Stocks driven by vague, fake expectations vs. stocks becoming reality

‌Take Hanssem stocks, for example. About 10 years ago, during the period when living standards were rising
and the widespread distribution of apartments was in full swing;
interestingly, housing prices were also at their lowest back then.
The stock rose 25 to 30 times.
However, after the price reflected this, it stayed like that for 2 years,
and the actual results were much lower than expected. I thought it might go up again after 3 years,
but competitors increased and market share was lost in other areas (such as large corporations manufacturing their own products).
If you get stuck in a position, do you just hold on until the end to break even?
If you get stuck around the 300,000 KRW mark, even if you hold on for 5 years, it won't reach your break-even point.

So, did it eventually reach the break-even point later?
In the market, competitors kept increasing, and the brands they launched fell well below the previous level of prestige.

There was a temporary "fake rebound" of 90–100% driven by apartment remodeling demand, but that was mostly for major players to exit.
The result is becoming quite predictable, isn't it?
Back in 2014–2015, the residential culture was different; now, the gap between income and housing prices is massive.
This brand lacks technological development;
it fails to reflect creative consumer tastes and remains stuck in a basic, low-end general category, while labor costs have only risen.
As earnings gradually decrease,
profit margins inevitably shrink further.
Ultimately, for those stuck at the peak, the break-even point will never come.

Led by K-pop, K-beauty became increasingly well-known, and domestic consumers reflected this first.
On the theme of capturing a large share in overseas markets,
the stock rose 5 to 6 times over 2 years.
But in reality, cosmetic consumption trends remained somewhat sluggish compared to the stock price for several years.
Just as they were holding on through R&D and quality, waiting to see if they could capture more market share, COVID-19 hit.
Current revenue and profits aren't that bad compared to earnings, but the worst-case scenario was priced in prematurely.

After the stock price was suppressed by that negative COVID-19 pricing,
even non-investors can now naturally sense that the actual money being earned has expanded to a completely different level and will continue to grow.
Unluckily, they were heavily alienated during the massive bull market of summer 2025 to early 2026; instead, the stock price fell,
creating an optical illusion that it had risen significantly for a few months.
Regarding the "priced-in" factor relative to future earnings,
it has shifted from about 4–6 months
to a level of about 7–9 months.
It varies by sector, but the general concept is that stocks move about 1 year in advance.
Bubble stocks move based on assumptions of being priced in several years in advance;
some create fake books based on a 10-year outlook,
and some are infinite bubbles of 20 years lol.
However, the money earned 10 years ago compared to the money earned until now shows a huge lead,
yet the stock price has only slightly surpassed its intraday high from 2015.
The market keeps showing us this: if a stock has been suppressed for a long time like this, even if you got stuck at the intraday high from 10 years ago (which was somewhat thematic at the time),
you will eventually reach your break-even point.