I always find "intrinsic value" is a very strange way to interpret stock price. All stock prices are trying to predict the future not the present. With large, o

I always find "intrinsic value" is a very strange way to interpret stock price. All stock prices are trying to predict the future not the present. With large, older, stable companies it gets easier and easier to predict the future "This company is growing by 10% per year so in one year it should be worth 10% more all things being equal and its peers as a group are trading at some multiple (usually profit) so if I think it's at that multiple (or better yet less) and I think 10% is a good return for my money over 1 year then I'll buy some." With new, rapidly growing, highly speculative companies in big markets (auto, space, energy) it becomes very difficult to predict where they'll be in 1 - 5 years. Investors are still (typically) intelligent and will look at what other disruptive companies have done in the past, look at the management team and leadership etc and place a "bet" on the stock. Because these companies are sometimes growing 50% to 100% per year and someone is happy to hold a stock for 3 - 5 years they will pay a substantially high price for stock in terms of _today's_ revenues or profits. It doesn't mean they won't get it wrong - ie if a company falls to growing "just" 40% per year that makes a huge difference 3 years out. It doesn't mean that the stock price for the new stock is any more or less correct than for the older more stable company. it just means it's much more likely to fluctuate over the next 3 - 5 years as risk and upside is better priced in with more knowledge in place.