Live data from Hacker News

Money Is Pouring into Tech Like It’s 1999, and That's Not Good

wired.com

61–64 of 64 posts

Re: Money Is Pouring into Tech Like It’s 1999, and That's Not Good

#61
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private money doesn't (I hope) break the economy in the same way that public money can. If VCs go bust there are ramifications, but these markets are not that liquid. There aren't margin calls going off and forcing fire sales. Too many people trying to compare today's bubble to the first bubble are making the mistake of assuming that it's being led by tech. It isn't. The current "tech bubble" is just one of multipl…

>> "The current "tech bubble" is just one of multiple bubbles being driven by an even larger bubble in public equities..." This is interesting. Could you elaborate on some of the other sub-bubbles? Not being facetious, am really curious.

There is a real-estate / state government sourced investment bubble in China ATM.

In short, the Chinese federal government sets GDP growth targets for each and every state. Every state is therefore obligated to meet these targets. Post 2009, real GDP growth has been underperforming, and more of the remaining GDP has to be made up for in infrastructure spending (which includes building apartments, airports, and the usual roads, bridges rails etc on debt). This is visible in various "ghost" cities and malls which have popped up recently (in addition to undercapacity airports and elaborate train stations). This in itself isn't necessarily a problem. The problem comes in when increasingly, a large amount of the money the states are lending is coming from "shadow loans" (unregulated black-market loans, analogous to sub-prime mortgages (kindof)) because regular forms of more legitimate financing have dried for these purposes (too much infrastructure already).

This is simultaneously fueled by difficulties rich Chinese have in being able to invest abroad, leaving condos in these ghost cities being owned, and purchased by investors' excess capital as assets (similar to a real estate bubble as what happened in Dubai a few years ago).

This excess capital, sourced from underperforming Chinese states leaking over to other markets, have been responsible for local real estate bubbling over in major cities like London, Vancouver, San Francisco, New York, etc by foreign nationals buying these properties as investments as a way to shelter money. It's very likely this capital is also indirectly being displayed in public equity markets.

(note: this is my own analysis of several articles and reports I read, so take it with a grain of salt)

Re: Money Is Pouring into Tech Like It’s 1999, and That's Not Good

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't comment on Alibaba's financials. I simply responded to the statement that "there's not a lot of splashy IPOs happening," which I found somewhat amusing in light of the fact that the arguably "splashiest" IPO just took place. That said, Alibaba's profitability and PE ratio compared to Amazon is meaningless in the context of a bubble discussion. A bubble does not merely consist of unprofitable companies becomi…

If Amazon's stock price fell by 25%, and Alibaba's did the same, as an Alibaba shareholder would you take comfort in the fact that Alibaba still has a PE ratio one tenth Amazon's? Of course not. Actually, yes, I would take comfort in that fact. It would mean that Alibaba was far more likely to recover its value.

> It would mean that Alibaba was far more likely to recover its value.

You seem to misunderstand what the PE ratio actually represents.

As an experiment, I'd suggest you test your hypothesis against actual market data. Hint: you will have no problem finding stocks with higher than industry average PE ratios pre-2008 crash that have significantly outperformed their lower PE ratio counterparts since the market bottom in 2009.

Re: Money Is Pouring into Tech Like It’s 1999, and That's Not Good

#63
Has anyone here personally lived, worked, and saw the dot com boom and bust in Silicon Valley? More so, do you happen to currently live and work here still?

I have, and although I don't think the current tech boom is as bubbly as the late 90's, I do see a lot of similarities in the area. Traffic, though, is no where near as bad as it was back then. But, it's getting there. However, construction is at an all time boom. I have never seen more cranes nor construction in SF ever. I think we are back to heady times, and I would be really cautious as an investor in the next 2 years.

Re: Money Is Pouring into Tech Like It’s 1999, and That's Not Good

#64
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I'd like to say that I don't care one whit if a bunch of rich people suddenly loose their money, but if history has anything to show, it's that they'll somehow figure out a way to make the rest of us feel the pain too." Definitely. The hiring market in our industry is _on fire_ right now, we are treated well, paid fairly, etc. When the hard times come, it might be a little less cushy to be an engineer/data scient…

It's not cushy (to be an engineer). IT in it's current form is demanding (I like the "intense 24/7 activity" phrase). We are paid well for a reason and ofc it MAY feel cushy when you are on top of things. But this requires more than 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and some non-IT hobbies. I am even arguing on the side of "people just applying stuff" and ofc. the ones creating IT for them to use: No time to trim the bear…

> IT in it's current form is demanding (I like the "intense 24/7 activity" phrase). We are paid well for a reason and ofc it MAY feel cushy when you are on top of things. But this requires more than 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and some non-IT hobbies.

I disagree with this (and it's certainly not my experience). If you put in these hours, on average you'll likely be better compensated, but you can very much make quite a lot of money in the objective and relative (to everyone else) sense without putting in absurd hours.

Post reply on HN