Slashdot Mirror


Silicon Valley Could Be Heading For a New Stock Collapse.

First time accepted submitter billcarson writes "Even though for most of us the recession is far from over, analysts are worried the technology sector might be near the end of a bubble. Technology stocks are at records highs at the moment. Companies that have no sound business plan have no difficulty in raising capital to fund their crazy dreams. Even Yahoo is again buying companies without real profit (Tumblr). Andreessen Horowitz, a major venture capitalist in Silicon Valley is already pulling up the ladder. Might this be an indicator for more woe to come?"

200 comments

  1. Market Consolisation by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Less bubble driven pie in the sky greed and more mature market consolidation. The weakest in the herd are failing behind and will be preyed upon by vulture capitalists like Mittens and that's the ones you really have to watch out for, after the vultures have chewed out the juicy bit's and left it a debt ridden hulk with really 'imaginative' book work, pension funds usually buy them (after those pension fund managers make a visit to an offshore tax haven, to 'er' review their balance sheet with the vulture capitalists, purchasing bonuses).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Market Consolisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Market consolidation, is that a new term for quantitative easing? This market is called "Print yourself a new Dow". What happens to your consolidation the moment the Fed thinks about stopping the easing? Oh no, we plunge 10%. But when Ben comes out and reassures his banker buddies that there's no end in sight to free money to gamble at the casino, the market reaches new highs. Pinterest, a company that sells nothing, valued at 3.8 Billion with a B. Facebook, a company that made a WHOLE 1 billion dollars last quarter (ie, peanuts), is being bought like crazy at a P/E of over 200. And this company, which no one actually uses for anything, has a market cap 3 times the size of Kimberly Clark - maker of Kleenex, Huggies, Kotex, Poise, Depends, Scott and many other brands around the world. Not to mention that KMB is losing money hand over fist to P&G and the Swedes in emerging markets and firing all its talent in the name of cost cutting, to post record highs in a time of declining revenues. Yeah if you see consolidation here, congratulations. I see nothing but air. But then again, the trade only trade making money today is the bullish trade. This is how it will continue, until it doesn't. But consolidation my ass. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

    2. Re:Market Consolisation by Gordo_1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um, I think you've reached your metaphor quota for today. Thanks for coming out. Anything of substance to share?

    3. Re:Market Consolisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while (1==1) {
      echo "What did you share?";
      }

    4. Re:Market Consolisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that we're in a metaphor bubble is itself newsworthy. Find me in my Y2K bunker watching Matrix reruns. Too bad they never made sequels to Eiffel 65 and the EU.

    5. Re:Market Consolisation by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Hows, this then. As always insider's are using their marketing channels to right targeted stories to threaten current stock prices. These insider's are major brokerage firms who use statistics of their own customers to measure overall market debt exposure on puts and shorts to measure whether the market can be pushed into a run. So normal market adjustments for particular over hyped companies (done by the same companies that are trying to market a run on stocks) can be pushed into the broader market via the advertising chain and targeted stories. I just found this round a little boring and treated it with the contempt it deserved, still regardless it is more than your little whine.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Market Consolisation by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Too bad they made sequels to The Matrix, too.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Market Consolisation by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You kind of have this backwards. It because everybody is looking for return when there is none.

      Normally when the central bank prints money this pushes up inflation. During inflation real assets, such as stocks, tend to hold their value which pushes up their prices.

      Quantitative easing is not (currently) causing inflation mainly because the economic is so anemic. Take a look at 10 year TIPs and one comes to the conclusion that inflation will be tame. But an anemic economy does not generate great stock returns. Historically the government bond market has real returns of 2% and the stock market a real return of 7% (plus another 3% for inflation.) Now it is closer to 1% to 4%. Pensioners can’t live on these returns.

        So anything that can deliver yield from junk bonds to junk stock is being snapped up. Or we are kind of talking about the same thing – a chicken and egg problem – just we place different emphasis on different parts.

    8. Re:Market Consolisation by canadiannomad · · Score: 2

      Who are these people who "have no sound business plan have no difficulty in raising capital to fund their crazy dreams"?
      I have awesome dreams, business plans, technical and business abilities, certainly I don't see any rivers of free flowing investment money....

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    9. Re:Market Consolisation by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Too bad they made sequels to The Matrix, too.

      No they didn't. What are you talking about? There were never any sequels to The Matrix. You must be hallucinating them.

    10. Re: Market Consolisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo for drinking the Kool aid. No inflation?

      1. define inflation. If you mean a general increase in the price level of goods, then you cannot use CPI or worse PCE or chained CPI as they do not measure the general increase in prices, there are too many hedonic adjustments and items left out like food and fuel.
      2. TIPS is hardly a good indicator of inflation. It may give some indication of inflation expectations but when the fed is buying, sorry, monetizing 80+% of treasury issuance you can't seriously look at any bond price and say "that's the markets expectations". The Fed is distorting prices.

      3. asset inflation is visible everywhere. Look at paintings, high end home prices, cost of health care cost of education. All up double digits annually

    11. Re:Market Consolisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's near 4%? My 401k has been getting about 14% per year for the past 5 years. One stock goes down, another goes up. My investments are spread all over.

    12. Re:Market Consolisation by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Interesting
      I was having a discussion like this with a colleague at work yesterday. What I said was basically that he was drinking the accepted kool-aid that he could invest all his retirement into stocks and just hold on to a highly diversified portfolio for a long time and come out on top at the end.
      My side: the boom and bust, bubble and crash cycles we have gone through since WWII (at least) have meant that the only people who can make money on this economy over time are those that profit and dump, waiting out the busts with cash on hand.

      I explained I was using a "Pynchonesque, Gravity's Rainbow" approach. I bought real estate right after the bust, assuming that real estate wouldn't bust again until it had built up to bubble heights again, when I could sell out. He is, by his own account, well-invested in tech. It is "the future" after all. Good luck friend.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    13. Re:Market Consolisation by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      That is not exactly what I was trying to say. To oversimplify:

      In one corner think about times where investments lead to high productivity growth and where funds to invest is scare. It is easy to make money. That is not now – we are in the other corner.

      Due to overcapacity built during the boom years there is a overhang of excess capital. So new investments have to compete with older, paid for assets. Due to a savings glut we still have money pouring into investments.

      On to your point specifically, I am going to have to disagree primarily because the ability to time the market highs and lows has such a dismal history. The ability of people (from individual investors to professional portfolio managers to economist) to judge where the market is poor. In fact there is a slight negative correlation between future expectations and market performance.

      So where does this leave us? We cold invest in stocks with a modest to low upside and potential downside risk. We could invest in cash and bonds. Here we have no to low upside. We also face inflation risk and the potential to miss the start of any stock boom. Historically a invested diversified index (low fee) portfolio will beat out the market timers.

      But there is one better option. And it kind of involves what you mean by diversification. I am going to assume that there are only 2 types of investments, stocks and bonds.(You could then dig into stocks and break them up into large cap vs small cap, industry, domestic vs emerging market, etc.)

      Figure out your objectives. This will give you your required return.
      Figure out your risks and how much risk you can take.
      Figure out the expected return of stocks and bonds and the correlation. (Normal bell curve statistics is easy and mostly works, but when it fails it fails big time. Monte Carlo is better.)
      Allocate between stocks and bonds.

      Then each year do the same thing but rebalanced your portfolio using one of these strategies
      constant-mix strategies
      buy and hold
      Constant-Proportion Portfolio Insurance (which, despite it's name does not contain any insurance products)
      Some do better in up markets, some protect you better in down markets.

      This is very boring but it works very well.

