It's not just Etsy's stock that's up, but also the stock of Shopify, Amazon, Overstock, Walmart, Ebay, etc. And all the tech infra companies that support these ecommerce sites.
There's a huge ecommerce bubble, and to a degree a tech bubble, being driven by all that disposable income that used to go to restaurants, travel, events, etc. instead being redirected to online shopping and online activity. Compounded by the money being printed by Fed which also doesn't have a lot of places to go.
I doubt it's sustainable to expect that this is the new normal and nobody will want to go back to the way life was before. If that's the case, I can't understand how the PE ratios that imply someday the future value of these companies will be worth 100x-1000x multiples in 10-20 years are justified. But this has lead to an incredible transfer of wealth to a lot of tech companies. I just wonder when the party will end and we'll see a correction?
You won't see a correction. What you're seeing is the world change before your eyes.
Feel free to refer back to this comment in a year or two.
E-commerce is sitting at 15-20% of all retail, it will almost certainly go to 50% this decade if not higher - it's inevitable.
Value is more than revenue or profit and P/E ratios largely don't matter and haven't for a long time. Competitive positioning, long term leverage, and other things that you can't easily price matter just as much. This is about total and utter dominance in a sector - just look at the investments Shopify is making in delivering capital to small businesses or building out a fulfillment pipeline.
Amazon's P/E ratio has been at or over 100 for the last 20 years. It was at 300 in 2012 (would you have bought then?). If you looked at that and that was the basis for not investing, you are using outdated views to invest. These companies are different and it's worth figuring out why.
Yes, P/E ratio doesn't mean much for a hyper-growth focused company but P/S ratio tells a different story. [1] Amazon's P/S ratio has bounced between ~1-4 since 06'. I'm sure before 06' too, but my reference stops at 06'. It's been fairly consistent relative to growth of the business.
[2] SHOP P/S ratio is currently at ~53. [3] ZM P/S ratio has bounced between 40 and 150. Currently at 87. These meme stocks are highly speculative and we all know where speculative investing ends up.
You will see a major correction.
Feel free to refer back to this comment in a year or two.
For the love of all that is holy I sure hope that you're not missing out on free money trying to time a correction, and are holding large hedges against a sudden crash you seem certain is eminent.
The amount of money that's been made on bubbles in the last 30 years far exceeds what's been lost. It's strange to see that trying to call the top hasn't died as a hobby after how much sheer energy has been spent being wrong about it.
Bearish bets are expensive even if you time them perfectly. Most of the time you just piss your money away on theta or borrowing costs even if the security in question doesn't even go up.
I've only ever had one grand slam bearish bet and I placed it in March of this year. I think a lot of idiots get excited by that kind of success and chase recreating it to their ruin.
Learned my lesson this year, probably only lost about $6000 while waiting for the crash that never came. Even if it does, I still have made money since.
If you time a short bet perfectly then yes you can make multimegabucks, but arguably you'd have better odds playing the powerball. Soros and Taleb are both great examples of survivor bias attributing their success to personal virtue.
Edit: What I'm trying to say is most people most of the time will be better off making long bullish bets. For example I bought some deep out of the money AAPL calls in June of this year and I'm quite pleased with how that turned out. It more than paid for the mistakes I made. The way I see it is think like a venture capitalist. Place 20 bets that pay out 100-1 and try to arrange for at least one to pay out.
Taleb didn’t use an “all-in” short strategy. I don’t know the specifics but he describes in his writings using a “barbell” strategy made up of about 90% very safe investments and about 10% high risk. For instance, 90% long treasuries and 10% in various options.
The idea is we live in a world of extremes today and something will happen but we don’t know what or when. So keep yourself liquid while sizing bets appropriately (Kelley Criterion in essence) and profit when the black swan event occurs. The additional, important benefit is you are liquid while almost everyone else is getting margin calls. This is an opportunity with many advantages such as buying low.
In essence lose a small amount often to win a large amount at some point. Similar to VC strategies or blackjack professionals when you could get away with counting.
But this time its different! <- said before every large stock market crash in the modern era
Alot of things to consider, 0% interest rates for over a year now, once the fed's spigot dries a bit expect to see huge drops in the market and especially alot of the speculative tech companies.
Alot of working professionals have seen huge gains in money since covid, ie. no travel, no commutes, no buying lunch/breakfast at the office, no dinner out with collegues/family, no daycare(if they are parents). Add that up and its a gigantic monthly savings, alot is going towards home stuff/renovation, its also going into the stock market.
