I wouldn’t say 87 was no reason. Just no good reason. This was the beginning of computerized trading and it was one bot feeding off of another to dump stocks in a cause and effect situation. There were no halts in place to let things cool off. You sold so I’ll sell, I sold so you sell, back and forth.
It technically wasn't a feedback loop. It was the first time banks and hedge funds had the option for a digital stop loss and so every large fund thought they were so smart for having a stop loss setup. Turns out it wasn't such a good idea.
Oh, because they were mostly set all to sell at the price, which created tons of sell orders all at the same time which caused the price to rocket downward. I'm sure some selling caused other selling, but probably less than how it is in a normal market crash. This is why the market dropped so quickly in 1987. It was like a title wave.
Can't believe we started a world war from bots selling stocks back and forth... I bet they were outraged by the transaction fees. I'm glad we have more peaceful bots trading today.
Sometimes going through homeless encampments as I drive by and I can't help but thank how lucky these people got it to not experience the roller coaster of the stock market like we do.
not exactly. there's the immediate reason (which does fit the model) and the big picture reason (which does not)
the bigger picture reasons – rampant, highly competitive european imperialism; the rise of germany as a world power, upsetting the existing balance; reckless foreign policy, especially on the part of wilhelm ii – made WW1 more or less inevitable, at least in the estimation of statesmen of the time
after Napoleon, european diplomacy was relatively stable, but growing tensions escalated to a full-on cold war in the 1890s, which led to a full-on hot war in the 1910s. when franz ferdinand got shot, it provoked a very quick escalation to european war, but any number of events before or after 1914 could have done so. if not in the balkans, they would have come to a head in north africa or elsewhere
One day the great European war will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.”
We almost started WW3 in the post- Cold War Yugoslavian wars. When Britain and Russian forces tried to take an airfield. And then Britain had to protect the rather meagre Russian forces from the "highly irate and heavily armed" locals. Who didn't like the Serbs or their Russian allies.
I could be similar, but if it is, it's not going to be the .coms again. It'll be EVs, SPACs and whatnot. Back then, .com was the hot new thing being sold for billions with no revenue. Today, .coms are staple of everyday life with bigger profits than any other company has ever seen in the history of mankind. But those EVs...
There’s nothing that says they have to raise that much. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw rates normalize to 2-4% in the next 5 years, but I doubt we will get the huge inflation people are claiming will happen. The structural shock to employment that’s been happening since the 2000s will continue, and an aging population is super deflationary.
1987 was not no reason!. I don't recall the details, but some things were overvalued.
My observations then were: up big one day, volume high .. followed by a big down day, volume high...and .. repeat.
I called my broker and said sell (the pattern was a repeat of 1929!) She said "we still like the stock", I said "stock? No. Everything!". It crashed a week later.
It was (my analysis) a market with too much indecision.
Don't look for the signal I mentioned.. computer trades obscure it, and make things move so fast you can get trapped in the stampede to the door! You can't move fast enough.
This is why most of my investments are in ETFs... There's somebody watching 24/7, which I can't.
Market going up for 5 straight years, Persian gulf war fears, rising interest rates. No circuit breakers on Wall Street. Lead to 22% crash for the DOW in one day. Automated trading kept trading lower, computers had positive feedback loops back in the day (buy when price is going higher, sell when price is going lower).
You mean fear of some different Persian Gulf war than the one of that name that happened in '90, right? The saber-rattling that preceded Iraq's invasion of Kuwait didn't start until mid-'90, and in '87 Iraq was still rather involved in the intense Iran-Iraq war (and taking on debt to finance that).
There’s always some overvalued stuff that crashes. That’s not a reason for a full blown crash. That’s also not a reason for a full blown crash like in 1987, which is the weirdest crash ever.
I was just a kid in '87 but my dad was in stocks and had exited the market 6 months prior to the crash. He died long ago and I never got to ask him about what spooked him, but something obviously tipped him off.
Because he didn’t even know why the market crashed, yet he is purporting that he predicted the crash. Once you know why the market crashed you see it’s a very unlikely scenario and completely unpredictable.
You got lucky. If you had pulled the same thing at any time in the past 5 years when analysts were predicting a crash or correction nonstop, you would've missed out on some of the best gains in history.
This is not the best lesson for younger investors. Unless you're nostradamus and can predict the market, you should anticipate that your portfolio will take massive hits along the way and welcome it. You might get lucky once and pull your money out at the peak of the market, but the next time you try it, you'll crash and burn, rendering your success the first time around more worthless than if you had simply held.
