4 ms·
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
by magicmu 11y ago
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.
- matwood 11y agoYou are basically talking about risk vs. reward, and bring up an interesting point. In the original tech bubble of 2000 the broad market ended up participating in highly risky investments without fully understanding the risk because every company was IPOing. It is a much different environment today where the majority of the very high early risk is being shouldered by private investment. IMHO, this is how it should be and in no way is nearly as bad as the 2000 bubble.