People are forced online, with lockdowns and other restrictions people have literally been forced to find new ways to shop and entertain themselves, some may be more permanent than others. Once they are over expect large crowds in every possible way(theatres, malls, concerts etc) and drops across e-retailers.
> But this time its different! <- said before every large stock market crash in the modern era
The world is not as simple as that one liner suggests. Everyone who sat out of the market since 2011 loudly shouting about a bubble (I know more than a few of these types)....have a ton of regret and what's more... they're paralyzed by loss aversion, fear, and cling to P/E as justification they're doing the right thing.
If you can't draw out painfully obvious trends over the next decade and invest against those, I don't know what to tell you. Sure if I buy $AMZN at $3k today, it might drop to $2k next month. But I will bet a ton of money it will be far, far higher at the end of this decade. This is about network effects, the internet, scale, national security and the ability to achieve total dominance in a sector and leverage that into other sectors.
Obviously 2008 did see something of a drop in general so I guess they were right for the near term. But they were specifically ragging on companies that you'd have done very well with over the next decade+ even if you had bought in 2007.
> But I will bet a ton of money it will be far, far higher at the end of this decade. This is about network effects, the internet, scale, national security and the ability to achieve total dominance in a sector and leverage that into other sectors.
In other words, you're betting that regulators continue to permit Amazon to continue to consolidate monopolistic (if not outright monopoly) power. If regulators were to ever decide to break up Amazon - surely the stock price, so dependent on market dominance, would crater as a result.
I'm not saying you're wrong to make that bet / assumption, but it's important to note that Amazon's dominance is not a guaranteed destiny or inevitability. There are threats to their dominance.
> The world is not as simple as that one liner suggests. Everyone who sat out of the market since 2011 loudly shouting about a bubble.
And the world is not as simple as your rejoinder. 2011 came after a crisis unlike anything seen since the 1930's. And the 'fixes' to the economy since then have patched over rather than resolved the debt overhangs that led to the 2008 crisis. The great 'patch' was to print money. But the real economy (the physical universe that the financial universe simulates) still has constraints. Figuring out which one we trip over next is entrail-reading, but to think that constraints are no longer an issue is dangerous.
>but to think that constraints are no longer an issue is dangerous.
The fundamental problem is that we are not hitting those constraints. Lots of unemployed or underemployed people mean that inflation won't bit in the short term. Effective policies that put these people to work will cause inflation as usual. Inflation is a good thing in moderation.
This is my thesis too. If you aren't making great returns when they're printing money like crazy then you are losing money. Real world value of the stock market could be stagnant or even down despite the numbers going up.
I consider VOO or VTI to be a risk free return for a sufficiently long term horizon since I’m confident the US government will do whatever it takes to prop up those equity values. And if it can’t, then we probably are dealing with bigger problems like societal collapse.
But it was not AMZN at the top it would be like the equivalent of buying YAHOO back then, and even with inflated stocks and 0 interest rates YAHOO aint doing too well. So your analogy doesnt quite work.
You're ignoring that stocks crash because people have reasons to sell their stocks. If everyone "camped" then crashes wouldn't happen in the first place.
The number of stocks bought is always equal to the number of stocks bought - stocks crash because the price the marginal buyer is willing to pay goes down. Sometimes this is because there are too many sellers and the buyers can take their pick, but it need not be; it can also be because of a change in what buyers perceive the value of the stock to be.
The goal of central banks is to keep CONSUMER prices steadily increasing and employment high. I don't understand how anyone thinks this plan can involve lowering rates, which would crash asset prices, and trigger a wave of defaults leading to a recession (lower income, less spending, lower prices, and less jobs).
Notice that assets are conveniently not included in Central Banks' measures of inflation. Assets can inflate to infinity. It's irrelevant. The Fed's goal isn't to prevent wealth inequality. It's to keep CONSUMER prices steadily increasing and people employed. House prices, bitcoin, and meme stocks aren't in the consumer price index. It doesn't matter if they're appreciating rapidly.
Mortgage payments are included in the price indexes, though! They happen to make up a big chunk of the ratio, too. And guess what? Central Banks are making them cheaper for 90% of home owners (now ~67% of the population) by artificially manipulating rates to make their payments lower.
