4 ms·

> The dogma that it's impossible to beat the market is frankly weird at this point. I agree. Meta was literally priced below $90 not even a year ago (I entere

> The dogma that it's impossible to beat the market is frankly weird at this point. I agree. Meta was literally priced below $90 not even a year ago (I entered at about $100 FWIW, which was my nice and round number). Now at $315. Anybody who believes the market is efficient is on some serious drugs. The market correctly valued Meta a $380 or so before the crash (because "TINA" I'm supposed to believe), then correctly valued it a few months later at $100, then now is again correctly valuing it at $315? Please. Just please. I'll go much further: none of these valuation are correct. The market is highly inefficient.

auxym 3y ago
The EMH is a model, and like all models: none are correct, but some are useful (to understand some phenomena).
crazygringo 3y ago
You've provided zero evidence for them being incorrect, though. There's nothing wrong with 3x changes. A lot can happen in a year to diminish or improve a company's outlook -- even a large company. And yes, by 3x -- or even much more. The onus of proof here is on you to explain why those don't reflect largely realistic estimations of NPV of future profits, and to explain why you think you have better information, experience and judgment than the market.
matwood 3y ago
Usually what's meant is that it's impossible to beat the market over time. I also saw Meta completely oversold and bought in. As someone who follows tech, it seemed obvious to me that Meta's impending death was greatly exaggerated. The problem is, can I do that over and over across the entire market? Nope.
blitzar 3y ago
The market correctly valued Meta a $380. Then Meta announced they were going all in on the Metaverse, had set fire to $100bn so far and were going to continue to throw ~$20bn a year into the Metaverse - the market correctly valued Meta a $100. Meta announded they were going all in on the Ai - the market correctly valued Meta at $315. You have picked a poor example; the moves in the stock, are primarily the fault of themselves. Those that saw the emergence of Ai and Zuckerberg as one of the leaders in the space got a nice 3x. If it didnt happen, Meta stock would probably be worth about as much as MySpace. fwiw I said they were going to zero when they rebranded to Meta. Turns out I was wrong.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  Meta had about a zero percent chance of dying like MySpace. Meta has tens of billions of dollars of annual profits (2x of Walmart, amazingly, $30 billion vs $15 billion) near total dominance of social networking, mobile advertising, etc. MySpace had none of those.
  - user_named 3y ago
    This isn't an answer to the poster above. The point is Meta talking about putting all their annual profit on fire. That makes the stock useless for investors.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
thelastgallon 3y ago
Price and valuation are very different. Aswath Damodaran explains this well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeChWXTg7Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeChWXTg7Og (skip to 19:29)
paulpauper 3y ago
same here. meta's core business was unhurt by metaverse losses

auxym 3y ago

The EMH is a model, and like all models: none are correct, but some are useful (to understand some phenomena).

crazygringo 3y ago

You've provided zero evidence for them being incorrect, though. There's nothing wrong with 3x changes. A lot can happen in a year to diminish or improve a company's outlook -- even a large company. And yes, by 3x -- or even much more. The onus of proof here is on you to explain why those don't reflect largely realistic estimations of NPV of future profits, and to explain why you think you have better information, experience and judgment than the market.

matwood 3y ago

Usually what's meant is that it's impossible to beat the market over time. I also saw Meta completely oversold and bought in. As someone who follows tech, it seemed obvious to me that Meta's impending death was greatly exaggerated. The problem is, can I do that over and over across the entire market? Nope.

blitzar 3y ago

The market correctly valued Meta a $380. Then Meta announced they were going all in on the Metaverse, had set fire to $100bn so far and were going to continue to throw ~$20bn a year into the Metaverse - the market correctly valued Meta a $100. Meta announded they were going all in on the Ai - the market correctly valued Meta at $315. You have picked a poor example; the moves in the stock, are primarily the fault of themselves. Those that saw the emergence of Ai and Zuckerberg as one of the leaders in the space got a nice 3x. If it didnt happen, Meta stock would probably be worth about as much as MySpace. fwiw I said they were going to zero when they rebranded to Meta. Turns out I was wrong.

paulpauper 3y ago
Meta had about a zero percent chance of dying like MySpace. Meta has tens of billions of dollars of annual profits (2x of Walmart, amazingly, $30 billion vs $15 billion) near total dominance of social networking, mobile advertising, etc. MySpace had none of those.
- user_named 3y ago
  This isn't an answer to the poster above. The point is Meta talking about putting all their annual profit on fire. That makes the stock useless for investors.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

thelastgallon 3y ago

Price and valuation are very different. Aswath Damodaran explains this well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeChWXTg7Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeChWXTg7Og (skip to 19:29)

paulpauper 3y ago

same here. meta's core business was unhurt by metaverse losses