Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
blogmaverick.com
Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#2> Because the only thing worse than a market with collapsing valuations is a market with no valuations and no liquidity.
> In the tech bubble it was Broadcast.com, AOL, Netscape, etc. Today its, Uber, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Umm I think there certainly is value in Facebook and all their apps of WhatsApp, Instagram and FaceBook. Just link bait article to me.
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#3> Because the only thing worse than a market with collapsing valuations is a market with no valuations and no liquidity. > In the tech bubble it was Broadcast.com, AOL, Netscape, etc. Today its, Uber, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Umm I think there certainly is value in Facebook and all their apps of WhatsApp, Instagram and FaceBook. Just link bait article to me.
Yeah, how does Uber not have real value?
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#4Anyone have any evidence of traction for equity crowdfunding products? My ignorance over anything, but I wasn't under the impression that these had significant penetration (or penetration anywhere close to that of the tech stocks in the late 90s)
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#5It is only worse for those people with enough capital to invest in the private market.
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#6>You couldn’t go anywhere without people talking about the stock market. Everyone was in or new someone who was in. There were hundreds of companies that were coming public and could easily be bought and sold. You just pick a stock and buy it. Then you pray it goes up. Which most days it did.
So people trading stocks without understanding the business or how the valuation of that stock was related to a core business. But simply pumping money into a market causes a correction eventually right? To re-allign its value against the actual value?
Nope wrong author goes on to talk about how tech business has imaginary worth.
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#7> Because the only thing worse than a market with collapsing valuations is a market with no valuations and no liquidity. > In the tech bubble it was Broadcast.com, AOL, Netscape, etc. Today its, Uber, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Umm I think there certainly is value in Facebook and all their apps of WhatsApp, Instagram and FaceBook. Just link bait article to me.
Yeah, how does Uber not have real value?
I don't think that's the point. Uber is just going to decrease in value to some extent if the bubble bursts. Some companies, like amazon, survived the dot.com and became a phoenix. Uber would likely do the same, but it would just face some adversity in a turbulent credit market, maybe have to IPO earlier than it would like, etc.
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#8> Because the only thing worse than a market with collapsing valuations is a market with no valuations and no liquidity. > In the tech bubble it was Broadcast.com, AOL, Netscape, etc. Today its, Uber, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Umm I think there certainly is value in Facebook and all their apps of WhatsApp, Instagram and FaceBook. Just link bait article to me.
The value of FaceBook acquisitions like WhatsApp and Instagram is somewhat recursive though, having been set by Facebook itself when it purchased them mostly based on the value of its own stock (itself a bet on future profits).
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#9> Because the only thing worse than a market with collapsing valuations is a market with no valuations and no liquidity. > In the tech bubble it was Broadcast.com, AOL, Netscape, etc. Today its, Uber, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Umm I think there certainly is value in Facebook and all their apps of WhatsApp, Instagram and FaceBook. Just link bait article to me.
I agree, it seems a bit like link bait. From what I understood, though, the author's point has some merit -- in stocks, you are at least always able to cash out, to change your mind, to have new priorities. In the modern form of start-up investing, your fate becomes inextricably bound with that of the start-up, with your only options being an eventual pay-out or loss of your investment. I'm not saying I think this indicates anything about a "bubble," just that (if I understood the article correctly) there is a distinct difference between the value modern start-ups provide and the value that a public investment provides.
Re: Why This Tech Bubble Is Worse Than 2000
#10Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the 225,000 angel investors the author counts are all going bust. Their investments are illiquid and effectively worthless. How is this scenario worse than that of the late '90s, when the bubble affected the public market, and millions of people's investments evaporated overnight?