    14. Re:Market Consolisation by nobodie · · Score: 1

      my point in the argument with my colleague was that it is this idea that it "works" is actually feeding its failure. His argument was that there were a number of people who had "millionaire" status from this investment policy. I claim both the moral high ground and the economic high ground because your policies are (in my view) feeding the existiing, unhealthy system of boom and bust. I am trying to work outside that system.
      One thing I do, (which has not been part of the discussion, and is, therefore an unfair addition, so please ignore it in the basic discussion,) is to invest only in thigs I care about or need. For example, I bought a house. The choice and decision on the house were based on the economics of the time (transition neighborhood, short sale property, adequate space and limited repairs needed) In order to buy the house I took the stock that I had invested in a single company (RedHat) and held them until the earning announcement to catch the bounce-- because RedHat almost always bounces on the earnings-- and used the proceeds to pay the downpayment and closing costs. In fact the bounce covered most of the closing.
      I had planned on selling the stock anyway right after the bounce because it obviously was time. It is not magic, but it is principled, and it is the principle (as in ethical principles) which i see scoffed at today and the entire reason for the failure of the system.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. not to wish bad things on anyone by rritterson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not that I would want to wish bad things like lost of income or livelihood on anyone, but as someone who moved here long before this bubble started, I wouldn't mind what the the tech bubble popping might do to San Francisco rental prices.

    --
    -Ryan
    AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    1. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by SINternet · · Score: 0

      LOL

    2. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should've bought instead of rented.

    3. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by doom · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind what the the tech bubble popping might do to San Francisco rental prices.

      Funny, I had a similar thought. In fact lately, I've been wondering what we might be able to do to pop the bubble on purpose. But that it'd be something like: identify the chumps, try to smarten them up... and that's as far as I get. Good luck on that project, eh?

    4. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't mind what the the tech bubble popping might do to San Francisco rental prices.

      It would also reduce commute times on Hwy 101. When the dotcom bubble popped back in 2001, it took 20 minutes off my morning commute.

    5. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Should've been rich instead of normal.

      ftfy

    6. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the economy isn't interconnected at all right? it might even reduce your commute to staying your house.

      wait for it ... "but i work in the ___ field, so i'm not affected ..." in 3 ... 2 ... 1.

    7. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot.

      A) it's bullshit from dice.com like this that makes some scenario like that more likely happen than anything else

      B) IF it happened, you'd be out of a job.

      C) Fuck living in San Francisco in the first place much less commuting from/to that shithole every day.
      I live in San Jose, the farthest I'll commute is San Mateo and a job there would really have to be worth it.

    8. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by doom · · Score: 1

      the economy isn't interconnected at all right? ... wait for it ... "but i work in the ___ field, so i'm not affected ..."

      I tend to work places that have actual income, so no, I don't worry so much about stock scams evaporating.

      You want a real economic indicator? Try checking the snark frequency. This is all pretty obvious to people on the ground here: SF Techie Explains Why the World Should Revolve Around Bay Area Techies (via jwz).

    9. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind what the the tech bubble popping might do to San Francisco rental prices.

      It would also reduce commute times on Hwy 101. When the dotcom bubble popped back in 2001, it took 20 minutes off my morning commute.

      Because you could collect your unemployment check from home?

    10. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The damage also hits those that are on track with their plans but still need a bit of investor support. That's what killed Loki Games in the 2000 bubble.

    11. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      did you know, there's a point in the lifecycle of all tech companies where they didn't make a profit? no tech company comes into existence with a ready to sell product making a profit.

      and yeah, the general level of the economy effects everyone, and that's a reflection of the stock market. why? because when people have money, or think they have money, they spend it. they buy houses. that affects the real estate market. they buy cars. they buy tech. they invest, allowing other companies to hire workers putting more people to work.

      i'm not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it is. even if you keep your money under the mattress you are affected by inflation. even if you work for the govt, you are affected by tax income. and so on, in a painstakingly obvious manner.

    12. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >did you know, there's a point in the lifecycle of all tech companies where they didn't make a profit? no tech company comes into existence with a ready to sell product making a profit.

      Traditionally, though, you had to have a REAL PLAN on how you were going to eventually make money. It's all well and good to say "we need $20mil for 2 years of R&D at which point we'll have the iWidget which we can sell for $40/unit to the predicted marketplace of 2 million users".... but sites like tumblr have no real revenue stream... certainly not one that would justify their current valuation. Now it's all this "we've got users, pay us!" nonsense.

    13. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but Tumblr is all like "we've got users, pay us, they are viewing ads and here is our ad revenue stream" that is a somewhat valid valuation. Yes theirs might be inflated, but it is a valuation.

    14. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't mind what the the tech bubble popping might do to San Francisco rental prices.

      It would also reduce commute times on Hwy 101. When the dotcom bubble popped back in 2001, it took 20 minutes off my morning commute.

      I think I'd start busking rather than live in a shoebox. Yuppie slums are now legal in the US. How long before they're mandatory in the "Hip and Happening" places. I weep for my children.

    15. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but i work in the _s_e_l_f___s_u_f_f_i_c_i_e_n_c_y_ field, so i'm not affected ..."

    16. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My business is in cremation and burials. In the worst case scenarios my business would actually boom.

    17. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest influence on the prices in the bay area isn't a tech bubble, it's investment from China. Trying to buy here is an effort in frustration as each bid is trumped by an all-cash offer over asking. And that cascades to the rental market as people who should be buying end up renting instead.

    18. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Sique · · Score: 1

      You know that home ownership is inversely proportional to productivity? Labor markets become more and more inflexible, if people are rendered less and less mobile by home ownership. They then tend to stay at a place instead of moving to more productive and thus better paying jobs because they fear the financial loss of the sale of their home.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    19. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What killed Loki games was incompetence. Or maybe what they were trying to do was impossible, I dunno. But the games were mostly flaky and don't run on newer versions of Linux, either, just like they wouldn't work properly on many flavors of Linux initially. Loki_Compat is an unreliable solution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re: not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us just like not livingvoutvof a cardboard box. And not having to refer to our home as 'our building' helps, too.

      You go ahead and live your life crowded in a sardine can, though, if that's your thing.

    21. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No. Good or bad didn't get a chance - they were hitting their milestones but the investors pulled out. That's how simple it was. Whatever personal baggage you want to air didn't get a chance to become relevant, and compatibility with versions that came out after the company folded is something well beyond their control.

    22. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FEAR NOT! The Tech Bubble burst won't affect San Fran rentals prices too drastically. When they start outsourcing more tech jobs, that's when you should worry. It's only a matter of time. We've effectively outsourced industry and shifted to a service based economy. It won't be long before we become more at ease with outsourcing our services as well.

      If you placed an impenetrable bubble around say China, they'd most likely be self sufficient, if they even realized what happened. If you place the same bubble around the US, the blue collars/unemployed would be taking every scrap of food off the shelves, while the middle class majority would be running around like headless chickens wondering why their smart phones won't work. Since neither class knows how to cultivate a plant or dress an animal, they'd soon starve to death. No doubt a few would have prepared for such an event, but would easily be overwhelmed by what we Americans refer to as Redneck Tea Baggers, armed to the hilt, and hell bent on taking what they want - providing it comes from soft, confused, disoriented urban folk. Finally, the urban elite will perish, leaving behind a slurry of tobacco farmers and bootleggers. But, alas, at that time we finally become self sufficient, the bubble will disappear and the US will again be overrun by soft bellied suburbanites.

    23. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The USA is a massive food exporter. It also has large domestic energy supplies. Manufacturing sucks in the USA but the USA has technical know-how and large supplies of natural resources.

