftermath resulted in MAJOR changes to the way we do things in banking, finance, mortgages, etc.

This is not that. Period.

You think we're in a bubble, fine. But using the dot com bubble or 2008 or the Great Depression as examples of why we're about to go into a tailspin is poor due diligence and lacks a historical understanding of then vs now.
Don’t be so sure man. I’m not calling a top yet but check these out:

1. Palantir has a 600+ P/E ratio and they are profitable and have been for a while. This isn’t a small company. They are worth almost half a trillion dollars.
2. Tesla is not a dot com pumping all profits into growth. They are a 1.5 trillion dollar company whose current revenue is lower than their 2024 and 2024 revenue numbers. Negative revenue growth excepted for this quarter because EV tax credits are gone. P/S of almost 20 and P/E ratio of 260+.
3. Drones, quantum, raw materials, AI and energy stocks on tears with a ton of no revenue companies.
4. There are tons of “expensive” stocks.
5. We’ve got hundreds of billions or dollar deals that are a wee bit questionable and these deals have propped up a lot of big market cap companies.
Open AI is not far from a trillion dollars valuation and if you followed the dot com craze, the first mover is not always the winner. Google wasn’t even a thing when tons of search engines were public.

Never say never. As bagel said, if there’s a big drop, there’s going to be a bit more blood than a nice controlled drop.

Also, can someone actually tell me what this project Stargate will actually be? It seems like future revenues of several companies are propped up by that $500B thing that once built will likely be out of date.
More of this. Thanks.
 
2008 is not a good example to cite either. There were many of us on this very message board calling that crash out plain as day before it happened and why. The sagacious @RedmondLonghorn had an exceptional thread titled "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" or something. That crash was a result of bad mortgages, bad banking governance and a government that turned a blind eye to it all before it was too late.

Some of us (me) had their best financial years in 2007-2008. The catalysts were all there for those that looked. Books were written, movies were made, it was cataclysmic in nature and the aftermath resulted in MAJOR changes to the way we do things in banking, finance, mortgages, etc.

This is not that. Period.

You think we're in a bubble, fine. But using the dot com bubble or 2008 or the Great Depression as examples of why we're about to go into a tailspin is poor due diligence and lacks a historical understanding of then vs now.
I agree that 1929 and 2008 were unique situations and that it is very unlikely that we'll see drops like those again. The historical setups were far different than now. However, it should also be noted that there are circumstances this time around that were not present in those cases, things that could cause bad cascading effects that could make the next downturn unique as well. I'm thinking about algorithms and quant trading, geopolitical issues (even civil unrest issues), incredibly wide gaps in income inequity, and with an unusually frothy market. The SPY would need to lose almost one third of its value for its PE to be in line with historic averages. I'm not a doomsayer but at the same time, I don't think this is a great time to be pollyanna about the state of things. This is not that, agreed. We won't know exactly what *this* is until after the fact.

Known values:​


  • Overall SPY P/E: 31.23
  • Group weight (Mag 7 + Tesla): 37.31 % (= 0.3731)
  • Group composite P/E: 55.99
  • Rest of SPY weight: 62.69 % (= 0.6269)
  • Rest of SPY P/E: x



Equation:​

31.23=(0.3731×55.99)+(0.6269×x)31.23 = (0.3731 \times 55.99) + (0.6269 \times x)31.23=(0.3731×55.99)+(0.6269×x)

Step 1: Multiply the first term​


0.3731 × 55.99 = 20.89

31.23=20.89+0.6269x31.23 = 20.89 + 0.6269x31.23=20.89+0.6269x

Step 2: Subtract 20.89​


31.23 − 20.89 = 10.34 = 0.6269x


Step 3: Solve for x​


10.34 ÷ 0.6269 = 16.50

If ChatGPT treated me right, if you back out Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Broadcom, Navida, and Tesla, the current SPY PE is 16.5. I originally ran those numbers excluding Tesla because I feel like the valuations are warranted on the others based on their growth prospects. The weighted remaining Spy PE was 25.9. Looks like the main variable in the current high valuations is mostly based on Tesla's absurd valuation.

Note: The Mag 7 reference above includes both googles and not tesla.
Tesla and Palantir are outliers that mess up the numbers. Together their market cap is $2T and they have a combined P/E of 350ish. That’s why your “rest” of the S&P goes from 16.5 to 26. That’s an almost 60% jump just taking out Tesla. I’d bet if you took out the $500B Palantir, the rest would jump to over 30.

That’s why the overall market is still a bit rich and why the others in the Mag 7 aren’t really that bad because they are actually growing. Take Amazon for instance. Their earnings growth for the past year is 57% and their P/E is 34. Their revenue growth is 13%. The S&P revenue growth last year is in the 5-6% range and earnings growth is 13%.

