Leaderboard

Fair points regarding growth, but meta at 9x FCF, GOOGL at low teens FCF, and AMZN at ~25x normalized operating profit at the beginning of the year isn't anywhere close to the nifty fifty valuations. Even MSFT and AAPL at the time were trading at >4% earnings yield with >10% FCF/Share growth which is still more attractive than a 4.5% zero growth 10 year treasury. Even with the nifty fifty had you bought McDonald's or Coke at like 60x earnings and owned for 2 or 3 decades you still would have beaten the S&P 500. I just don't think automatically writing off a good business as being unable to continue to produce good returns because its optically expensive is a logical conclusion (doesn't mean I'd buy them at this price, but that's a different analysis).

Agree re the quality. But given the size they are now are growth prospects over the next 5, 10, 20 years that great? And is it reasonable to pay at the low end 30-40x earnings and at the high end 60-70x earnings when interest rates are 5%. Companies are usually judged to be great businesses with the benefit of hindsight and there is no question that they've eaten the world over the last decade and done amazingly well. And a lot of Nifty Fifty businesses remained great businesses but their stock price performance disappointed due to multiple compression and earnings growth that was impressive but reflected their maturity. I would say though they have a lot more durability and resilience than the tech companies of the 90s and consumers and businesses cannot function without them which should still make them very valuable even if they cannot maintain double digit growth rates going forward.