    24. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hitting their milestones? Too bad having the games work properly at the time (let alone later) wasn't one of them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's exactly it. It clearly has nothing to do with proximity to family and friends, or stability for kids in their schools, or just not wanting to turn your entire life upside down for the sake of an extra few K a year. Those factors can't be relevant, because there's no column for them in the productivity spreadsheet.

    26. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by jwegman · · Score: 1

      FTW

    27. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by jwegman · · Score: 1

      It sure would go a long way in helping to get this once great city heading back in the right direction.

    28. Re:not to wish bad things on anyone by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Why are you making this shit up? Of course they worked properly.

    29. Re: not to wish bad things on anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I go down I'm taking all of you with me!

  3. The days of... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

    The days of "a fool and his money are soon venture capital" are taking a siesta. Come back next decade.

    --
    Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
  4. Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After the Bitcoin protocol and Silicon Valley, what's next? "The Word 'Collapse' Could Head for a Collapse?" The period would lead you to so.

    Captcha: theirs

    1. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your captcha, and shove it up your ass, nobody cares.

  5. It could well be, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember that bears have predicted 60 of the last 3 stock market crashes.

    1. Re:It could well be, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you tell what a bear is thinking about the market? Do you go out in the woods and study scat?

    2. Re:It could well be, but by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You go out in the woods and ask him, and if he is too scared to come out and tell you what to buy, then sell sell sell.

    3. Re:It could well be, but by ahodgson · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's still a better record than MSNBC.

    4. Re:It could well be, but by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not in the woods, but yes.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:It could well be, but by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      He goes to the weekly LUG meeting and asks them!

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:It could well be, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people come to me with tech industry predictions or economic theories I generally find the best response is "you may well be right".

    7. Re:It could well be, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite stock market quote:

      The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent!

      Trying to out-guess the market is a good way to lose, even if you end up being right.

  6. Yahooblr by simonbp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yahoo's recent desperate moves (e.e. buying Tumblr) are hardly indicative of the industry, but rather one company that really shouldn't be as big as it is. Silicon Valley as a whole is a lot more healthy than Yahoo.

    1. Re:Yahooblr by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point isn't that all of Silicon Valley is as incompetent as Yahoo; but that the cash is flowing freely enough that even a company whose business model appears to be "Try to be Google, as imagined by an AOL user" can throw a billion dollars at some goofy blogging platform.

      Now, I would not be at all sad to see fewer smart people wasting their lives trying to find new ways to get me to click on ads or analyze my behavior to sell me shit, (and there's a disturbing amount of brainpower going down the toilet on just that problem at the moment); but the trouble with a big wave of easy, dumb, money is that, while the crest is a blast, it can easily take down even solid people and ideas when the VCs eventually get spooked.

      Just remember how much fun the economy of more or less the entire developed world managed to have, just because some banks were gambling on US real estate. Barely any connection to whether the economy of people who actually do and make things was stupid or brilliant, doing well, or doing ill; but down it came...

    2. Re:Yahooblr by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      yahoo is still big, of course they can throw some money at a (presumably strategic) acquisition. It tells us nothing about their overall competence, and even if they suck that doesn't mean it is a bad purchase; and if they're normally great, it doesn't mean it is a great purchase.

      Also whatever they do and however they do or don't suck, it is not at all instructive about startups and VC. And an anecdotal reference to 1 VC isn't much better. Maybe he's "pulling up the ladder" because he made a bad call recently and has to regroup, or maybe he has his hands on something great and doesn't want to see competitors get funding, or just wants to wait until cashing it out before re-investing.

      Some people are ready to sign the bull off as dead, but I'm not even sure he's grown up, much less old.

    3. Re:Yahooblr by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Facebook IPO, Twitter IPO. Need I say more?

    4. Re:Yahooblr by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know Yahoo has positive earnings, right? It's net was more than a billion (EBITDA) last quarter.

      In July it overtook Google as the most visited US web property and remains #1 to date (comScore)?

      Desperate moves?

    5. Re:Yahooblr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo market share in search space, reminds me the Nokia/Symbian trend in mobile OS market.
      Wear a parachute as it getting steep down!

    6. Re: Yahooblr by ferret4 · · Score: 1

      Indeed - Yahoo will put ads on Tumblr and make a fortune from the page impressions. Other than mindless Yahoo-bashing I can't imagine why this 'example' made the summary.

    7. Re:Yahooblr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tumblr was and probably still is the #1 place for free porn in the world, so it wasn't a bad buy. The problem is just that the CEO apparently has no idea what tumblr is and continues to think it's a family photo storage service for the cloud.

    8. Re:Yahooblr by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Tumblr has 30-50m highly active users. It has 110m registered accounts who sometimes use the network. Tumblr has another 200m people who browse the service but haven't bothered to create accounts. To put that in perspective 108m people watched the Superbowl the most watched show.
      NCIS is the number one show with about 20m regular viewers, trailing slightly behind is Sunday Night Football and the BigBang theory. By way of analogy Yahoo is a network buying all rights to a show (Tumblr) that huge number of people like.

      Assuming that you agree that advertising is a viable business given its success for the last century,what's the problem?

    9. Re:Yahooblr by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Facebook is currently at $47.66 the IPO price was $38 2 years ago. That's a very good return even for an IPO that was considered to be priced too high.

      Yes you need to say more.

    10. Re:Yahooblr by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      In July it overtook Google as the most visited US web property and remains #1 to date (comScore)?

      Really? Who visits Yahoo? Maybe I'm just out of touch, but I don't know anybody who regularly visits Yahoo, and didn't know anybody back when I still used it for everything years ago (back when Google was the newcomer).

      I'd also be interested in how things are measured. I rarely type "google.com" in my browser, but I use Google all the time.

    11. Re:Yahooblr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I use it every day. Frankly its news rss presentation (myyahoo) is pretty good. It also has a fairly good financial section (stay away from the comments they are basically short position guys trying to move the market). I have looked for others. But many fall flat. Google almost had a decent presentation with its iGoogle but then decided 'meh thats no fun' and blew it away. It is starting to look very dated though. They are updating it however it seems to be more spacing and a BIGGER FONT.

      For news it is pretty good being basically AP/Reuters scrapers. The comment section though is about 1 notch above youtube, course then again so is most of the internet.

      I have used yahoo since about 94. For search it stinks. For its forums/news/games it still is very solid.

      You are right about not seeing many people use it though. Out of the people I know maybe one other person does about the same as I do.

    12. Re:Yahooblr by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      So you are saying the US actually has an economy! I'm not convinced that the US has ever had an economy at all. It seems more like some mumbo jumbo stew of community prejudices multiplied by incidents and accidents whose overall goal is to get people to work for free. The shocking part is that the US economy so rarely falls apart.

    13. Re:Yahooblr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you or anyone you know don't use Yahoo doesn't mean Yahoo is doing terribly or desperate.

    14. Re:Yahooblr by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the summary?

      Technology stocks are at records highs at the moment. Companies that have no sound business plan have no difficulty in raising capital to fund their crazy dreams.

      The fact that Facebook IPO was overpriced and keeps going up is supportive evidence of a bubble, not proof against one. The company still makes only a tiny profit (a few tens of millions of dollars on a multi-billion dollar revenue)- if they were a blue chip company, they'd be rated as "avoid like the plague".

    15. Re:Yahooblr by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The original poster was commenting on the popular meme that Facebook was a bubble because the IPO went down.

      You have a different point that Facebook has been overpriced throughout its entire lifecycle. Facebook isn't a bluechip and shouldn't be evaluated like one. Facebook has roughly 0% of 2011 digital advertising, 5% in 2012 and is growing towards 15% in 2013. A huge percentage of that is coming from mobile advertising which is growing 89% annually. Adbuys globally are well over $2t per year. Digital advertising is still a tiny percentage of that.