The non-Tesla/Palantir huge guys are actually “cheaper” if you go by their numbers because even with dominating the S&P returns, they are doing very well. The rest of the index minus those outliers isn’t crazy expensive, but is a bit because their growth doesn’t support the current ratios. Heck, I didn’t even do your math to remove the fact that their growth doesn’t huge guys minus outliers are driving the revenue and earnings growth.

We talked about this before in here a while back looking at the Walmart’s and Costco’s and IBM’s when they had P/Es higher than Mag 7 (minus you know who) but much lower growth rates. I definitely think the market overall is frothy but their are companies that have the growth to support the numbers.
So there are still values to be had, but along the lines of what you posted earlier, most of them are still going to get hammered if we tank.
 
I feel like most of the criticisms I read are coming from the people who used to say, "EVs will never work. They can only travel 180 miles at a time."

If people have a different opinion than yours then you make believe that they have made wrong opinions in the past?

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

And no, I have thought opposite on electric cars for what it is worth, I am surprised they have not taken off more, but that probably is because battery prices have not dropped as much as car companies were predicting 5 years ago.

I reserved a 40k lightning on first day it was available and that turned out to be vaporware.
Who said they have different opinions than mine? I literally posted in the very next post, "History says it's likely." My opinion is that this market is frothy, that the most influential and cash-rich companies are pouring a #### ton of cash into this thing, and that AI (if for no other reason than that last one) is going to get every chance to prove its worth. I see value in it, in that I know it is already being used in my industry for things that are providing positive ROI. That's about the extent of it. Does that mean it will put all of us out of jobs and become completely game-changing tech that alters the course of history? No. Does that mean we won't see a bubble burst in the market regardless of its success? No.

I'm trying to understand the potential implications IF it doesn't pan out. And maybe even market implications if it does (see Internet, The). I've also yet to find very much that I find convincing in regard to AI's likely failure, other than pointing out flaws that can seemingly be attributable to a youthful product. Much like the ones EV critics trotted out in the early years. And often still do. "ICE cars can still do _____ better!!!!" Well, they do have like 130 year headstart. Should we compare the Model T to them?

Thus the comparison. You're welcome to dislike it.
Along these lines, one of the biggest issues I'm aware of is that it has at times had a difficult time distinguishing correlation from causation. I wonder how permanently correctible that is. If it's a natural state to which it returns over time, that's problematic. Is that a prompt issue? A lack of guardrails? Immaturity? :shurg:
 
I know most people just gloss over my posts and inane ramblings, rightfully so. But I figured I drop in some thoughts as it seems there is a bit of a dichotomy here between AI bubble and market valuations.

First, I do not believe were in an AI bubble similar to the dot.com buble. Yet. These companies make money, there is a lot of money behind it driving it forward as well. Yes, some stocks are super frothy for sure, but as Jensen Huang recently stated, we are a few hundred billion dollars into a a multi trillion dollar industry. And while I think he may have been underselling how much we are into it, his statement did make sense. There are going to be winners and losers in AI as well, but I don't think we'll have the massive dot.com bubble burst where many companies went to zero. Will OpenAI become Intel and go from $500B valuation to $50B, or will it be like NVDA and go from $500B to $5T? I'm not that smart for sure, but I think there is going to be massive spend and revenue in AI, so I'll do my best to ride that wave, cautiously however because I'm very very near retirement, but am greedy and don't want to miss this gravy train.
Further, if you own stocks like PLTR and CRWV, SMCI, etc... and haven't taken some off the table already, shame on you. I often regale my kids with stories of how "smart" I was for selling half my stake of MSFT at $60 after tripling my money, or how I've made a LOT of money in NVDA (and still own quite a bit at a very low cost basis), but if I had held everything, well, I'd be a lot richer man. But, I still sleep very well at night, so I'm not complaining.
Will the AI bubble bust? I don't think so as people have learned from the past, but valuations will certainly go down sooner rather than later, so try to stay a bit ahead of the curve, use trailing loss stops, etc...

In regard to the market being overvalued, it most certainly is on any metric you want to look at. Shiller ratio (which I monitor, but down live and die by) is approaching all time high levels, last seen in the late 90's. Forward S&P pe ratio is super high as well, I prefer it when it's the 18-20 level, all things being equal as opposed to 24-25 level. This brings me a lot more pause than thinking about if/when AI is going to burst as I am 75% indexed. Am I selling, no. But am I deploying new, non-retirement monies into these indexes, no.
In the short term, there are a lot of factors that will continue to drive the market forward. 4th quarters are usually good ones. Fed is going to cut rates, maybe not at a super rapid pace, but certainly going to see a number of cuts over the next 12-18 months. There is an all time high amount of money in cash or similar right now, ~$7.5 trillion that will need to find some yield if rates go down. And if rates go down, you can see some tapping into the $35-$40T home equity monies as well. I could get into more detail about these, but these to me are the major drivers. Someone who manages massive pension funds or endowments aren't going to lose their job if they may 4-5% returns and inflation is ~3%. But, if/when the "risk-free" rate starts going down, that is going to put ample pressure of fund managers to look for yield (this is my major thesis for having a lot of dividend stocks/funds for the next few years as I retire, not working out great, sure, but I've previously mentioned I'm not super smart). Anyway, I think the next 4-5 months are going to be decent.
And if that is the case, we are coming off three years of 20ish% returns. This is not normal. I'd anticipate much more flat or negative returns coming up and then we have the next election cycle and all kinds of uncertainty.