What does that mean? The more central banks lower rates and the higher home prices climb, the more likely "inflation will continue to be stubbornly low".
Central banks aren't normalizing rates any time soon. They're much more likely to print a ton more money because people AREN'T spending more money on airplane tickets, gasoline, bananas, and (importantly) their mortgages.
The solution to the problem is a bigger problem. When all you have is a hammer everything is a nail.
>The goal of central banks is to keep CONSUMER prices steadily increasing and employment high.
Yeah it's surprising that many people don't understand this.
>I don't understand how anyone thinks this plan can involve lowering rates, which would crash asset prices, and trigger a wave of defaults leading to a recession (lower income, less spending, lower prices, and less jobs).
It can involve lowering interest rates because the old assumption is that there is basically an endless amount of profitable work to be done in the country (or economic union) the central bank is in. It conveniently ignores that doing the endless amount of work elsewhere (developing countries) can actually be even more profitable.
>Notice that assets are conveniently not included in Central Banks' measures of inflation. Assets can inflate to infinity. It's irrelevant.
Yeah it's true, consumer prices are the real target. The irony of course is that if you keep inflating assets your economy will rot from the inside. Companies can just drink straight from the money faucet. There is no need to actually employ anyone in the country the central bank is operating in.
>Mortgage payments are included in the price indexes, though! They happen to make up a big chunk of the ratio, too. And guess what? Central Banks are making them cheaper for 90% of home owners (now ~67% of the population) by artificially manipulating rates to make their payments lower.
Payments tend to stay the same though because the housing market is competitive in a lot of locations. Housing values keep increasing instead. One could argue that real estate will indirectly employ construction workers but the fundamental problem is that many places simply are not willing to build more housing. It's almost criminally insane but that's how it is, unfortunately. In places where there is little competition it is possible to get good deals but not everyone is willing to do that. Those deals are also disappearing now that remote work is forced upon everyone.
>What does that mean? The more central banks lower rates and the higher home prices climb, the more likely "inflation will continue to be stubbornly low".
Well, yes because the money isn't reaching the right places. A lot of it is sitting in some random bank account. The money that is actually put to use is just going back to asset owners (remember we want it in the hands of consumers) because a lot of the hard labor is done abroad but the profits are collected at home. Despite the surplus of money companies are not willing to spend money on training even though it will make more profitable work available domestically. College often doesn't work because it's not actually based on what companies want. Students chase their own dreams which is fine in principle but it means the training problem is still unsolved.
>Central banks aren't normalizing rates any time soon. They're much more likely to print a ton more money because people AREN'T spending more money on airplane tickets, gasoline, bananas, and (importantly) their mortgages.
And as you said, they keep spending it on the wrong things.
>The solution to the problem is a bigger problem. When all you have is a hammer everything is a nail.
The reason for that is that the central bank does not have the power to solve all the problems it's responsible for. It's almost comical. It has to make sure the economy is not broken but it only has one lever. That lever can fix the economy with the right timing and correct usage. However, that lever can only go so low and opportunities in which it makes sense to pull the lever grow more scarce as you keep overusing it. At this point it's time to recognize that the rest of the government is failing to do it's part through fiscal policy. The central bank has already done far more than it's share of the work.
We've had low interest rates in Europe for years now, and the effects are massive. Some random thoughts, I am not an economist and have armchair knowledge of the whole thing at best so take these with a few kilos of salt:
- Europe lowered interest rates on loans by a lot, going into the negative [1]
- This allowed mortgage interest rates to be lowered by a lot as well, because competition.
- Mortgage interest rates are linked to savings account rates, so their interest went way down as well - going into 0% or negative rates here and there.
- This de-incentivized saving money; that plus low mortgage interest rates mean people are buying houses or putting their money into the stock market.
- Low mortgage interest rates + people buying houses as investment = rising housing prices. Housing prices in NL have gone up by a lot. Brexit, international companies and expats didn't help (mainly around the big cities).
- The pandemic and pressure / encouragement to work from home more has caused a lot of people who live in the big cities (in shit circumstances because of the ridiculous cost of living) to scratch their head and consider moving to the countryside, raising housing prices there as well.
Inflation. For whatever reason inflation has been very slow for some time now. If it ever starts to speed up, the fed will tighten the monetary supply quickly to keep it under control.