      Facebook has 751 million people who use the service during a given month (that's accounts who post not merely readers). That's still growing at a 10% annual rate. If you include passive users or infrequent users you probably get another 400m or so. So somewhere between 7-11x the penetration of the Superbowl and something like 35x the penetration of most popular repeating American shows.

      Is Facebook going to be able to monazite that? Who knows? But Facebook's valuations are not out of line with typical aggressive growth valuation matrices applied to a company that size. Who cares about earnings what people are paying for is revenue growth and the potential revenue growth.

      _____

      But even if one considers Facebook priced much too high, Facebook does not a tech bubble make. Facebook is being priced like an aggressive growth stock. The valuations of Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are all quite reasonable and those are based on long term repeated earnings.

    16. Re:Yahooblr by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Just because you or anyone you know don't use Yahoo doesn't mean Yahoo is doing terribly or desperate.

      I never claimed they were. I just asked some questions, like who visits yahoo, and how the stats are measured. I also made a statement which is completely true - I don't know of anybody who uses them. That makes me skeptical, and the best thing you can give a skeptic who understands logic is data.

    17. Re:Yahooblr by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Interesting - your use of it is very similar to how I was using it, once upon a time.

    18. Re:Yahooblr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo paid $1.1 billion for a company that made $14 million in revenue last year. It took Tumblr five years to generate as much annual revenue as a moderately well-managed New York deli. Tumblr burned through more than $200 million in five years for a revenue of $14 million and no profit.

      There are literally dozens of app vendors out there that are racking up more revenue than Tumblr. Half a dozen messaging apps have reached 50 million download level and many of them are now starting to build gaming and other content services on top of their texting platforms. This is why it feels surreal to see Yahoo follow the old paradigm and pay a billion dollars for a blogging platform that has no serious profit strategy. Tumblr became popular precisely because it was anti-Yahoo; it avoided aggressive ad-peddling. The pale nimbus of coolness enveloping Tumlbr could be severely tarnished by the association with the tacky, low-rent Yahoo brand. The scenario is a bit like Kmart buying Bottega Veneta.

  7. Systemic debt by Livius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is a *debt* bubble. Either the debt is extinguished in a bubble collapse - housing, stock market, student loans, tech stock, etc., or it becomes inflationary. As long as debt is above a sustainable level there *has* to be one bubble or another.

    1. Re:Systemic debt by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Snowden might not be a bubble popper? I sure would hate to have a ton of debt in cloud infrastructure here in the US right at the moment.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    2. Re:Systemic debt by BringsApples · · Score: 2

      Money is the power mechanism of the poor. Debt is the power mechanism of the rich.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    3. Re:Systemic debt by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is a *debt* bubble.

      A stock bubble is not a debt bubble, since cash is usually paid for stock (and even when not margin is limited to 50%). Neither the bursting of a stock bubble or a debt bubble is much fun, but the debt bubble is much worse. If stocks crash people say "dagnabbit, lost a bunch of money", but they're not left in debt. When a debt bubble like real estate crashes, you're not just poor, you're also in debt. That makes it extremely difficult to get the economy running gain, as so much of people's money is being sucked up by loan payments.

    4. Re:Systemic debt by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Snowden might not be a bubble popper?

      The economy will continue running. Governments will continue spying. The most Snowden can hope for is to stay alive, out of prison and snag a few bucks from a remote interview in a decade or two by an infotainment company doing a "where are they now" piece.

    5. Re:Systemic debt by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I think he's in for a rather unfortunate future. The Russians will have had all the PR and spy info out of him that can be got in a year or so and when he's of no further use to them, what then? He could be stuck in Russia for years, decades even, under a state even more corrupt and considerably less free than the one he left.

    6. Re:Systemic debt by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The problem is a *debt* bubble.

      A stock bubble is not a debt bubble,

      Tell that to 1929.

    7. Re:Systemic debt by jezwel · · Score: 1

      I see you have not been exposed to a margin call. In the USA your margin seems to be limited to 50% of the value of a share; this is not the same the world over, and can vary based on the company and its risk profile.

    8. Re:Systemic debt by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      1929 wasn't that bad - try the banking crisis starting in 1931.

      http://www.epips.com/djia/1930s-great-depression.html

      There was a major rebound in 1930, and people thought the stock market had settled on more realistic prices. If the banks had been solid, the Great Depression wouldn't have been so great. Note that the stock market didn't really go to hell until 1931.

    9. Re:Systemic debt by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Pretty sad really. Utter traitors like North and Poindexter who sold weapons, via Iran no less, to a terrorist group that killed over a hundred US Marines less than a year before still have cushy government jobs while a mere whistleblower is likely to have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life as if he was Nazi war criminal.

      even more corrupt and considerably less free than the one he left

      For the moment, but the race to the bottom is on and the US is catching up quickly.

    10. Re:Systemic debt by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Nice to know the US hasn't thrown everything it learned in the Great Depression in the trash. In the 1920's you could buy w/ 10% down. I think no margin buying should be allowed, but anything that allows less than 50% down is insane.

    11. Re:Systemic debt by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If stocks crash people say "dagnabbit, lost a bunch of money", but they're not left in debt. When a debt bubble like real estate crashes, you're not just poor, you're also in debt. That makes it extremely difficult to get the economy running gain, as so much of people's money is being sucked up by loan payments.

      You know, this could easily be remedied by distributing responsibility for debt more evenly between the debtor and the debtee. Right now it all rests on the debtee, who's options are to pay it all off or declare bankruptcy with all the associated unpleasantness; yet it's the debtor who's usually a professional financier, and thus should be rightly blamed for making a bad loan.

      So, make up (very lenient) conditions that allow you to slash part of debt or suspend payments and/or interest until they change. Force the lender to apply them whenever possible at the threat of jail time if they fail to do so. Let professional economists, rather than Joe Average, worry about whether someone can pay back a debt in a particular personal and market situation, and take the loss if they fail at their job; who's the fool who thought betting the entire economy on Joe Hates-Math getting it right was a good idea in the first place?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Systemic debt by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There is a system in the USA which allows debtors who are unable to pay their debts to meet with their financiers and discuss a modified repayment program. That's called Bankruptcy Chapter 13. What you are asking for already exists. There is no need to threaten anyone with jail. Contracts, including debt contracts, are enforced by courts. Making them unenforceable or changes the enforcement system works fine.

      Obviously people didn't understand the agreements they entered into on homes. Informed customer laws, like what exist in New Jersey that effectively mandate legal representation for non-expert buyers would solve that problem. The Consumer Protection Agency created by Elizabeth Warren will help somewhat as well.

    13. Re:Systemic debt by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      As always, choosing martyrdom is a career-limiting move.

    14. Re:Systemic debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying that if you want to buy a house you'd be required to hire a lawyer? I thought it was bad enough having to sign 30+ documents that repeatedly tell me the same information about my rights, now I would have to pay someone $500 to read them to me.

    15. Re:Systemic debt by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      You forgot Reagan. His outrageous and illegal actions directed people like North. Worse yet he put the stupid trickle down economics in play which almost destroyed our nation.
                            And if you want to feel near suicidal despair simply dwell on the fact the large numbers of the US population actually consider him a wonderful leader to this day. And we actually have large numbers of people who think there is some value or legitimacy to right wing doctrines.
                            Sometimes when I see the starving and dying people of Ethiopia sitting in the dirt, waiting for grim death, without a clue as to what the world is like I think of them almost as the voting public in the US. Clueless, impaired by primitive beliefs and habits, and doomed just the way the generations before them were doomed. If we can not substantially increase the educational level of our public we are in huge trouble.

