←back to thread

Reflections on Palantir

(nabeelqu.substack.com)
479 points freditup | 3 comments | 16 Oct 24 02:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.463s | source
Show context
jgalt212 ◴[16 Oct 24 17:48 UTC] No.41861759[source]▶
246 PE, with a $94B market cap.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PLTR/

Alex Karp has something figured out. The investor class loves him.

replies(4): >>41861807 #>>41862058 #>>41862211 #>>41867993 #
jgalt212 ◴[16 Oct 24 17:55 UTC] No.41861807[source]▶
As best I can tell only ARM has a higher PE and Market Cap.

https://www.marketbeat.com/market-data/high-pe-stocks/

replies(1): >>41862118 #
airstrike ◴[16 Oct 24 18:25 UTC] No.41862118[source]▶
Those are trailing P/E numbers, so they are just plain wrong and should be disregarded.

Also P/E doesn't matter for companies that have not been profitable for long. Any PE number above 100x is very likely just noise. I wouldn't look at anything too far above 30x, maybe 40x to account for the craze behind NVDA today

replies(2): >>41862274 #>>41862324 #
1. jgalt212 ◴[16 Oct 24 18:42 UTC] No.41862324[source]▶
> they are just plain wrong and should be disregarded.

Are you saying Palantir's previous 10-Ks and 10-Qs have material misstatements of fact?

replies(2): >>41862505 #>>41862547 #
2. nonameiguess ◴[16 Oct 24 18:55 UTC] No.41862505[source]▶
Kind of conveniently cut off the first part of the statement there. The basis of fundamental valuation, discounted cash flow analysis, looks at all cash flows, forever, into the far future until the company dies. For a sufficiently mature company, current earnings are reasonably considered a good approximation of future earnings. For a newer company that is growing rapidly and spending most of its cash on long term investments rather than current year operations, it is not. Otherwise, every new company that has no earnings yet would be worthless, or if you consider losing money to be negative earnings, you're saying they should be paying you to own them.
3. airstrike ◴[16 Oct 24 18:58 UTC] No.41862547[source]▶
No, it's just the trading multiples derived from them that are totally wrong for the purposes of valuing the company today, because the Ks and Qs pertain to the past, which we cannot visit.