My taxes, land for a home purchase, out of pocket maximum and deductibles for health insurance, health insurance premiums, tuition are all increasing at quite a clip for me. I have to save an increasing proportion of income due to higher (perceived) volatility of future income, as well as the expected increasing prices in the aforementioned expenses.
This year has quite simply broken the way the CPI works.
They try not to re-weight items in the CPI year by year. Motor fuel is still 2.9% of the index. Transportation, including air travel is still 5% of the index. Demand and price for these has crashed this year. They still keep the same weighting year in year out since the items in the CPI aren't meant to be changed and re-weighted every year. (See the Oct 2019 vs Oct 2020 column)
Demand for air travel has collapsed. Prices have not, because airline have correctly figured out that the few people still flying (particularly internationally) are doing so because they have to and will pay top dollar if they need to.
Tuition, health insurance, and deductibles ARE included in CPI. Taxes largely aren't - unless you're talking about sales taxes. Land prices definitely are not. And you are literally doing the opposite of buying something when you save, so that is also (obviously) not included in CPI.
What inflation "feels like" and the CPI are completely different things. This is becoming more problematic if you're on the wrong side of the trade (i.e. saving cash instead of swimming in a mountain of mortgage debt).
I don’t save in cash, my savings are in various investments such as equity index funds or businesses and real estate.
But every year a dollar seems to buy less of what I need, and I can’t imagine how people who earn far less than me can deal with it. If you don’t keep investing, you certainly are falling further and further behind, but how can you invest if you’re just making ends meet as it is.
>I can’t imagine how people who earn far less than me can deal with it
Succinctly? [Under/un]treated mental illness due to the maladaptive coping skills needed to survive as a poor American. Poor people make sacrifices to live another day. Whether it's (healthy) food, exercise, healthcare (who can afford insulin or an epipen these days?), or their time. Some people pay the doctors to go to them, others pay for people to do the tediousstuff like cooking or cleaning or laundry or fighting the bank over a $40 overdraft fee that ate that weeks food budget.
Central banks only care about consumer inflation and if you have to save an increasing proportion of income instead of spending it on consumer goods that is by definition consumer deflation. You have less and less money remaining to spend on consumer goods which means that demand for consumer goods falls flat. The irony is that overinflated assets can allocate more money away from consumer goods to assets and thereby fuel even more consumer deflation despite expanding the money supply.
It's hard to make accurate month-to-month comparisons in our segment (retro games), because all of our products are second-hand and therefore we'll have different inventory all the time.
That said, our "regular" SKUs (cart only Super Mario 64, PS2 Consoles etc.) are generating maybe 20% more revenue compared to this time last year. Earlier in the year, this was as high as 2-3x normal revenue.
Claiming the grandparent wasn't talking about retail is just wrong.
> It's not just Etsy's stock that's up, but also the stock of Shopify, Amazon, Overstock, Walmart, Ebay, etc. And all the tech infra companies that support these ecommerce sites.
You really think they're not talking retail?
Not to mention the fact that no one claimed any of those things are moving online:
> disposable income that used to go to restaurants, travel, events, etc. instead going to... [aforementioned companies
Actually OP is right, I wasn't talking about retail per se. I was proposing the reason why ecommerce stocks are higher is due to changes in consumer discretionary spending (less spending on restaurants, travel, etc allowing more spending on online goods), but I acknowledge of course there are other pandemic-related changes in behavior that have increased the revenue of ecommerce, such as the shift away from retail. It remains to be seen whether this is a permanent change, but I'm betting it's not.
All other discussions about whether ecommerce is taking away from retail are not entirely addressing the point I was trying to make.
If evidence in China, a market which is more digitally integrated than the US, is anything to go, rebound shopping will make a huge dent on e-commerce.
There are winners and losers. People have a finite amount of disposable income and apparently most spend it all. You'll see the world change before your eyes again in 2021 when that disposable income starts shifting back towards other sectors of the service industry.. And when the rent comes due.
>These companies are different and it's worth figuring out why.
If you figure out why then you would be engaging in value investing.
>you are using outdated views to invest
Business is much older than tech. It already had enough time for all the stupid ideas to die out. If those stupid ideas come back they will just die again.
I'm curious what you have figured out for "why?" When you say "value is more than revenue or profit" you are proposing an entirely post-capitalist way of thinking about the economy. I'm genuinely curious what you feel is different about Amazon, Shopify, etc. beyond a huge amount of debt, outside funding and interest rates that have made money cheap for more than a decade.
