4 ms·

I'm getting tired of hearing people claim we're in a bubble, especially when people cite the Instagram deal. Instagram didn't have any revenues? So what. The va

I'm getting tired of hearing people claim we're in a bubble, especially when people cite the Instagram deal. Instagram didn't have any revenues? So what. The value of a company is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Facebook's killer feature is their photo sharing. Given Instagram's surging popularity and mobile dominance, Zuckerburg saw Instagram as a threat, especially if Instagram fell into the hands of a competitor, like Twitter. So Zuck pulled out FB's wallet and scooped up Instagram. I've been hearing people say we're in a bubble for at least 2-3 years now, yet venture firms are raising new funds every week. Acquisitions are happening every day, IPO's are ramping up again. Unlike the companies of the DotCom bubble, companies going public today have real business models, with real revenues, and most of them are already profitable. In 2000 there were companies going public that were still trying to figure out what their business model actually was. I guarantee you'd never see that today. Sure, it may seem like it's easier to raise seed funding nowadays, but that's thanks to all the incubators that have popped up and the funding model pioneered by YC. That doesn't mean we're in a bubble. Angel Investors simply found a way to make seed funding scale in a way that reduces risk. We're not in a bubble, and no, I have nothing to gain from saying that.

kls 14y ago
Right, some of the business going public at that time seemed like they where written on a napkin two nights before. They where not even at the pivot stage. It was absolutely insane at the time and everyone knew it. I remember working at some companies on contract and thinking there is no way this is going to last. It seemed like the only people that where making money last go around where the ones providing infrastructure and services, everyone else was just drinking it up at the party. Make no mistake I think we are bubbling but I thing today looks a lot more like 1996 than 2000. It can and will get a lot crazier especially with the crowd-funding bill.
- beagle3 14y ago
  I the 1996 analogy makes sense, but that does not mean there's 5 years left until the big crash; the nature of investment and trading horizons is such that it gets shorter all the time -- so what took 5 years 10 years ago, might take less than 2 years now. (At the extreme - stock price reaction to news that took hours in 2000 takes seconds now. Most things haven't speeded as much, but everything speeds up; the tulip bubble took much longer to inflate and pop than the internet/telecomm bubble of the late 90's). And, just as in 2000/2001, when the bubble pops, it would look like the specific reason was independent (some other economic disaster, like a big bank going bankrupt, or fraud bigger than the MF case, that would disrupt the easy flow of money and would require some liquidation). But the specific event that causes a bubble to pop is actually immaterial.

kls 14y ago

Right, some of the business going public at that time seemed like they where written on a napkin two nights before. They where not even at the pivot stage. It was absolutely insane at the time and everyone knew it. I remember working at some companies on contract and thinking there is no way this is going to last. It seemed like the only people that where making money last go around where the ones providing infrastructure and services, everyone else was just drinking it up at the party. Make no mistake I think we are bubbling but I thing today looks a lot more like 1996 than 2000. It can and will get a lot crazier especially with the crowd-funding bill.

beagle3 14y ago
I the 1996 analogy makes sense, but that does not mean there's 5 years left until the big crash; the nature of investment and trading horizons is such that it gets shorter all the time -- so what took 5 years 10 years ago, might take less than 2 years now. (At the extreme - stock price reaction to news that took hours in 2000 takes seconds now. Most things haven't speeded as much, but everything speeds up; the tulip bubble took much longer to inflate and pop than the internet/telecomm bubble of the late 90's). And, just as in 2000/2001, when the bubble pops, it would look like the specific reason was independent (some other economic disaster, like a big bank going bankrupt, or fraud bigger than the MF case, that would disrupt the easy flow of money and would require some liquidation). But the specific event that causes a bubble to pop is actually immaterial.