Valuation is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the case of the stock market, the buyer beholder. That concept continues to elude so many people when they try to figure out how to value this stock market.

In the last 24 hours, I have seen a number of articles that Tesla's (TSLA) market capitalization is now larger than Ford Motor's (F) and how ridiculous that is given that Ford's immensely profitable and Tesla's losing a fortune. Ford produced 3.2 million cars last year; Tesla made 83,000. In the last five years, Ford has made $26 billion, while Tesla has lost $2.3 billion, according to Bloomberg.

So how in heck can Tesla's stock be worth more than Ford's?

You know how people always say there are no such thing as stupid questions, just stupid answers?

Actually, I think in this case it is a stupid question because Tesla isn't worth more than Ford. It's just that there are institutions willing to pay more for Tesla than for Ford and that's the key issue here, not the capitalization itself.

Let me explain by unpeeling the onion on both stocks, because both contribute to the capitalization conundrum.

First, let's compare Ford with Ford. Four years ago, Ford's market capitalization stood at $60 billion. Today it's at $45 billion. But four years ago, Ford had revenues of $146 billion and last year it had revenues of $151 billion. Ford's gross profit last year? $16.3 billion. Four years ago? $18.8 billion. Ford's earnings back then? $l.90 per share. Last year? $1.74.

Basically flat revenues and down earnings. This during a fairly decent economic expansion. Not only that, but given how weak sales have been this year and how many incentives the auto companies have offered to sell vehicles, it is entirely possible that we are at peak auto sales. If that's the case, then the 2016 numbers will not be bested and Ford could have a down year.

So, the question is, how much would you pay for a company that has had pretty flat sales and disappointingly down earnings over the last four years and may be on the verge of another earnings swoon?

The answer?

You would pay very little for that earnings stream. And that's why Ford Motor, selling at 6x earnings, is among the cheapest stocks in the entire S&P 500, with General Motors (GM) at 5x earnings being one of the few that's even less expensive. That's because of the way the money management business works. Most money managers are growth oriented. From those stats, Ford is clearly a no-growth company. Therefore, any growth manager would pay nothing for Ford. It's just not going to be owned because it does not have any growth characteristics. Others would say that if Ford's earnings are peaking, that price to earnings multiple is deceptive. The earnings will nosedive and the price to earnings multiple will go sky-high, revealing it as a very expensive stock.

Now, how about Tesla? OK, this company only seems to know how to lose money. It lost 48 cents a share four years ago. Last year it lost more than $5. Yet during that time period it went from $18 billion in market cap to $49 billion.

How is that possible?

Because of its revenue growth. It went from $2 billion to $7 billion.

Now, go back to the growth manager who sneers at Ford. He takes one look at that revenue growth and he says, "I have to have this stock." He is not deterred by the losses because he says, "Judging by those revenues, there is a relentless demand for what Tesla makes." Therefore, if Tesla doesn't run out of money, it can keep making cars and charging for them and eventually it will make a fortune.

Accent on "eventually."

Do these growth managers care one whit that Ford sold 3.2 million cars last year while Tesla sold 83,000? No, not at all. What they care about is that Tesla just announced that it sold 25,000 cars last quarter and will most likely sell more and more each quarter forward, making last year's sales look very small.

How about Ford's 5% yield? To growth-stock addicts, that's a sign that Ford doesn't have enough growth, so it returns money to its shareholders. Tesla needs every dime because it has so much demand.

Which brings us to the big issue of solvency. Until last week, those who don't like Tesla, and that's a substantial cohort, have been putting their money where their mouth is and have shorted an astounding 26% of the float, or what trades. The theory behind most of the short-selling? A combination of the "it can't be bigger than Ford" valuation logic and the fact that Tesla may never get to the promised land of profitability because it loses so much money.

But last week, Tesla raised a lot of money in the equity market and a gigantic Chinese conglomerate, Tencent, wrote a check to Tesla for $1.8 billion to get 5% of the company. Since then, justifiably, the stock's been off to the races because that money and the size of the investor allow the entrepreneurial CEO Elon Musk plenty of breathing room to get to his goal of producing 500,000 cars a year by the end of 2018. No wonder he tweeted out, "stormy weather in shortville." If he hits that goal, it would be amazing.

And if he doesn't? Maybe Musk will do it the next year, or the year after. The buyers of Tesla's stock will not mind. They believe there will be even more buyers as time marches on and they are in on a real good thing because he can always tap the equity market for even more money and growth stock buyers and maybe even Tencent will lap it up.

I know what you are thinking. You are thinking Tesla doesn't deserve that market capitalization because it's never made money and it seems to have no intention to. Even Amazon (AMZN) , the example people like to hold as the one that didn't make money for years, targeted cash flow. Tesla's targeting cars, for heaven's sake. Yep, this is one of those cases right out of Unforgiven where Clint Eastwood says, "Deserves has nothing to do with it."

Hey, and who is to judge? IBM's (IBM) market capitalization is $164 billion. Apple's (AAPL) is $759 billion. But 15 years ago, IBM's market cap was $133 billion and Apple's was $5 billion. If I had told you 15 years ago that Apple's market cap would one day be 4½ times the size of IBM's market cap, you would've just laughed in my face. (Apple is part of TheStreet's Action Alerts PLUS portfolio.)

So now let's step back and analyze the entire stock market through this prism. First, stocks are the sum of what investors are willing to pay for future sales and earnings. But some investors really only care about sales growth now, betting earnings growth will be later. Those are the ones who buy Tesla and many other growth stocks that seem overvalued to you.

Second, the "market" itself is really a bad word. We hear the market's resilient because it rallied again today off the lows, but today the buyers swept in and bought stocks that were very different yesterday. There is no real "market." There are stocks like Tesla and stocks like Ford and a ton in between.

Third, you can't bet against a company just because it "seems" overvalued. Who are you to determine that? And maybe one day, in the long run, Tesla will crash and burn. But do you have that staying power, or is this one of those John Maynard Keynes situations, where, as the greatest economist of all time, he said, "in the long run, we are all dead."

Hey, Tesla's not been my cup of tea. I have disciplines. It doesn't fit my disciplines. Those disciplines kept me out of a great stock. So be it. Those disciplines have kept me out of a lot of situations that suddenly did crash and burn.

But the bottom line is, stop being hung up on the valuations of individual stocks. There are money managers willing to pay any price for growth. Right now Tesla and a bunch of other stocks, particularly many involved with biotech and social, mobile and cloud potential, are being bid up by these growth managers. If they are right, they will get more money in and they will continue to buy their favorites, no doubt including Tesla. So get over it. That theory of valuation and six bucks will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee. And let's leave it at that.