    16. Re:Systemic debt by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I do wonder if the even in 1929 and the event in 1931 were in any way connected... /snark.

    17. Re:Systemic debt by ultranova · · Score: 2

      There is a system in the USA which allows debtors who are unable to pay their debts to meet with their financiers and discuss a modified repayment program. That's called Bankruptcy Chapter 13. What you are asking for already exists.

      No, it doesn't. Bankruptcy sides with the debtor by default while I'm talking about siding with the debtee by default. Basically, I'm suggesting that in order for the debtor to get a single penny they'd need to prove that the debtee's circumstances have changed and this was the debtee's own fault to the point of negligence - for example, you get fired and the debtor gets neither payments nor interest until you find another job and can resume payments, you were fired because you stole from the boss, that's your fault. Dealing with such risks is very much a financial professional's job, and made much easier by the assets he possesses, not something the average person should need to worry about.

      The thing about bankruptcy and debtor-debtee relations is that they were built in a society that was a lot less leveraged than current one. Leveraging accelerates economic growth but it also causes instability - for example, job uncertainty - which people who aren't financial professionals can't be expected to deal with. So, either deleverage and accept less growth, or accept that most people are going to need a buffer against resulting uncertainty, both to make their personal lives more bearable but also to keep the economy from getting constant shocks from cascading bankruptcies which turn every downturn into a crisis.

      But the current system, where you have a significant risk for personal bankruptcy simply for getting a house, is utterly broken. An economy where everything becomes a luck-based mission does not really serve anyone's interests.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:Systemic debt by jbolden · · Score: 1

      What you are asking for would drastically up the risks. Probably to the extent that the debt market would simply cease to exist. Instead of mortgages you would just have rental arrangements where if you went into default you were "evicted". There would be no car loans, just long term rental arrangements with an initial deposit. Etc

      The thing about bankruptcy and debtor-debtee relations is that they were built in a society that was a lot less leveraged than current one. Leveraging accelerates economic growth but it also causes instability - for example, job uncertainty - which people who aren't financial professionals can't be expected to deal with. So, either deleverage and accept less growth, or accept that most people are going to need a buffer against resulting uncertainty, both to make their personal lives more bearable but also to keep the economy from getting constant shocks from cascading bankruptcies which turn every downturn into a crisis.

      Mass bankruptcy is the method we as a society use for deleveraging. During a chapter 7 bankruptcy debt is destroyed and replaced with equity. During a chapter 13 debt is effectively destroyed by reducing the burden of payment. I certainly don't agree with the Biden Bankruptcy law which made bankruptcy more onerous but what you are proposing is effectively the end of debt.

      But the current system, where you have a significant risk for personal bankruptcy simply for getting a house, is utterly broken.

      Why? The only major thing a bankruptcy does it makes credit hard to obtain. If one lives without credit a bankruptcy is not much of a problem. Your reform would generally make it harder to obtain credit for everyone than it is now for someone who has a recent bankruptcy. I'm not sure what it fixes.

      I certainly don't like how much luck has to do with our system, but you can fix that directly by making the job market less luck based.

    19. Re:Systemic debt by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yes that's what I'm saying.

    20. Re:Systemic debt by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What you are asking for would drastically up the risks. Probably to the extent that the debt market would simply cease to exist. Instead of mortgages you would just have rental arrangements where if you went into default you were "evicted". There would be no car loans, just long term rental arrangements with an initial deposit. Etc

      If debt market cannot exist when those who get the profits are also forced to bear the risks, then perhaps it shouldn't exist. And it's not like you won't get evicted and your car repossessed right now if you fail your debt repayments, so what purpose does it ultimately serve, other than inflating prices?

      Mass bankruptcy is the method we as a society use for deleveraging. During a chapter 7 bankruptcy debt is destroyed and replaced with equity. During a chapter 13 debt is effectively destroyed by reducing the burden of payment. I certainly don't agree with the Biden Bankruptcy law which made bankruptcy more onerous but what you are proposing is effectively the end of debt.

      If debt is destroyed by bankruptcy, how would my plan increase the risks any? If anything, it would lower them, since instead of bankruptcy you now get a simple delay in repayment. And the problem with mass bankruptcy is that it disrupts the economy severely. People lose their houses, businesses lose their customers which causes them to fail which causes people to lose their jobs, and the cycle continues. It's probably the least efficient way possible to manage the whole affair.

      I certainly don't like how much luck has to do with our system, but you can fix that directly by making the job market less luck based.

      And... how exactly speaking would you go about that? Have government guarantee everyone a job, Soviet-style?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re:Systemic debt by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I have to say your indicating that loss of the ability to incur debt via. bankruptcy is a terrible hardship and then on the other hand your casually dismiss it as of no consequence. The lenders do bear the risk from bad debt. During a bankruptcy the borrowers are effectively making money from the lenders. Lenders do not benefit from issuing debt that leads to a bankruptcy unless the interest rate were very high (i.e. something like credit card debt the interest can be high enough that it still pays).

      And it's not like you won't get evicted and your car repossessed right now if you fail your debt repayments, so what purpose does it ultimately serve, other than inflating prices?

      The purpose it serves is starting from about 1910 wanted to establish an ownership society. We did not want an American where Americans mostly did not have any wealth or any possessions. People without property tend to be much more willing to try radical political solutions. So for example during the great depression America did not go fascist, though it often leaned close. If tens of millions of Americans hadn't owned property it might very well have.

      The number one way in which people emerging from the lower middle class start to acquire wealth is buy owning a home rather than renting. The mortgage system is how we allow people with little wealth to over the large chunk of their life accumulate wealth. Assuming one likes the idea of a propertied middle class, it has been remarkably successful. This focus on creating a propertied middle class has changed since the Republicans have done a 180 on the issue of supporting a propertied middle class as they have adopted neo-confederate financial theories. But prior to 2010 this was something both parties agreed on.

      Car loans create a similar system lower down on the socio-economic scale. Often a car becomes before a home, and the first car purchase creates some equity. A person buys a $25k car and 5 years later that car is still worth $7k though they own it outright. 401K is another part of this.

      If debt is destroyed by bankruptcy, how would my plan increase the risks any? If anything, it would lower them, since instead of bankruptcy you now get a simple delay in repayment.

      Your plan would allow borrowers to go into bankruptcy very casually. They just declare that their circumstances have changed and don't pay. The burden of proof shifts. That's a huge increase in risk. A delay in repayment lowers the NPV of the loan. It is a destruction of debt.

      People lose their houses, businesses lose their customers which causes them to fail which causes people to lose their jobs, and the cycle continues. It's probably the least efficient way possible to manage the whole affair.

      That's deflation. Were it not for the crazies in our government that's a problem that's easily solved. During a time of low interest rates due to financial panic the government borrows aggressively and boosts aggregate demand. That should have happened in 2009-2010 and we would have been out of this quick. But the idiot American people decided to ignore economics and go with their "common sense" about the government "living within its means" so we have had a mild depression for years that's done tremendous harm. Which was entirely avoidable.

      Have government guarantee everyone a job, Soviet-style?

      You are wiping out the existence of financial contracts essentially. You don't get to make quips about "soviet-style" your plan is to the left of most socialist governments. As for guaranteed jobs, yes. It doesn't have to be done soviet style one can boost aggregate demand for labor via. the tax code quite effectively.

  8. I see other crashes looming first .... by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could tech be at the end of another bubble? Sure, I suppose. But it seems to me the college tuition situation is more clearly ripe to burst? And how about govt. treasury bonds?

