Tech Stocks Roar Again in Faint Echo of 2000 Msn

I scroll my eyes as these tortured attempts to depict parallels that aren't even superficially similar. 2000 was an IPO bubble of companies that had no acquirement, no prospect of revenue and no business plan. Analysts went out of their way to justify valuations by inventing new metrics like revenue-to-price multipliers. What'southward dissimilar today is that the likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon are money-making machines on a scale probably non matched since at least the era of Standard Oil, the 19th century railroad tycoons and other industrialists like Carnegie. I mean, Apple is trading at a P/E of less than nineteen and it has a market cap of $842B. That is listen-extraordinary just not at all outrageous. In 2000 the tech IPO chimera burst. In 2007 the subprime disaster came crashing down. It is absolutely certain there will be another downturn in the future only at this indicate I accept no idea what the adjacent trigger volition be. My best guess is something to do with China. This could have many forms. Some think that the Chinese economic system is a house of cards. In that location has clearly been a flight of capital from China. Who knows where this ends? Also, Chinese coin in particular has been flooding into Western existent estate markets. This too may come to a head. Or it could exist something to do with N Korea or fifty-fifty Iran. Or populists movements may drive Western governments to crack down on what they meet as excessive power by the large tech companies, particularly in the European union. Or a ramble crisis instigated past our current lunatic-in-master. Whatever the instance I actually don't see whatever pregnant parallels to 2000.

For what it's worth, in financial circles it is too known every bit "this time it'south dissimilar". Now I don't have detailed statistics with me to do a comparison. Just, when you have stocks like SNAP with no revenue getting away with selling non-voting raises 3.5 billion at 20 billion market cap, at that place is something wrong. It's not the strongest names which demand to drag down the marketplace, it'south the weakest ones. Then you have Softbank raising tons of coin to invest in tech: https://www.recode.net/2017/10/nineteen/16506218/softbank-new-inve... Though I agree this time the bubble might non be the tech IPO rather the cheap capital effectually the world. That doesn't mean tech stocks will exist insulated. Tech stocks might come across a large hit, something comparable to the 2000 bust days.

I'm not sure "this time it's dissimilar" really applies to the stock market at the moment. The valuations seem a scrap steep merely not that out of line with history given the low interest rates. At that place accept ever been companies similar Snap where it'southward unclear if they'll get in or not. Now cryptocurrencies do seem to fit the "this fourth dimension it'south different" model.

Cryptocurrencies are dissimilar because they allow the average investor to get involved in early on stage high growth potential asset, which was traditionally limited just to VC'southward and other accredited investors. This is why they are much probable to move in bursts as opposed to belatedly phase stocks. Each burst can be seen as an equivalent as achieving a new series of financing in VC

You realise that anti-SNAP thing was literally the same argument people used on FB when they floated, right?

Facebook had two classes - A with 1 vote and B with 10 votes. In IPO they offered class A. Snap has A, B and C. They offered A which has zero voting rights. Facebook tried to get another construction in place this twelvemonth but dropped it. So, not literally the same argument.

Truthful, simply the financial side is pretty much the same. Additionally, the preferred holdings in Facebook's example make the divergence betwixt the 1 vote class A and a hypothetical nix vote class somewhat moot (at the moment anyway).

Current Bitcoin / ICO / cryptocurrencies draw more similarity to 2000 Dot Com Mania than current tech bluechips with solid earnings. >> What's dissimilar today is that the likes of Apple tree, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon are money-making machines on a scale probably not matched since at least the era of Standard Oil, the 19th century railroad tycoons and other industrialists like Carnegie. During Standard Oil times at that place were country-barrier, but nowadays tech monopolies can virtually make coin revenue enhancement gratuitous from those foreign countries they may non even have an office in.

My question is, when the crypto market place corrects, will it spark a broader tech pullback? The big 4 volition be fine, simply lots of unprofitable tech companies will be vulnerable.

