41–50 of 128 posts
It's time for a new term: a "Pegasus" (a different kind of mythical horse than a unicorn): https://twitter.com/jgrahamc/status/658702918200250368 Pegasus (n) 1. Mythical winged horse; 2. Silicon Valley 'unicorn' with high gross margin. i.e. one that might actually take off.
Flying high on wings of wax - until the sun gets too hot.
it's ending again? Wasn't it supposed to end the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that? When is google going to just drop news.google.com and have an algorithm write the same stories over every year? Next up: The next [pick top product] killer! you won't believe how [pick new or underdog product] is going to completely replace [pick top product] due to it's [pick random feature in [pick new…
Funny, folks used the same line of reasoning prior to the real estate bubble popping in 2007-2008. But, that doesn't stop the Pollyanna's...
If Fidelity just did a 25% write down on SnapChat on the most senior portion of a $600m investment round, and assuming that Fidelity has at least a 1x liquidity pref/ratchet, then SnapChat is now valued at $462M floor, not $15 billion.
it's ending again? Wasn't it supposed to end the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that? When is google going to just drop news.google.com and have an algorithm write the same stories over every year? Next up: The next [pick top product] killer! you won't believe how [pick new or underdog product] is going to completely replace [pick top product] due to it's [pick random feature in [pick new…
You're also trusting too much in Twitter tech celebrities.
For those of you too young to remember, there were numerous articles written about the bubble bursting before it finally did in 2000-01. It wasn't a surprise that it did, just that no one knew precisely when it would. My point is that arguing that people have said this bubble was about to burst and that it hasn't yet isn't an argument that it won't.
And some of those articles were from 1998 . It can take a long time for a bubble to burst. I remember hearing about the housing bubble in 2001. It even made the front cover of the Economist in 2005. As Keanes said "The market can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent".
For those of you too young to remember, there were numerous articles written about the bubble bursting before it finally did in 2000-01. It wasn't a surprise that it did, just that no one knew precisely when it would. My point is that arguing that people have said this bubble was about to burst and that it hasn't yet isn't an argument that it won't.
The problem with this type of reasoning is that there are always analysts predicting a bear market. Articles arguing as such come out every day. So it's easy to find an article from the late 90s that said a crash is coming and feel vindicated that that person was right among so many fools. Perhaps that analyst was brilliant and his argument was flawlessly researched, but anyone can build a bubble story over rising P/…
Until then (and as was said to me at the height of the dot-com bubble by someone who was then three times my age[2]): enjoy the party -- but dance close to the door!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a rule, bubbles only burst after everybody gives up on claiming they will.
Because that's when even the bears have been stopped into longs.
And, probably, more reasons. That's one contrary indicator that seems to be very reliable.
Sam Altman has already explained why late-stage private valuations -- but not earlier-stage or public valuations -- are bubble-like right now: >To summarize: there does not appear to be a tech bubble in the public markets. There does not appear to be a bubble in early or mid stages of the private markets. There does appear to be a bubble in the late-stage private companies, but that’s because people are misunderstand…
There is a bubble at the seed stage. There are tons of people (accredited investors) investing that stage and tons of incubators/accelerators to help introduce those startups to those investors. Platforms like Angel list are helping fund allot more companies at the seed stage by having syndicates. Now even non-accredited investors will be able to invest in startups[1]. So the seed stage is bubbling up. http://www.usn…
The seed stage is increasingly crowded, but IMO that's a good thing.
For those of you too young to remember, there were numerous articles written about the bubble bursting before it finally did in 2000-01. It wasn't a surprise that it did, just that no one knew precisely when it would. My point is that arguing that people have said this bubble was about to burst and that it hasn't yet isn't an argument that it won't.
And some of those articles were from 1998 . It can take a long time for a bubble to burst. I remember hearing about the housing bubble in 2001. It even made the front cover of the Economist in 2005. As Keanes said "The market can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent".
People are quick to downvote and say you're crazy, but often, you're just early. And it can definitely take time for public opinion (which drives things like stock) to catch up.
Fidelity has just marked its shares down from $30.72 at the end of June to $22.91 for the end of September. To be fair, I think these markdowns have more to do with who is investing than the companies themselves. VC's do portfolio valuations much less frequently than mutual funds, PE firms or hedge funds do and they give less negative scrutiny to the valuation than the aforementioned firms do, the reason for this....…
Can you explain where large mutual funds get the money that they invest in the late rounds of these private companies? Is it mostly institutional/pension/retirement funds?
Who is losing when Fidelity writes down a late stage investment in a private company? I'm assuming the fund manager, but do the investors lose as well, or will they only lose if it causes a panic/bank rush with all investors clamoring to withdraw from the fund asap?