    At least with tech, I think quite a few of the highly valued companies are truly successful. (Apple, as a prime example.) For every one of these questionable Tumblr type purchases of some web-based service, therre are dozens of others who nobody seems to be interested in buying at all. I'd say most investors are being fairly selective, even if they do gamble a bit on the occasional "high profile" site that's not yet making a profit.

    1. Re:I see other crashes looming first .... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      College is expensive but to be a 'bubble' the thing has to be overpriced, whereas a college education is still a spectacularly good bargain.

    2. Re: I see other crashes looming first .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the USA that's not true. At the vast majority of public institutions the degree received is more like a high school diploma. The student may not pay much, but they get less. While the school raids the coffers (student loan money, state and federal funding, private donations) paying administrators more than professors. Education at all levels in this country is a scam.

  9. Well, lots of money has been piled in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I mean, websites that let you post inane comments on anything, or let you upload your tedious photos of your cat or drunken friends are easily worth billions of dollars, as nobody else could create something so technologically advanced without hundreds of millions of dollars right ?

    Alternatively, you could investigate the concept of a price / earnings ratio (with an eye on possible future earnings based on real innovation and market share, which discounts most of these "will never make a profit because once the advertising becomes too intrusive, the users will go elsewhere" companies), and make an actual return on your investment. It won't be trendy and you won't feel the buzz of being part of the latest web craze, but you won't get suckered in the bubble either.

  10. Re:Bullshit from statists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck the statists, now is the time to BUY more stock because 2014 is going to make 2013 look like 1998.

    Okay, with that logic 2014 will look like 1999, 2015 will look like 2000, better sell in 2015 ;^)

  11. Define woe by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Overpriced assets need to come down sometime.

    FB will be dead soon. Twitter IPO overpriced (but still not that bad). Most Silly Valley stocks are based on insane projections for the most part.

    I used to do tech IPOs. My money's in broad S&P 500 low cost index funds now.

    (yes, I made lots of money from the tech IPOs, and the other IPOs)

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Define woe by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Why S&P 500 instead of total market?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Define woe by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      Why S&P 500 instead of total market?

      Educated guess. It's actually a mix of 90 pct S&P 500 index (0.04 pct cost), 5 pct total bonds (0.12 pct cost), 5 pct total stock market (0.07 pct cost), without rebalancing but with reinvestment.

      Total market exposes you to risk stocks during excessive churn. Climate change means excessive churn.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Define woe by asmkm22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not convinced that Facebook is going away anytime soon. Like it or not, they've entrenched themselves pretty deeply in the internet. One of the best moves they did was push for their service to be used as a general login platform for other sites. Hell, you can even use your facebook account to log into MySpace. Even Twitter seems to have a ton of staying power, simply because it's so widely used by certain types of people to disseminate opinions. Fortunately for Twitter, those types of people have a hell of a lot of influence, like politicians, game designers, actors, and media personalities. They'll figure out a way to bring ads to the service, just like Facebook has, which is about the only thing that matters anymore when it comes to running a tech company these days.

    4. Re:Define woe by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me translate this for you:

      I used to do tech IPOs. My money's in broad S&P 500 low cost index funds now.

      (yes, I made lots of money from the tech IPOs, and the other IPOs)

      Translation from Douche to English:

      I made piles and piles of cash during the dot-com bubble. Enough to afford a Tesla and a $1.5m 1500sqft home in Cupertino. However, now that I have all this money, I can afford to diversify. If I didn't have all this IPO cash, then I'd never have the money necessary to send my kids to $20k/yr kindergarten, Challenger Elementary School and then either St. Francis or Bellermine High Schools.

      I'm really just writing this to flaunt about how lucky I was to have invested during the dot-com bubble and now I'm telling you to follow my lead, however, you can't since the dot-com bubble is over, so you'll have to get used to taking low digit yr/yr gains of the broader stock market.

    5. Re:Define woe by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      No, I wouldn't say that. S&P 500 has been double digit yr/yr gains actually.

      I've been investing since I was 16. You can do what you want, but my gut feel is usually right.

      The best investment is an education, actually.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    6. Re:Define woe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fortunately for Twitter, those types of people have a hell of a lot of influence, like politicians, game designers, actors, and media personalities

      LOL

      Most people do not use Twitter
      As time goes on, more and more people have disdain for the list of folks you name, so maybe you are missing the word "negative" before "influence"...

    7. Re:Define woe by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Besides which, while everyone in the news talks about "the disaterous FB IPO" while speculating about Twitter's upcoming IPO...they all conveniently ignore that FB is currently trading around $50. so sure, the day traders who wanted to make a quick buck lost out, and thats what the news media focuses on....

      But when people started dumping shares as the price plummetted, others like me, who were willing to wait a little while, started picking up a few, cautiously at first, and then a couple more, particularly while it was under 20$ a share. I'm not rich, i'm strictly smalltime, but what I do have has doubled my initial investment of ~1k$ in only a year. and that's a win no matter how you look at it.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    8. Re:Define woe by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      While you are still holding the shares you haven't won anything, except on paper.

    9. Re:Define woe by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Return on the S&P 500 has been about 6% over the last 10 years, and about 7% over the last 20 years. The whole double-digit growth thing made a whole lot more sense in the prospectuses they sent out in the late 90s...

    10. Re:Define woe by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Facebook made $425 million last quarter. I don't think they're going to die anytime soon.

    11. Re:Define woe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 401k says differently. I am averaging 10-15% yoy. Only 2008 was the only neg and that rebounded very quickly.

    12. Re:Define woe by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      My 401k says differently. I am averaging 10-15% yoy. Only 2008 was the only neg and that rebounded very quickly.

      Over what period of time? If you started in early 2009 sure you're doing great. If you started in early 2008, not so much.

      You can get a huge ROI over various random period of time. If you're investing in an index you're doing it for the long-term, and the long-term results for the S&P 500 aren't really all that dazzling, unless you compare it to just about anything else. There really aren't any reliable ways to get double-digit returns long-term these days - maybe if the market goes back to how it behaved in the 40s-80s there would be.

    13. Re:Define woe by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      The main factors are that dividends represent half your return, typically. And most of your costs are trading - sticking to a low cost no load institutional or higher (e.g. $10,000 or more invested) fund reduces your costs dramatically.

      I did not say just buy stocks all the time, or S&P 500 all the time. Right now - that's the best choice. I've bought distressed bonds at fire sale prices and made a lot on those, and I've done options and IPOs. Everything has a season.

      Never, ever, get involved with wealth managers. Ever.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    14. Re:Define woe by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Facebook made $425 million last quarter. I don't think they're going to die anytime soon.

      Lol. that's what people said about Crackberry.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    15. Re:Define woe by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Good point. I was looking at the value of the index and not counting dividends. That would be a decent chunk of missed earnings.

    16. Re:Define woe by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      The main problem with most tech stocks is the lack of dividends. It's based on the concept that the highest use of cash is to reinvest in research and gaining new customers, but when most tech sits on large piles of cash hordes, it's not the highest use, as cash has very low earnings nowadays.

      Tech used to be new, now it's not new. One reason for dividends is to allow you to hold the stock, reduce transactions both as an Owner and for the Corporation, and realize your investment as income.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    17. Re:Define woe by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      yes, I said hordes not hoards. when they get that big ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    18. Re:Define woe by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Ya, no. Everyone said blackberry had a failing business model and that they'd need to adapt or die. Their insistence on remaining a handset manufacturer rather than license their software was a clear failure from the start. The only people saying they weren't sinking were the captains of the ship.