Yeah, just like the final Dot com bubble when information technology bursted some traditional companies didn't follow, e.g those components of Berkshire Hathaway. My guess is AAPL, AMZN, INTC, GOOG, MSFT should all exist pretty safe. Tin't be said for Snap, FB, NFLX, TSLA, NVDA. I would love to see TSLA succeed though only it has lots of debts.

I'm guessing the argument is that some pregnant portion of the demand for NVDA parts is due to crypto mining (I don't know how significant). If you imagine that demand dying down so NVDA doesn't look every bit skilful I suppose. Their products are all the same adept though and there was enough of demand for them earlier crypto mining and speculation became a factor.

Take a look at the markets, many cryptocurrencies have corrected difficult in the past couple of months. Many trade 50% below their peak price (ratio to BTC not USD) correct at present. Cryptocurrency markets are ruthlessly efficient

Anti-trust or a heavy wave of regulations, like what happened to Microsoft decades agone, is a pregnant adventure. Given the proceedings of the Mueller investigation, information technology's certainly not out of the realm of possibilities for new laws governing cyberspace advertising.

Right. In that location absolutely is a bubble in tech right now, but it's a much much smaller part of the total tech industry than it was in 2000. Legitimate valuation of tech is at present in the trillions, and well earned. Tech volition never crash to the degree that it did in 2000. A lot of people might cease up without jobs, just information technology'south not going to cause a huge recession the mode the dot com bosom did.

> 2000 was an IPO chimera of companies that had no revenue, no prospect of revenue and no business plan. That's half myth. Nearly of the Nasdaq'southward value aggrandizement was from companies with substantial revenue, not a thousand DrKoop.com or Pets.com companies. Just the overvaluation past Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, Sun, Nortel, Lucent, Intel, AOL, Yahoo ($one.5 to $2 trillion in overvaluation) - was more than what all the dotcom IPO companies were worth combined. About of the largest tech market cap companies of 2000 had real revenue. Microsoft was sporting a ~l-65 PE ratio in 1999/2000. AOL was normally trading for 150 to 200 times earnings, with $viii billion in annualized revenue and over a billion in annualized profit, growing at 100% yr over year circa mid 2000. Cisco was solidly profitable, had $xvi-$twenty billion in annualized acquirement and was growing extremely fast. It produced the single largest market cap in history upwards to that point. Oracle was unremarkably trading at 100 times earnings. Just the Cisco overvaluation alone, at $450 billion requite or have, was worth more than near of the nothing revenue style dotcom companies combined (companies like Geocities, TheGlobe, etc). At that place is in one case once more trillions of dollars in overvaluation among today's largest tech companies. You tin hands run across that when you look at how they've inflated based on the marketplace moving rather than earnings the last three or four years. For case, Microsoft's valuation tripled over five years on the back of between nix and very piddling earnings growth. Assess Amazon's valuation based on income. Good luck. Netflix? 150-200 PE ratio has been typical. Activision is worth $50 billion, trading at 45-50 times earnings, with typical 7%-10% style income growth. Cisco's valuation has nearly doubled in five years, despite very little income or business growth. Alibaba is trading for 50-60 times earnings. Salesforce.com is trading for... oh geez, 400 times concluding fiscal year's earnings, and a lot more than that based on the last four quarters. Oracle'southward stock is upwardly by nearly i/3 in the final yr, while its concern tin can't get beyond where it was in 2015. VMWare has a ~43 PE ratio, and is lucky if they can generate 10% growth at this signal. Intel has doubled in v years, with minimum income growth. nVidia is trading for 60 times earnings. Sales might grow fifteen%-20% in the coming twelvemonth, which caps what their earnings growth is likely to exercise equally well. Tesla'due south valuation? Ha. Twitter & Snapchat, ~$35 billion in combined market value, neither take ever earned a turn a profit. Workday has never earned a profit. $22 billion valuation. In fact their losses just go along growing past the year, over 25% of revenue equivalent for their last fiscal twelvemonth at $400 1000000 in negative net income. Revenue most doubled, losses about doubled, versus 2015. This is a visitor that loses between i/2 and 2/3 of its market cap in the next downturn every bit they're forced to slash the drain out of desperation and the juiced growth implodes with it. AMD, the poster kid for showing up during market bubbles, has an $eleven billion market cap and hasn't earned a profit in ... who remembers when. Their stock went up half-dozen-7 fold on hype, while they can't even get sales dorsum to 2022 levels. Splunk, $9 billion market cap. This is a company that bleeds scarlet ink by the barrel ($800+ million in losses the last three years, on $2 billion in sales). Oh but they're growing fast so information technology's ok? It won't be ok when the music stops and they take to cap the red ink, and so the growth that's artificially juiced past that goes with it. Broadcom, l times forward earnings, lucky if their growth hits 15% in the next year. Texas Instruments. Goose egg growth for years. The stock is upwardly roughly 40% in the last year. Pure multiple expansion. Priceline.com, forty-45 PE ratio, lucky if they can hitting x% fashion growth in a given twelvemonth since 2013. Stock is upwardly 50% since 2014, while earnings are still below that level. This list merely keeps going. Is it as bad equally 2000? No, information technology'south simply extremely bad today, non nevertheless dotcom bubble days bad.

