u/NoGarlic2387

Reddit r/ValueInvesting
· tracked since Feb 2026
Calls 1 1 Posts tracked · 0.0/day
Calls
7d 0
30d 0
90d 0
Best Calls
No live winners yet
Worst Calls
DUOL long -9.3%
Most Mentioned
DUOL ×1
Recent Calls
DUOL long 3 months ago
Win Rate 0% Long 1 Short 0
Win Rate
7d 0%
30d 0%
90d 0%
Average Return -9.3% Long Return -9.3% Short Return -
Average Return
7d -13.5%
30d -19.9%
90d -8.2%
Result
Result
Sort
Theme Stance
Ticker
Side
Mentions
Opened
Entry
P&L
Thesis
Theme
Source
Long
Feb 26
$117.45
-9.3%
Duolingo's reported earnings are artificially inflated by a one-time $222.7 million deferred tax asset valuation allowance release, making its standard P/E ratio misleadingly low. By normalizing earnings (removing the one-time benefit), the author calculates a "true" P/E of ~28x at a price of $90. This suggests the stock is significantly cheaper than it appeared at its peak and is now at a more reasonable valuation for a growth company. The post-earnings crash has brought Duolingo's valuation to an attractive level (28x normalized P/E), implying a buying opportunity for a value-oriented investor. The market may continue to punish the stock for other reasons (e.g., slowing growth, competitive pressure, poor guidance) regardless of the normalized valuation. The author's normalization method might be too simplistic.
Duolingo's reported earnings are artificially inflated by a one-time $222.7 million deferred tax asset valuation allowance release, making its standard P/E ratio misleadingly low. By normalizing earnings (removing the one-time benefit), the author calculates a "true" P/E of ~28x at a price of $90. This suggests the stock is significantly cheaper than it appeared at its peak and is now at a more reasonable valuation for a growth company. The post-earnings crash has brought Duolingo's valuation to an attractive level (28x normalized P/E), implying a buying opportunity for a value-oriented investor. The market may continue to punish the stock for other reasons (e.g., slowing growth, competitive pressure, poor guidance) regardless of the normalized valuation. The author's normalization method might be too simplistic.
Consumer
Showing 1 of 1 picks ยท sorted by mentions