      Facebook's business model is completely sound. It's unlikely ANY company is going to decide they're no longer interested in marketing their products. As long as there is advertising, there will be a place for facebook. And that's ignoring the fact that the US government has a very real interest in keeping them viable.

    19. Re:Define woe by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      LOL. How naive you are.

      I've been investing in tech since buying shares of Apple on Black Monday.

      Stuff changes. FB is starting to die, and a lot of us "still on it" are migrating off of it day by day.

      Keep dreaming.

      That reminds me, I need to update AdBlocker again.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  12. Trickle down bust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In action.

  13. when i see posts like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I figure it's some guy hoping to trigger a sell-off to help his position in the markets. In fact I know a "bill carson" who would do exactly that!

  14. They have a business plan by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Its something along the lines of "social media, blah blah, make lots of noise about it, mobile app, get bought by Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Yahoo"

  15. Re:Bullshit from statists. by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's getting harder and harder to figure out whether a post is real or a parody.

  16. All I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is $1000/share for Goog? Ridiculously overpriced. The Chinese have not even begun to ramp up their own Goog alternative, neither has anyone else. Goog seems like the only game in town - for a game very early in it's life-cycle.

    1. Re:All I know by dk20 · · Score: 2

      Sure they have, the Chinese search provider even trades as an ADR on NASDAQ just look up BIDU

  17. Not seeing the same trends by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Dotcom crash happened mostly because there was a massive gold rush to throw money at any startup that said they were going to do cool things on the web. But there was way too much money being spent on Aeron chairs and expensive digs and nothing being spent on figuring out if the idea was good. This comes from having been to a lot of bankruptcy auctions. Hell, the CEO of one company spent investor dollars on a powered paraglider. Da fuq? I also wonder if Y2K was something of a catalyst. In the 90s, companies were spending gobs of money to prepare for Y2K. When that came and went without a hitch, all that money evaporating and may have caused investors to question their other high risk ventures.

    The housing bubble was could be seen a mile away by anyone who wasn't living in a utopian stupor. You can't force banks to issue sub-prime mortgages knowing full well that most of those buyers couldn't keep up with the payments without the lenders passing the hot potato to the next sucker. BTW, CDOs and mortgage-backed securities had been around for 20+ years without a problem. Again, the gold rush of house flipping was eventually going to crash when the music stopped in the form of enough people saying "You want HOW MUCH for this P.O.S house?! Nope."

    Honestly, I don't really see the same scope of bullsh*t in Silicon Valley. Social networking companies are at risk because they don't have a tangible product just as dotcom companies didn't in 2000. But the hardware companies aren't going away. Will other companies get injured as a few collapse? Sure, but that would be panic selling and hence a good buying opportunity.

    1. Re:Not seeing the same trends by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Social networking companies are at risk because they don't have a tangible product just as dotcom companies didn't in 2000.

      Social networking companies do have a product: advertising.

    2. Re:Not seeing the same trends by znrt · · Score: 1

      In the 90s, companies were spending gobs of money to prepare for Y2K. When that came and went without a hitch, all that money evaporating and may have caused investors to question their other high risk ventures.

      fixing y2k was a necessity, the only expected return on that investment was survival, because most businesses would have been incapable of operating if not. there sure was a small boom in the dev sector because of high demand, but it was no bubble, it even had a fixed eol date, 12/31/1999. there was no artificial overpricing, money did not "evaporate", it went mostly into salaries for actual work done that needed to be done, and there was a great deal of it. big consulting firms did ofc sell expensive bs, but they always do.

      Social networking companies are at risk because they don't have a tangible product just as dotcom companies didn't in 2000. But the hardware companies aren't going away.

      nowadays any gossip webpage can be called a "tech company" if you just host it on monster servers, and maybe write a companion mobile app. signs of the times!

    3. Re:Not seeing the same trends by znrt · · Score: 2

      Social networking companies do have a product: advertising.

      he said "tangible". that all the buzz about targeted advertising is actually worth the money is still speculation.

    4. Re:Not seeing the same trends by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, then? Are you going by the strict "it can be touched" meaning of tangible? I was going by the looser "it can be perceived" meaning. Either way, advertisements are more tangible than software but less tangible than houses.

    5. Re:Not seeing the same trends by znrt · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, then? Are you going by the strict "it can be touched" meaning of tangible? I was going by the looser "it can be perceived" meaning. Either way, advertisements are more tangible than software but less tangible than houses.

      tangible as in "it has real value for me for my money", meaning it is still unclear that there is a product to speak of, more than the sole promise.

      if you sell buckets full of sand in the desert, that's pretty tangible, and you can it product if you brand it "magical thrist quenching sand". and you might even sell some, but you will burn your segment out pretty quickly. still a product in the marketing sense: a promise of value in exchange for cash. but ... meh!

      targeted advertising is still an experiment. nobody knows for sure if it works in general sense, if it does only in specific contexts and to what extent, or if it can even backlash. it's just the next big thing of the moment, the hype is high and nobody wants to risk missing out. a typical bubble setting btw. and i haven't seen serious and honest figures yet, i wonder if there are. my particular experience (as a target) tells me it's a complete failure, but then i know people that find it useful (as targets) and are even pleased, but they are rare. average person in my circles (in the boradest possible definition) doesn't give a shit on those ads at all, even if they don't block them. the subconscious imprint of brands clearly works, but there's no hard evidence that all the "targeting" thing is worth the extra cpu cycles, as opposed to classical indiscriminate media flooding. it could as well be sand buckets. no 'tangible' product if you happen to live in the desert! :D

  18. Where have I heard this before? by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While unemployment generally may be high, in the tech sector it is very low.

    How about some actual, you know, statistics.

    Tech companies, led by Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, are lobbying Congress to relax immigration rules so they can hire more foreign talent because they believe domestic talent has gotten too scarce and too expensive.

    And that's evidence of a shortage? They've been pushing for more of this crap for 20 years, rain or shine.

    I also notice that almost the entire article is about Silicon Valley, which despite its pretenses of being cosmopolitan, or even "globalized" (whatever the hell that means), is one of the most provincial places there is. Here's a clue: there are parts of the US outside of the Bay Area. Amazing but true! Some of those places are tech hubs with lower salaries. Having trouble finding people at a reasonable price? Branch out. It's hardly a new business strategy. The geniuses who claim to have destroyed the barriers to long distance communication don't want to take advantage of it (except to India of course). I know that denizens of the valley are afraid to get on a plane to someplace like, say Pittsburgh, where they have a dreaded thing called "snow", but you can tough it out. Look on the bright side - the plane trip is much shorter than across the Pacific. You can even use Google maps to find this place called "Pittsburgh" .

    1. Re:Where have I heard this before? by asmkm22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tech unemployment for the third quarter is at about 3.9%

      http://marketing.dice.com/pdf/2013-q3_TechTrends_Report.pdf

    2. Re:Where have I heard this before? by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

      About the same as the average of all people w/ a bachelor's or higher: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

      Definitely no indication of a "shortage", unless there is a shortage of people for all types of work that require a college education. If anyone actually believes that, then I've got a bridge to sell them. Silicon Valley BS debunked once again by the actual statistics.

  19. Even companies with real profits are overvalued by msobkow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google, Apple, and a few others are overvalued right now as well.

    But the stock market is all about gambling, not real value. Most of the big players treat it like monopoly money, because it's not coming out of their own pockets. :(

    That's a problem with the stock market overall, though, not just tech stocks.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google, Apple, and a few others are overvalued right now as well.

      How is Apple overvalued? Their p/e ratio is 13.25.