Your point isn't without merit but a little overstated. A couple of points: > Microsoft was sporting a ~50-65 PE ratio in 1999/2000. Today'southward Human foot: MSFT: 28.35 GOOG: 34.74 AAPL: 18.55 FB: 38.64 CSCO: 18.08 ORCL: 22.18 T: sixteen.33 VZ: 12.54 CMCSA: 17.56 INTC: fifteen.56 As you say at that place are some outliers too: NVDA: 57.80 TSLA: -- AMZN: 277.89 NFLX: 201.87 Now I went through a list of the largest tech companies to produce the above list. What this seems to show is that the sector as a whole isn't overvaluaed, at least in terms of earnings. As for the outliers, they're all pretty much examples of large bets on the future of the various companies: - Nvidia seems to be well placed for GPU driven ML - Tesla is a bet on bombardment tech and cocky-driving cars - Netflix is a bet on Netflix dominated global on-need amusement and distribution (they're now in all but four countries) - Amazon is of form a bet on owning the online retail sector Like whatsoever bet some volition pay off and some won't. > This list just keeps going. See now that's a chip of a stretch.

It's not a stretch, the list of companies whose valuations have dramatically increased with betwixt nil and very little growth, is a long one. That'south the office where the market has kicked into chimera valuation territory, when you're primarily seeing multiple expansion driving xl% or 100% type gains. Microsoft hasn't been able to abound earnings for years. Why do they have a 30 style PE ratio? Why did their stock triple on zero earnings growth? Comparison their growth today versus the multiple, against 2000'southward valuation, today's value suggestion is drastically worse. Or spread it out, compare 1995-2000 MSFT growth, with the multiple they had at the terminate of that five years, versus 2012-2017 growth and the multiple they have now.

Who's to say they weren't undervalued previously? As for Microsoft specifically, information technology'south run largely coincided with Satya Nadella succeeding the largely lackluster Baller. Coincidence?

Microsoft all the same dominates a huge Software market - is at that place a viable competitor for the Office suite? And Azure is doing pretty well too - it'due south a 3 equus caballus race with AWS and Google, and at that place does non necessarily have to exist a single long term winner.

Looking at the charts back to 2015, Microsoft has grew earnings pretty steadily. I believe they aspect it to pushing everyone to the cloud.

I idea I was smart in the run-up to 2000 by not investing in dotcom companies with no business concern plan, simply in companies with real profits and real businesses, similar Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, AOL, etc. I got hammered anyway equally these got caught in the secondary die-off, because a big chunk of their sales were to dotcoms, and those sales disappeared.