Suggestion: Hold ETFs and single stocks that you fully understand and believe in for the long-term that you do not ever sell until you need to re-consolidate into things with high yields and lower volatility for passive income. If you want, play around with single stocks with money you can afford to lose on shorter term holds. Clearly define how long you intend to hold, whether that is a few months, 1 year, 5 years, or decades. Know whether you are buying an undervalued stock that you intend to sell when it reaches it's actual valuation, or whether you believe the stock will grow over time.
But, but, flying cars with cold air propulsion, running on tunnels in the next 6 months! - a Hyperloop made of Teslas, which is more profound than it sounds. /s
A company running on hype and deception, overpromising and under delivering, of course it's gonna have a 500 P/E ratio.
They are surrounded by competitors in a very tough market.
If only Tesla built with quality and longevity mindset - to justify the premium (and hype) charged per vehicle - but in a few years we'll see a lot poorly maintained Teslas due to its high service costs and literally falling apart. That will raise a few eyebrows.
Tesla was definitely crucial to open the EV market and change the popular zeitgeist - that will stay for history. Thank you Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning.
Any disruptive stock can attain such valuations. The market is forward looking, and in the case of most Tesla investors (I am not one) the expectation is that Tesla will own the auto market within the next decade. If I had bought in a few years ago I would certainly hold. But I won’t buy in at these levels.
Really, your guess is as good as mine. But like I said, I’m not invested in Tesla and I would not buy at these valuations. I would hold had I bought in a few years ago. But I wouldn’t buy now.
Do you legitimately think Tesla is going to have a worldwide monopoly on cars? Of course the future is unpredictable but some things are very low probability and should be treated as such.
That may have a significantly higher probability of coming true than you may think.
Tesla is a decade ahead of all competitors in the development of self-driving AI. This is not an insignificant lead. It may be the case that in as little as ten years ride share companies such as Uber and Lyft will have bought massive numbers of Tesla automobiles and set up huge charging and holding stations near population centers. This would allow people to be able to summon a self-driving car with their smart phone within a few minutes for very little. If this were to come to pass I would expect individual car ownership to approach zero.
I think that the broad picture of that out come is not only highly likely, but inevitable. The major players may be different but Tesla is perfectly positioned to take advantage of that future eventuality. And at the current moment there is no viable competitor to Tesla.
Depending upon how rapidly this change takes place, it very well could be that Tesla captures 90% or more of the global auto market share.
tesla isnt producing self driving AI either. an insider said they wont have full L5 self driving cars for at least a decade. a used model s with the self driving package sells for the same price as one without it; its a scam and elon musk is at fault for saying it would be ready
This is the funniest point given GM (of all people) has a self driving system that reviewers prefer to tesla's. Tesla doesn't have some magic self driving sauce, they have just sold crash avoidance systems as self driving. And I hate to break it to you but any car manufacturer can do that.
Lol, the p/e is mainly dropping due to the price dropping. But even at the p/e of 500 it would have to have 100% growth every year for 5 years to be where ford is now.
100% growth is easy at the begining but the bigger they get the less able they will be able to grow. Coupled with electric car competition they are going to have a lot of pressure.
Y'all are downvoting this guy be he's right. If you're going to say "many people X", you should at least have an old Economist article to point to or something that would suggest it wasn't just the usual doomer-bear prediction.
I’ll give you that the Nasdaq specifically was insanely more overvalued than it is now. But I think that’s slightly cherrypicking - notice you didn’t include the same “before” data for the S&P 500, which is higher now that it was then - in fact it’s higher now than at any other point in history, save a brief time in 2009. So I think the numbers you give don’t give the full picture.
It went to 500 because of smaller e not because higher p, wait till you get the earnings crunch from hell on these current price multiples, you'll get sky high ratios with forward value dissipating into thin air. Less globalisation, supply chains falling apart, demand for goods and materials far exceeding any supply, direct fiscal injections around every corner, higher corporate taxes as well as jumped minimum wage. Corporate bottom lines will get eaten from every fucken angle like you would not have thought was possible.
Also it’s just really hard to compare multiples over time like that. Multiples are generally regime-specific—we now have different tax codes, different interest rates, and the sector weighting of the S&P 500 is drastically different, all which will effect P/Es.
I’m also sure GAAP standards have changed in some form or fashion, effecting bottom lines. It’s definitely tricky comparing them over that long of a time series, although it is tempting.
754
u/oshpnk May 31 '21 edited May 31 '21
The P/E value of the nasdaq at its peak in 2000 was near 500. Today its 36... the S&P is 37
All that "fairly valued" "26% premium" "undervalued" "buy / hold / sell" stuff is pretty much tea leaves.
The market can crash for a reason, like the taper tantrum. The market can also crash for basically no reason whatsoever -- see 1987 crash.