While even I at times argue that the SET is expensive and that there are a lot of names that are trading at silly valuations, it is important to look properly into individual names instead of just saying that the entire market is expensive. Here, despite, the context in the article pointing to the fact that several names are overvalued, 1/2 the stocks are trading above the market PE and the other 1/2 are trading below the market PE. I’ll take EA as a simple example, yes, its PE is 200x or so, but its pricing in all the projects and farms that they have announced and that will be up and running in 1-2 years, so they’ll have growth of some 100-200% over the next 1-2 years, does that mean the stock is stupidly expensive or just pricing in foreseeable earnings? It’s always necessary to look at both sides of an argument.

Even the SET has voiced concern about overheating in such stocks, but regulators are loath to impose additional measures for fear that tougher measures could hurt market sentiment. Current measures include notices, trade alerts, cash balance requirements and suspensions.