I think what I said is perfectly congruent. Without the distortion of speculation nobody in their right mind would pay 30x or 100x earnings for a company.

Price over Earnings. Earnings: What a company makes in one year.

Multiple: How many years of annual earnings you are willing to pay for the company. 5, 10, 30, 100.

This number doesn't exist int he vacuum, it very directly means --to a rough order of magnitude-- that you will need to wait 30 to 100 years to break even, assuming you take 100% of earnings every year for that duration of time, there are no economic downturns, the company remain viable and competition does not chip away at earnings.

Think about that for a moment, an investment that produces no gains whatsoever for at least 30 to 100 years.

This isn't hard to reason. Would you take everything you own, invest it into buying a company and know you are paying so much that it would take 100 years to break even? Or 30 years? Or 15? 10? 5? Ah. There you go. most people will say yes somewhere between 5 and 10, and that's because this is the real world.

I've said many times now, the only way these multiples exist is because the stock market is the domain of uninformed speculation. VC's and others love it because they can get ridiculous valuations for investments, for companies, that would have never produced those kinds of returns in the real world. Individual investors love it because the promise of of other speculators willing to pay more for their already inflated purchases would earn them money.

The whole thing is a speculative house of cards. I say this as someone who has been very involved in the markets for years. I very much like the reality that others are willing to pay more for things I buy. I also like the reality that these valuations are driven by emotion. I have made a ton of money recognizing and playing emotion in day trading by shorting stocks. I made money playing the emotion going up and emotion going down. Once you have that perspective it is impossible to look at the stock market as anything other than Las Vegas with different rules.

Today there's algorithmic trading. When I was day trading this wasn't so prevalent. People like me were using custom software tools to help make decisions but nothing even close to what exists today was in place back then. I am not sure I would do well day trading today. Not sure it would be easy to read emotion.

A typical counterargument is: Well, you buy the company, inject Y capital into it and increase earnings.

OK. Assume you buy the company for 100x earnings, inject Y and now increase earnings by a factor of 2. It will take a minimum of 50 years to break even. And, BTW, doubling earnings isn't that easy. Sure, yes, there are a bunch of internet companies who fly high and have done such things, but at some point earnings become somewhat asymptotic due to various factors, including competition, market size, etc. And it takes time, lots of time, for earnings to increase once a product offering starts to mature. In other words, from startup to flight altitude the rate of change can be incredible, once at flight altitude the scenario is very different.

In the VC world that's where the speculation lies. They are betting that these companies are going to be able to grow at a >45 degree slope for just enough time to go public, grab a really nice multiple and convert risk to cash, lots of it. Hey, more power to them, they are providing a valuable service (capital) and deserve to make money. However, I firmly believe individual investors have to be very careful about the idea of actually believing these valuations are real. They are only real if someone else is willing to pay more for what you just bought, otherwise the entire things is imaginary and fueled by speculation. Just like baseball cards.

The most fundamental question might be: What is reality?