Tech stock prices are based on extreme growth numbers. the problem is the denominator, it's so big for most tech companies they can't continue to grow at 20-50% a year. so if your P/E goes from 30+ to 10 or worse 3-5even if your E is still strong but flat alot of wealth disappears. if people feel broke they don't spend money on things. the new phone isn't as important as say eating. also alot of tech didn't have to compete and could still grow wildly. name a non-competitive area of tech these days? a blue sky opportunity. that doesn't entail hard engineering. autonomous cars, fusion, solar all require massive amounts of slog it out engineering.
I've often thought this too, but there are several huge exceptions to this, whilst outside of tech there are plenty of similar examples.
First and foremost, there's the Exceptions:
Google: P/E is more or less 20, decades already
Microsoft: P/E is more or less 20, for a very long time
There are not actually that high. Compare to BABA (P/E is >200), IBM (P/E >100), JD (P/E >600)
And the reverse exceptions, non-tech with absurd P/E:
Tesla: P/E is 40 (down from ~500 I might add)
Boston Scientific: P/E is >100
and let's just shut up about crypto, because ... there's is a theme. Overwhelmingly the ridiculous valuations are financial companies and "semi-"government companies (meaning protected by government, but not benefitting the people of the country that government governs. Like BABA for example, or before their downfall, Theranos). If Tech becomes the P/E champion instead of "almost-but-not-quite" corruption companies that tend to dominate that, I feel that's a very good thing indeed.