Devils advocate hither. So the PE ratio is absurdly high for many stocks... and then what? stocks are not like clothes or food. yous don't get a fraction of their turn a profit/earnings for your stock (ok dividends is similar that a little, i concede) people volition proceed to pay college prices with no regard to whether its "expensive" if they experience confident in the economy. And ultimately if they experience a greater fool volition buy them in the future.

>> people will proceed to pay higher prices Why are y'all sure if that? The opposite is true. At some point stockholders volition get afraid and pull dorsum. The question is how much, and who gets injure the virtually. I think the betoken of the parent comment isn't that a loftier PE ratio is inherently bad, simply that these stocks are more highly valued relative to revenue than stocks usually are.

> are money-making machines And they are valued as money making machines. Amazon'due south profit margin is now just 0.59%. When economy hits downturn, it will hit Amazons profits and valuation. It took viii years for Amazon to return back to its 2000 valuations afterward crash.

Amazon tin can turn up and downwards their turn a profit whenever they similar. They have proven it and the market knows it.

Market knows information technology = it's already in the price. Market bubbles are not caused by success or failure of the companies themselves. They are acquired by overpricing the the companies. No matter how adept the company is, it can exist e'er overvalueud.

Apple FY 2022 results were worse than FY 2015. Yet share price appreciated. Just sayin. The others yes they are growing.

The coming correction is going to be a big ane! Just wait at what the stock marketplace has done since the election. The DJIA went from xviii,000 to almost 24,000. That's a 33% increase in a year! The skilful news is that if you've been in the market for a while, you're way up anyways. The x-xx% correction will come up giving yous an opportunity to buy depression once more. And then in a decade we'll repeat everything again!

The coming correction is going to be a big 1! <> 10-twenty% correction will come giving y'all an opportunity to purchase low over again Honestly, I wouldn't consider a twenty% correction big, if you're upward 33% in the final 12 months.

By results dont predict the hereafter. The electric current boom since 2011 could hands extend for another decade, just similar the blast from 1980-1990. If you felt there was going to be a correction and so simply because "its due" you would accept missed the huge boom from 1990-1999.

This is very true and why I'm staying in the market. The only reason why I think we're due for a correction is that PE ratios and the similar seem out of wack. But you lot are right, this could keep going for a long time and maybe the economic system would grow enough to starting time to justify the stock prices.

If y'all are so certain, are you putting your money towards this and betting on your assumptions being correct?

Certain at that place volition be a marketplace bike? Of grade? Certain when it will happen? Hell no! I'chiliad fully in the market with zero intention of trying to time anything. Information technology volition go downward and support. That much is sure. I'k ready to ride it out!

In that location is no wheel. It'due south a chaotic system, which is why "technical assay" is a farce for fools. (A bike implies a predictable periodicity, and there is none.)

Anyone can predict there will be an inevitable downturn in the future. In fact well-nigh people recall at that place will be one for sure. it could be ten,20, or 100 years downwards the line. But if yous arent predicting when, your prediction isnt very credible.

> But if you arent predicting when, your prediction isnt very credible. It is the exact contrary: if you are actually predicting "when", then your prediction isn't very credible. Perhaps you meant useful instead? Anyways, all we tin practice is picket external forces. When will the Chinese nugget bubble popular? When volition the fed raise involvement rates? If those things happen, volition that take other markets downwards with information technology?

I would say it's both (or neither): if you are ever predicting disaster, then your predictions are neither useful nor apparent, since you lot will exist incorrect most of the time as the long-term trend of the market is upward.

The chance of a crash sometime in the future is 100%. That is credible. Those predictions are completely credible for what about people accept as apparent, they just aren't very useful. Markets that rise just because of inflation and population growth aren't necessarily healthy in the long term. The electric current great consistent operation of index funds suggests something is upwardly.

2000s was a time when even penny stocks that did similar stuff to real company's, they would go upward big merely from stock board members pumping them upward

bradenscoged1999.blogspot.com

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15577347

Share this post