> Other advertising companies made far more profit than Google
Your argument fails at that. Considering Google strictly an "advertising" company is a narrow view, even in 2004.
It's not my argument, it's an argument from analysts who said Google was overvalued in 2004.
Apparently they couldn't imagine the future, so they measured Google against its contemporaries.
Comparing Tesla to Ford is a similar failure of the imagination.
Really? Why? Is Tesla not a car company?
Tesla is a battery company that also makes cars.
That seems like an even less bullish fact. Batteries are never going to command the same margin or moat as cars, and hence would have even lower market cap comps.
It is an energy company.
Tesla is a car company in the same way that Google is an advertising agency.
In what way?
Other advertising companies made far more profit than Google, had more cash in the bank than Google, yet had lower valuations than Google.
On that evidence, many "experts" and "analysts" said Google was grossly overvalued.
Today it's easy to see that their analysis was dead wrong. If you can figure out why the conventional wisdom then was wrong, you'll understand why Tesla stock has value today.