And I know that we're not supposed to mention the p word in here, but we are coming up on 2 weeks of government shut down and no mention of this anywhere? Millions of families will be coming up shortly without having received a pay check. I feel very sorry for those families, and really hope we can get this sorted sooner rather than later for their sakes. But if this drags on, that is not great for the economy.

My conclusion is the economy is still strong, the U.S. leads this way in technology and AI and innovation, but there are a lot of underlying issues that are going to rear their heads in early-mid 2026. Can easily see a 20% correction, and eventually we are going to get one that isn't a V or U type recovery where we hold our noses for 3-4 months and then wala, everything is all days of wine and roses.
 
Why I think I might be wrong on an ai bubble causing a crash is because of how much cash the large tech companies are sitting on.

They might be able to prop themselves up with stock buybacks, at least enough from letting it effect other industries. This is why I have not sold even though I believe in the ai bubble.
 
First, I do not believe were in an AI bubble similar to the dot.com buble. Yet. These companies make money

Well, kind of. The companies selling AI to other companies to sell to consumers are making money. But the companies buying that AI to re-sell to consumers aren't making squat off of that deal.

That is to say, for instance OpenAI, they don't make anything noteworthy by selling subscriptions to end users for ChatGPT premium. All of their money is made in licensing and these other deals with other companies who intend to take that licensing and use it to earn money from consumers or save costs with employees. But so far the return on that investment is nil for those companies. And not just nil, but massive, huge losses.

Of course, they keep paying because the thought is eventually it is going to make us money. But the recurring question is how long will they keep toeing that line before they give up on the idea or decide maybe we're 10 years too early on AI powerful enough to actually deliver on those promises?

Same thing for NVDA. Yeah they're making tons of money. So long as everyone in the world is willing to keep buying their chips and get zero return on those purchases. If those returns don't start coming in, when do we hit the breaking point where they stop trying to make it work? If the economy tightens or rates go the wrong direction and those companies need to start worrying more about the expense side of things, that could change things fast.

Fed is going to cut rates, maybe not at a super rapid pace, but certainly going to see a number of cuts over the next 12-18 months.

This is another big risk IMO. People have priced in tons of rate cuts as a near certainty and I'm just not seeing it. The last cut seemed like a bit of a token cut and I just don't see the conviction in the Fed on rate cuts that people are projecting onto them. The fed is unpredictable on its best day, much less in the variable state things are in right now. All it takes is one bad CPI report and that narrative could flip in an instant, as it has many times before.

I'm in the real estate space, and it wasn't but 18 months or so ago (March 2024-ish) that the common belief in the industry was that you had to buy ASAP because rate cuts were a given and that was going to create a multiple-offer buying frenzy with massively rising home prices like 2021 all over again. Home prices in many of those markets people were focused on at that time are down 20-30% since then.

And here we are again, the fed cuts a meager 25bps and mortage rates are down 150-200bps on the back of it. Insane to me that they have that much confidence in those cuts continuing that drastically and I think that is another under considered part of all of this. The rate cuts are already largely priced in even though I have little conviction they will be actually followed through on to the extent the market is expecting.
 
So the Mag 7 + TSLA are driving up P/E because they have so much market cap compared to the other 492 companies. I wonder if you go back to 2008 and dot-com era and took out the top 10 market cap players from SP500 what the other 490 P/E was.

I vividly recall financial newsletter writers SCREAMING about the market cap of Priceline, typing furiously about how it cannot possibly be worth as much as the airlines. Afterall, airlines have assets and mature revenue streams and if you want to go somewhere fast, flying is the only option. This was 1999/2000 and many of the newsletters we subscribed to had a bearish bent but backed by technicals and these guys just couldn't believe - didn't WANT to believe - that a silly dot com name had a bigger valuation than Delta or United or whatever. IMPOSSIBLE!!!!1111

Yeah, Priceline (well, Booking) is a $5,192 stock today. Its market cap might be bigger than all the other airlines combined today.

Sometimes, things just don't make sense early on. Sometimes, things that don't make sense go belly up. Other times, things that don't make sense early on become ultimate business behemoths and disrupt the way we do things permanently (anybody use a travel agent any more?).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top