How to evaluate growth stocks
A classic text on growth stock picking is Common Stock and Uncommon Profits By Philip Fisher, with a 15 point checklist.  Here is a summary of the list that you can check out.
You're indeed right, this cannot be answered affirmatively. I will try, without going too deep in details, to brush a shallow portrait In its simplest form, a going concern company could be valued by the present value of a growing perpetuity (Cash Flow/(Required return - growth)), assuming compounding perpetual growth. That's a massive assumption for a yet to turn a dime company. That's why comparable transactions are usually used as benchmark. In this case, your PE can be thought as the inverse of a growing perpetuity, and it's size will be determined by the difference between return and growth. So when you're pre-revenue, you're basically trying to value a moonshot with everything to prove, no matter how genius the idea. Considering the high levels of financial risks due to failure, VCs will require biblical levels of returns (50% to 90% is not unheard of). Hence why they usually leave with a good chunk of the company in seed rounds. When you've had a few sales, you got to know your customer and you've tested the markets, your direction gets clearer and your prospects improve. Risks moves down a notch and the next round of financing will be at much lower rates. Your growth rate, still high but nowhere as crazy as before, can be estimated with relatively more precision. Companies turning a recurrent level of profits are the easiest to value (all else being equal). The financial mathematics are more appropriate now, and their value will be derived by current market conditions as well as comparable transactions. With unlimited resources and perfect markets, the value of the company will be the same wether the founder is at the helm or the VCs are in the place. But considering many founders need the VCs' resources to extract the value of their company and markets are imperfect, the value of the company can change significantly depending on the decisions. Hope that helps! Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27?  Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13.  There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E.  I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag.  One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap.  (Share price divided by annual earnings per share)  It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point.  There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies.  How is it paying its debt?  How is it accumulating the debt?  How is it's return on assets?  How is the return on assets trending?  This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time.  The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general.  The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally. it's kind of like a circular loop:  i think he would suggest identifying strategies/portfolio managers who have demonstrated outperformance in a persistent manner.  Thing is, that's also really hard to do.  I think empirically, MPT suffers when the market does. By diversifying, you'll only be down less. He's suggesting shooting for absolute returns -- no matter what the market does, he wants to see positive gains.  (a lot) easier said than done When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light.  Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. "This functionality is widely available, not only on brokerage sites, but also financial management and even financial information sites.  For instance, two of the latter are Google Finance and Yahoo Finance.  If you are logged in, they let you create ""portfolios"" listing your stocks and, optionally, the size of your holdings in that stock (which you don't need if you are just ""watching"" a stock).  Then you can visit the site at any time and see the current valuations." There's actual value and value that comes from potential for growth. I would imagine that their fundamentals are stronger, they have more advertising revenue than 2 years ago but their vision for the future and potential value is lower. So it's up to you the investor in the market to decide where you value it and to either buy sell or sit out "I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that ""momentum"" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is ""Cut your losses, and let your winners ride."" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research." "Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like ""normalized"" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA" "In general, when companies are regarded as ""hot"" growth stocks, they are expected to keep up an accelerated level of growth for a good long time. That accelerated growth justifies a high PE relative to a slow-growth stock. When companies that are supposed to grow miss expectations or (worse) lose money, the markets punish the stock severely... Particularly if the company doesn't make analysts aware of problems early on. Netflix is a great example of a company bungling a few different business problems, creating a much bigger one in the process. A poorly conceived rate hike killed the reliable cash flow of the company, and that crazy Quixter thing just confused everyone. Now nobody trusts the management. BlackBerry is another example of a high performing company that just screwed up, damaging shareholders in the process. We're living in a very challenging era today, but growth stocks are always risky by nature -- growing a company rapidly is very difficult." The stock market is generally a long term investment platform.  The share prices reflect more the companies potential to be profitable in the future rather than its actual value.  Companies that have good potential can over perform their actual value.  We saw this regularly  in the early days of the internet prior to the .com bust.  Companies would go up exponentially based on their idea's and potential.  Investors learned from that and are demanding more these days.  As a result companies that do not show growth potential go down. Companies that show growth and potential (apple and google for 2 easy examples) continue to go up.   Many companies have specific days where employees can buy and sell stocks.  there are minor ripples in the market on these days as the demand and supply are temporarily altered by a large segment of the owner base making trades.  For this reason some companies have a closed pool that is only open to inside trades that then executes the orders over time so that the effect is minimized on the actual stock price.  This is not happening with face book.  Instead many of the investors are dumping their stock directly into the market.  These are savvy investors and if there was potential for profit remaining you would not see the full scale exodus from the stock.  The fact that it is visible is scaring off investors itself.  I can not think of another instance that has gone like facebook, especially one that was called so accurately by many industry pundits. Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck! You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase?  I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them.  If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe "Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a ""normal"" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap." "The S&P 500 index from 1974 to present certainly looks exponential to me (1974 is the earliest data Google has).  If you read Jeremy Siegel's book there are 200 year stock graphs and the exponential nature of returns on stocks is even more evident.  This graph only shows the index value and does not include the dividends that the index has been paying all these years.  There is no doubt stocks have grown exponentially (aka have grown with compound interest) for the past several decades and compounded returns is definitely not a ""myth"".  The CAGR on the S&P 500 index from 1974 to present has been 7.54%: (1,783 / 97.27) ^ (1 / 40) - 1 Here is another way to think about compounded investment growth: when you use cash flow from investments (dividends, capital gains) to purchase more investments with a positive growth rate, the investment portfolio will grow exponentially.  If you own a $100 stock that pays 10% dividends per year and spend the dividends every year without reinvesting them, then the investment portfolio will still be worth $100 after 40 years.  If the dividends are reinvested, the investment portfolio will be worth $4,525 after 40 years from the many years of exponential growth: 100*(1 + 10%)^40" "You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to ""closed as duplicate of..."" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random."