저평가된 PER를 기다리는 게 과연 옳은 전략일까? 🤔

In my opinion, a high P/E ratio is quite acceptable when dealing with businesses characterized by highly stable and predictable growth (e.g., Costco, Waste Management, etc.), whereas it’s a mistake in all other cases.

yes. I've lost a lot trying this

1. The P/E does not mean the same for all stocks. I will say low pe FAANG is a good idea. elsewhere there's a story you should understand
2. it is a ratio. buying low pe is a view that the pe will rise so will the price. but the pe might rise because the earning shrink further
3. You need to look at the risks. Sometimes hidden somewhere there is a lawsuit threatening future earnings , an incoming regulation change, rising costs,etc...
4. In 2025 (maybe more) the performance leader had even greater performance.While the competitor still had nearly same market Situation. think Hood vs ibkr, Lly vs nvo.

A few things.

For one, a PE ratio is just one piece of data and you should be using more when analyzing stocks. Like I actually never look at PE, but rather look at PEG and P/FCF when screening. I look at more inputs, but those are like the two around price.

Also, different sectors has different PE ratio averages. What investors are looking to pay for like a software company is usually different than like an oil company. That's why in general it's not a great idea to compare companies in different industries. Like trying to compare Google to Costco doesn't make sense.

Low PE's can be value traps sometimes too. Meaning investors are willing to pay less since usually lower PE stocks tend to be paired with companies with slower growth.

>What’s making me rethink things now is whether constantly waiting for a “cheap” entry is basically missing the early stages of a move. If a company is in a rapid growth phase and continuously proving itself, the market usually doesn’t give you a comfortable low valuation entry point.

A stock can go down because it is not performing (micro). A stock can go down because there exists a wider trigger causing a broad market selloff (macro). You need to be careful not to confuse the two.

In the long run the micro always wins out over time. The macro is only temporary - I have held stocks such as AAPL MSFT NFLX NVDA through periods where they lost over 50% of value. The value was lost due to macro, not micro.

If you identify a growth company with a very bright future and reasonable valuation (I would say something such as PLTR is a bit overvalued), do not be afraid to jump in. Look at a macro downturn as an opportunity to buy more. The reality is a good growth stock is not a secret; can't exactly hide the data from 10Q/K. You will never get these type of shares cheap, short of some macro event.

Buy quality companies at fair value or if it is below its 5-10year average PE. Visa CP, MSFT are perfect examples.

Future cash flows are all that matters. A low PE today could be a high PE tomorrow if cash flows are going to drop, and vice versa. You could argue forward PE is a better metric, but if they are investing heavily in future growth (new cash-flows) then PE doesn't show that.

Screw buying overpriced stuff

Making decisions based on PE alone is always a mistake.

A high PE can be justified if the company is growing quickly.

A low PE can be unjustifiable if the company is slowing in growth.

Firstly, do you understand what a PE ratio is? A PE ratio is simply current share price divided by next year's earnings. That's only a snapshot of one year's yield and completely ignores all earnings that are over a year away.

If I am selling a security for $100, and I tell you I will give you $1 next year and $1000 two years from now, the PE of this security would be 100.

Using PE only, you'd be insane to buy a security with a PE of 100. Using basic logic, you'd be insane not to buy that security despite it's PE being 100

A high PE is justifiable if the company is growing quickly, and the elite companies the compound for decades typically have higher PEs compared to the average market due to their quality and quick earnings growth.

PE ratios are decent for comparing two companies in the same industry like comparing CSX to Norfolk Southern since these companies are very similar. They are not very useful for comparison across industries like comparing CSX to Microsoft since these businesses are not similar at all. Microsoft's profits simply grow much quicker than CSX, so they are deserving for a higher PE ratio

>But when I look back at companies that eventually grew into major businesses ...

So you're also looking at companies that didn't right?

P\E already got low. March 30th was a 19% drop in S&P P\E from the peak. It has rallied in one of the most explosive ways in history. That was it. That was the buying opportunity on lower valuations. It was building up since September/October as price stagnated or went down as companies reported higher and higher earnings.

If you weren’t an investor buying in at the valuation reset when it was occurring, then maybe need to step back and assess whether you have an edge. This is why this stuff is hard.

Forward earnings are rising. The squeeze is on. Everyone back in the boat.

Youre just saying you want to time the market. You can get lucky but over time you will lose. You cannot reliably time the market. So many bozos sitting around in cash or bonds for years waiting for the crash. They didn’t double their money off the tariff crash and they didn’t get in 2017 p/e lows on the Iran conflict. You just buy good stocks and wait for 10 years.