I think you're misinterpreting "value is more than revenue or profit." I read it as value is more than historical revenue or profit. It seemed that was the intent from the rest of that comment.
I understand that. But my question is "what's the endgame?" From your response here I assume you feel there will come a point where Amazon will be wildly profitable? When and why?
> If that's the case, I can't understand how the PE ratios that imply someday the future value of these companies will be worth 100x-1000x multiples in 10-20 years are justified.
Expected future growth. Some stocks get overpriced or underpriced, corrections to share price happen when information is taken in by the market.
> There's a huge ecommerce bubble, and to a degree a tech bubble, being driven by all that disposable income that used to go to restaurants, travel, events, etc. instead being redirected to online shopping and online activity. Compounded by the money being printed by Fed which also doesn't have a lot of places to go.
This is not a bubble. There is an expectation of 0% rates for the foreseeable future. The dollar has fallen in value since the March bottom and assets are being repriced higher to account for this. We aren’t even at February highs yet if you take the dollar decline into account, here’s an SPX chart adjusted for $DXY (SPX*DXY/100): https://tradingview.com/x/lyDLUewb/
If you are waiting for a correction to buy stocks you shouldn’t be in stocks the first place. It’s because you are trying to time the market to begin with, which is one of the biggest mistake mind set of all for investing or trading
No, more that I work in the ecommerce sector, have seen how crazy it's become as of recently, and I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. But I agree generally that trying to time the market is a bad idea for most retail investors
Can you give more examples of what you have seen from the inside that is not being reported by TV news?
(I agree with you on the crazy PE ratios and FED manipulations. Something is going to happen to bring things back to reality.)
I work with medium-size Shopify brands to assist on the development-side of things. When the pandemic started, a lot of ecommerce brands were clamping down on budgets. Shortly after the CARES act was passed, suddenly revenue for a lot of my clients started to skyrocket, especially those in the food industry (some were making what they made over the course of a year in a few months) but soon also to discretionary industries like apparel and beauty. Ever since, I've been seeing large-scale projects to agencies we work with being pushed through without hesitation and of course business has been growing at a much higher clip for my own company versus prior to CARES.
I'm grateful for it, but at the same time I know this is at the expense of many small companies in the restaurant and travel space, and all the labor they employ too, so that's pretty depressing. And I don't think it's sustainable so I expect my own luck to turn around eventually.
I don't think things will change much in the next 6 months though with another potential stimulus check on the horizon and at least until some of the state-level measures to reduce the spread of COVID are reversed (possibly with vaccines widely available?)
Why do you think people won't continue their shopping habits online? Hasn't e-commerce grown over the past decade? Coronavirus may have sped up the growth.
Usually Black Friday/Cyber Monday (BFCM) or in-season traffic is when I see the most traffic for my clients. The new normal is BFCM traffic as a baseline, with the highest traffic 2-3x that. They've done nothing more than they've done in past years to earn that traffic. This isn't the usual growth of ecommerce, especially when its across an entire industry and very sudden.
I do think the pandemic has set a new normal for ecommerce, but I very much doubt it will be at the levels we see today.
I also work in the e-commerce industry, specifically fashion. There are winners (home, lounge wear) and losers (dresses). I do not see this as a bubble.
Will buying habits correct post-COVID? Sure, but factors have already been clamping down. If anything, you may see a boost in e-commerce in certain sectors.
I hate people and crowds, but I enjoy a trip to Target/Walmart/Costco when they're not busy. Hell, I even like going to the mall every so often. It's nice to just go and see things in person, especially combining it with a nice beverage/snack/meal. I am a dedicated Amazon shopper, but I don't see myself giving up on retail anytime soon. As fast as Amazon is, it is not instant, and that gratification is important to many folks.
I think HN commenters aren't your typical shopper, so I'd be wary of believing the echo chamber. I bet the average HN commenter also doesn't fall for "luxury" brands or the related "mating displays" which seem to be so important to many people. But there are a lot of people who do like those things. They like to dress up and show off among other members of their species. Retail may shrink, but it isn't going away unless human psychology suddenly undergoes a fundamental change.
My wife just got back from target and remarked how good it felt to be in a store actually browsing. She hasn't really done that for 9 months, aside from quick targeted trips in/out while a bit stressed. She is very excited to just be out next year.
