This demonstrates an important lesson in long-term investing: You don't have to get the timing right on a high-quality stock. If the business is fundamentally strong, patient conviction and a long-term horizon will ultimately conquer even the worst possible start.

Your point is well taken, and part of being a high-quality stock could be understood to include a reasonable valuation, but that's an important qualifier.

I remember at the time, as a relatively young inexperienced investor, after realizing that some of my investments were actually bad speculations (i.e. Ballard), for a short time falling for the relative valuation viewpoint and thinking that some of the tech titans would be good investments because they were such great businesses, not realizing just how long it would take to overcome PE 50 even if the business continued to be great for the coming decades.

Valuation matters. I know I'm preaching to the choir. :) Cisco still hasn't passed it's year 2000 high. They do pay a dividend these days, so there has been some cash flow from it, but adjusted for inflation it's been a monstrously bad investment even while being a good-great company the whole time.