Contrary to popular belief, earnings growth has a very low correlation with decadal stock returns. The primary driver is the change in the valuation multiple (e.g., P/E ratio expansion or contraction). The correlation between 10-year real returns and 10-year valuation changes is a staggering 0.9, while it is tiny for earnings growth.

Traditional valuation models assume growth decays over time. However, when a company at scale, like Databricks, begins to reaccelerate, it defies these models. This rare phenomenon signals an expanding market or competitive advantage, justifying massive valuation premiums that seem disconnected from public comps.

Drawing from the biological principle that cells stop dividing to protect an organism's integrity, companies should moderate growth. Pushing beyond a sustainable rate (e.g., >20% annually) can introduce "mutations" like cultural drift, jeopardizing long-term survival for short-term scale.

Some companies execute a 3-5 year plan and then revert to average returns. Others 'win by winning'—their success creates new opportunities and network effects, turning them into decade-long compounders that investors often sell too early.

Historically, US earnings outgrew the world by 1%. Post-GFC, this widened to 3%. Investors have extrapolated this recent, higher rate as the new normal, pushing the US CAPE ratio to nearly double that of non-US markets. This represents a historically extreme valuation based on a potentially temporary growth advantage.

Before concluding a company can sustain extraordinary growth, consult historical data ('base rates') on how many similar companies succeeded in the past. This 'outside view,' a concept from investor Michael Mauboussin, provides a crucial reality check against overly optimistic forecasts.

Applying industry-average growth rates to an emerging category leader is a critical mistake. A business like Shopify, with a powerful flywheel and network effects, is a power law winner that defies regression to the mean of its stagnant competitors. Its performance is simply not comparable.

High-growth stocks that miss expectations get punished severely. In contrast, low-growth stocks that merely meet low expectations only slightly underperform, but the 50% of them that deliver an upside surprise massively outperform. This creates a favorable asymmetric risk/reward for betting on low-expectation companies.