Now, how many retail businesses won't ever open again is the real question. Plenty of small businesses closed and won't re-open and there might be strong hesitation for new businesses to spring up in their place. Sure, target will be fine, but the mom and pops could potentially never come back to the same level. They were already barely making it.
It depends wildly on what the category of item is. Clothes are probably going to a big return to store once things reopen, since fits can be all over the place between or even within stores. (Yes, online experiences offer relatively hassle free returns, but I still consider waiting for a few days only to get something with poor fit or cheap and then waiting for it to be received at returns more painful than just trying on clothes in person.)
While I agree that we need to 'return to reality'(as much as the market is ever tied to reality...), the "something" that is going to happen could just be inflation, and suddenly those asset valuations might not seem so crazy. What I do not know, however, is if you should expect better than average growth during/after an inflationary period, or if it will drag down growth and reduce market performance in 'real dollars'.
Even if there is a correction, there will be a lot of people with fat bank accounts that didn’t have them before, simply because they took advantage of what they saw happening before their very eyes.
IMO anyone who isn’t investing in the stock market right now is going to be on the wrong side of inequality. The dollar will depreciate, and though we will be seeing people make massive gains in 2020 and 2021, the buying power of those gains will not be the same as the buying power they would have in say 2019. There’s just too much money being printed out now and spent. If you’ve just been sitting in cash and have missed those gains you’ll be in a world of hurt when the day comes that your cash can’t really buy what it used to, while all the stock investors are out living their life as usual comfortable with inflated prices.
You cannot afford to be sitting on the sidelines. If you’re extra paranoid, put your money where your mouth is and buy put options as insurance to protect yourself from downside risk, or if you’re happy with the gains you have now put a collar on your positions.
But do not sit around doing nothing or reposting memes about how the Fed can’t keep printing money forever or how PE ratios are insane.
It is estimated that 22% of all dollars ever created have been created this year. [1] Couple that with continued lower interest rates and another likely stimulus this number will only go up.
>But this has lead to an incredible transfer of wealth to a lot of tech companies.
How many of these tech companies are actually accumulating wealth due to high stock prices? When stocks change hands in the market, the company doesn't see any of the profit. The company revenue doesn't change unless they have treasury stock they are selling. As far as I know, very few are issuing new stock, aside from Tesla (which is genius).
> Compounded by the money being printed by Fed which also doesn't have a lot of places to go.
I generally agree with your comment about the potential for a structural change in where disposable income is going, but this statement isn't technically correct. I would check out this podcast for a great explanation of it: https://www.macrovoices.com/921-macrovoices-248-jeff-snider-...
Also the Fed set interest rates so low that you'll loose money having it in saving, causing everyone to invest their money, mostly the in the market.
Some investors are so desperate for something to buy, they're making up new fake companies called "blank check IPOs". Fake companies that promise to make money some day. It's insane.
For stuff like my 401k, I just buy into the market every month, I play a bit in the market personally, I got out of half of it a few months ago. I would love to buy TSLA, but the price is totally bonkers right now.
A very large majority of finance-savvy people I've been talking to over the course of the past few months have been willfully ignoring that: The markets are doing great now because there's barely a reason to not put your cash in equity! Dollar's devalued, stocks are pumping. Totally right with the blank-check IPOs.
It's not a bubble if its driven by revenues and not just high interest debt lol.
Also you might be interested in PE ratios alongside interest rates. You are so close to putting it together on your own, but keep detouring into permabear territory.
As you point out, there is more money in the system and less places for it to go, so not only is the consumption piling into these services, people are also willing to pay a higher ratio for the shares.
This means that PE ratios in isolation cannot tell you anything, a PE ratio to interest rate ratio will tell you everything. As long as confidence isn't shaken in the currency, more of that currency in the system will push interest rates lower. So all you are seeing is where the money goes.
There's a huge ecommerce bubble, and to a degree a tech bubble, being driven by all that disposable income that used to go to restaurants, travel, events, etc. instead being redirected to online shopping and online activity. Compounded by the money being printed by Fed which also doesn't have a lot of places to go.
I doubt it's sustainable to expect that this is the new normal and nobody will want to go back to the way life was before. If that's the case, I can't understand how the PE ratios that imply someday the future value of these companies will be worth 100x-1000x multiples in 10-20 years are justified. But this has lead to an incredible transfer of wealth to a lot of tech companies. I just wonder when the party will end and we'll see a correction?