The problem with P/E is that, while it’s great to measure business health internally, a company that has great earnings and then decides to “invest in growth” instead of paying dividends, is just a Ponzi scheme as far as investors are concerned: no expectation of returns from the company, only from the hype among other investors.
Some companies give dividends, some don’t. It’s a difference in strategy, and I think more of a young company vs old company thing. I don’t find it particularly meaningful. If you are growing quickly, it makes more sense to use your financing to finance more growth. If you’re not, makes more sense to attract investors with a healthy dividend.
Is TSLA overvalued? To be generous, let’s compare them to just NASDAQ stocks:
Um, try with P/E. Stock price is meaningless.
Meaningful part are the dividend ratios.
The problem with P/E is that, while it’s great to measure business health internally, a company that has great earnings and then decides to “invest in growth” instead of paying dividends, is just a Ponzi scheme as far as investors are concerned: no expectation of returns from the company, only from the hype among other investors.
Some companies give dividends, some don’t. It’s a difference in strategy, and I think more of a young company vs old company thing. I don’t find it particularly meaningful. If you are growing quickly, it makes more sense to use your financing to finance more growth. If you’re not, makes more sense to attract investors with a healthy dividend.