Even if there was a bubble, Entrepreneurs are the ones vending so it makes sense to sell in an overpriced market. If you're looking at selling your company whe

Even if there was a bubble, Entrepreneurs are the ones vending so it makes sense to sell in an overpriced market. If you're looking at selling your company when you retire or handing the large majority of it to your heirs then the bubble is irrelevant and you should focus on profit. (There could possibly be some tax benefits to transferring to heirs during a period of low valuations) If you're looking to increase your liquid assets in the next 3 years it may be an idea to sell now (during a purported bubble) and diversify into more liquid assets. Asset bubbles in the tech startup sector are primarily detrimental to VCs and their LPs. It could also be detrimental to startups with exits in the next 3 years (assuming the 'bubble' exists, and 'pops' with in the next 3 years) if your founding a company focused on profits it's irrelevant and if you're founding a company that will take VC you will benefit greatly from a bubble. The only people that a bubble affects negatively are those planning an exit in the next 3 years and those buying tech startup stock. As a founder most of the bubble effects are positive if you can take advantage of them today. If there is an asset bubble in VC funded tech startups it comes from VCs raising too much from their LPs and then having to spend it somehow and taking the easy route of spending more per startup rather than hiring more analysts to fund more companies. The herd mentality doesn't help reduce the bubble and I think that the perception of a bubble comes from the valuations reached by companies that every VC wants a piece of the action, thankfully this behavior leaves lots of really great investments at low prices, so there should be some great opportunities out there for VCs willing to stray from the herd. (I'm channeling buffet here 'be cautious when everyone else is greedy and be greedy when everyone else is cautious') I think a large part of the increase in valuations that VCs see is due to incubators weeding out the pets.com and the VCs seeing companies at a more mature stage due to decreased capital requirements for a tech startup. Honestly, a shitty desktop PC with an SSD will run circles around a $100,000 DB server from 1999. If you can turn a profit with one server EC2 will let you scale infinitely with out needing any VC, hence Entrepreneurs don't NEED to take VC, hence they are in a much better position to negotiate an increased valuation. Note: I don't think a bubble exists in the sector as a whole and is limited to the companies that every VC wants a piece of. Due to VC being a private market with private financials it's hard to evaluate these bubble claims independently. I'd love to look at the 10Q equivalents of the portfolio companies of people claiming a bubble.