Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday May 25 2015, @11:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the double-double-toil-and-trouble-fire-burn-and-market-bubble dept.

Conor Dougherty writes in the NYT that the tech industry’s venture capitalists — the financiers who bet on companies when they are little more than an idea — are going out of their way to avoid the one word that could describe what is happening around them: Bubble “I guess it is a scary word because in some sense no one wants it to stop,” says Tomasz Tunguz. “And so if you utter it, do you pop it?”

In 2000, tech stocks crashed, venture capital dried up and many young companies were vaporized. Today, people see shades of 2000 in the enormous valuations assigned to private companies like Uber, with a valuation of $41 billion, and Slack, the corporate messaging service that is about a year old and valued at $2.8 billion in its latest funding round.

A few years ago private companies worth more than $1 billion were rare enough that venture capitalists called them “unicorns.” Today, there are 107 unicorns and while nobody doubts that many of tech’s unicorns are indeed real businesses, valuations are inflating, leading some people to worry that investment decisions are being guided by something venture capitalists call FOMO — the fear of missing out.

With interest rates at historic lows, excess capital causes investment bubbles. The result is too much money chasing too few great deals. Unfortunately, overcapitalizing startups with easy money results in superfluous spending and dangerously high burn rates and investors are happy to admit that this torrid pace of investment has started to worry them. “Do I think companies are overvalued as a whole? No,” says Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator. “Do I think too much money can kill good companies? Yes. And that is an important difference.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @06:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @06:06PM (#187669)

    Another option is to assume you won't need the money in the next ~5-10 years--keep working if it's still fun. This seems to be about (very roughly) the stock market cycle time, in recent history. Grit your teeth, accept that market timing doesn't work, and stay in S&P 500, knowing that it might fall 50% again (like 2001 and 2008), but will charge back up before you have to start taking the minimum required payout at age 71(?).