    2. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Their market share is sliding, not growing. Profitability will therefore come down.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no understanding of the stock market and I recommend you don't invest money in it because you will your clock cleaned. Market share has little to do with their stock price. Apple sells more iPhones and iPads now than they ever have in the past. The reason is that the market is growing so there's LOTS of room for more than one winner. It's not a zero sum game. What does matter is margins and they have been shrinking for Apple but are starting to stabilize. That said, nothing really big is going to happen with that stock until they demonstrate that they can still build innovative products. If they can make an iWatch or something that the average person can imagine wearing, then buckle up because that stock is going to go through the roof.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    4. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have zero understanding of the basis of AAPL's profit growth. AAPL is not in the commodity plastics market, where the share one garners of a limited pie is the driver. AAPL sells quality and style. They are not Hyundai, they are BMW.

    5. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Apple is overrated. They're a fad. In all respects.

      Sooner or later a new shiny will take over people's fanatacism in the North American market. It's already happened overseas.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    6. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      First off, you seem to be under the impression I'm some kind of Apple fanboy. I'm not. I use a Samsung phone (two, in fact). Your hatred for the company makes you incapable of making good investment decisions so I would suggest you not come on here and spout crap that you know nothing about. Just a thought. Anyone who has loyalty to a company or technology is an idiot. This is even more true in the world of stocks.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    7. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Their market share is sliding, not growing. Profitability will therefore come down.

      Simply untrue, since market share is merely one of many factors that can affect profitability, and it doesn't actually matter very much for Apple, since they don't play in the low-margins-high-volume game at the low end of the market where having a bigger share is the most important thing.

      First off, I agree that their market share is decreasing, as is their profit share in both the smartphone and tablet markets. That said, their sales volume has continued to increase at a quick rate (though slower than that of the industry as a whole, hence the decreasing market share), and with it, their profits have continued to increase. Because their sales volume growth is slower than that of the industry, it's natural that their market share would decrease, but that does not, in and of itself, affect their profitability or their valuation, which are based on the size of their profits and the expectation of future profits, rather than being based on the size of their profits relative to the other players in the field, as you appear to mistakenly believe.

      In fact, Apple appears to be solidifying their position at the mid-to-high end of the market where the vast majority of profits lie. Moreover, the charts from the last few years have all indicated that Apple still controls the majority profit share (i.e. they make over half the profits) in both the smartphone and tablet markets, though their majority position is likely to be usurped in the smartphone space by Samsung sometime in the next year, I'd guess. Despite that, they continue to be undervalued by quite a bit, since they are expected to increase their volume and profits at a steady rate for the foreseeable future, and have done a good job of establishing a solid technological and operational foundation that should allow them to do so.

      As was already said, Apple's P/E ratio (price-to-earnings ratio: a simple metric that may indicate an over/under valuation of stock if it's out of touch with the rest of the industry) is around 13 right now, which is well below the tech industry's average (which I think is around 17, but don't quote me on that). For a ridiculous point of comparison, Amazon's P/E was over 3000 at some points last year, which could indicate a MASSIVE overvaluation, except that Amazon is a company with a weird business model, so it can get away with stuff like that.

    8. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the general consensus is that Apple is extremely undervalued given their enormous cash stores and their brand value.

      Please don't waste your money in the stock market. You are clueless.

    9. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, part of the reason that people are jumping on you for this claim is that Apple's stock is particularly undervalued from WRT most classic stock metrics. Even compared to the broader market today or historically, Apple's stock looks undervalued. You could make a case that they have some serious risks due to their market position, limited product line and competitive industry, but why you would mention Apple as being overvalued before other tech companies (LinkedIn, Amazon, Facebook, for example) suggests strongly that you are somewhat ignorant about the subject.

    10. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Uh, what? Apple's P/E is famously low (around 13) compared to their competitors in the tech industry (which average around 20), indicating that they are undervalued by quite a bit. Google's is around 30 right now, so the claim that they're overvalued may have merit, however (which isn't to say that they're not a valuable company, mind you, merely that the stock price may be out of touch with just how valuable they actually are).

      As for companies treating it like monopoly money, companies that sacrifice their long-term stability for the sake of their short-term satisfaction by engaging in the practices you've described will either fail to develop into a big player at all (e.g. startups looking to cash out on a big IPO), or else they'll quickly find that their seat at the big players' table gets stolen out from under them. The big players are able to remain big by having an appreciation for how stocks work, demonstrating sustainable profits and growth, and by not doing stupid things with the money.

    11. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't think you were an apple fanboy until you made this reply.

    12. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, it has been proved by a vast number of empirical studies since the 80s that stock market is mostly gambling, because the indicators by means of which the traders are trying to outsmart the actual market pricing do not correlate sufficiently with actual future stock prices (and if they would they'd immediately enter the actual price anyway).

      The only people who make money on the stock market are the ones who are 1.) lucky, or 2.) know what "regression to the mean" means.

    13. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by msobkow · · Score: 1

      There are certain brands that maintain brand appeal and price by being exclusive. Apple is not exclusive; they're a mass marketer. Therefore their aura of exclusivity and "specialness" will disappear in due time. You can't have it both ways -- either you're an exclusive up-scale marketer, or you're a mass market commodity. You can't be both for long at all.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    14. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by msobkow · · Score: 1

      That's not to say I expect Apple to disappear as a company, but I think they're *way* overvalued because they won't be able to maintain their high margins as the "exclusivity" of the brand wears off.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    15. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by dywolf · · Score: 1

      that could be said of any company and becomes advice any investment of any kind, period.
      the GP is right: you know nothing Jon Snow.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by dywolf · · Score: 1

      *against any
      (seriosuly, if /. were a stock, it's stock would double just from adding a frigging EDIT BUTTON!!!)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    17. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      Just because a companies P/E is low does not mean they are undervalued. It could mean the market expects that future earnings (you know, the ones that actually count if you are buying a stock) are going to be lower than they have been.

    18. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Certainly. I won't disagree with that in the least. Nonetheless, consensus seems to be that Apple is undervalued at the moment, so the OPs choice to use them as his example seems like an odd one, given that there are plenty of examples of big players that are widely considered to be overvalued (e.g. Facebook).

    19. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by unique_parrot · · Score: 1

      oh, your post, after a few beers, is so funny, thank you !

    20. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by unique_parrot · · Score: 1

      EDIT: but would be really usefull!!

    21. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      You've made claims that they're a "mass marketer", without defining what you mean by that or providing any justification for that claim. If I take it to mean that you think they are interested in selling to everyone, regardless of if they're in the high or low end of the market, then I would cordially disagree, since they've specifically and recently made clear choices to avoid that behavior. For instance, people expected the iPhone 5C to be a low-cost entry in the market, but Apple instead made it a mid-to-high range model and kept the same price as the model it replaced. That was a statement of intent, indicating that despite this notion that they need to push into the low-end of the market, they're refusing to do so. It also jives with their recent history as a company, because they haven't played in the low-margins-high-volume game since Jobs' return in the '90s. They've managed to maintain their high margins and exclusivity up to now across their products, and by all indications, they have no plans to start on the low-margins side of the market now, so I don't know why you think that their exclusivity is in danger.

      Besides which, as the smartphone market's growth has continued to outpace Apple's (particularly at the low-end of the market), Apple is, by holding firm with their products and not lowering their prices, becoming more and more "exclusive", simply by virtue of holding still while the low-end becomes crowded with more and more products. Assuming that something unlikely doesn't happen (e.g. the entire Android ecosystem collapses) and that the smartphone market's growth continues to outpace Apple's, Apple will be relegated to the top-end of the market, where it will likely make a tidy sum of money on a regular basis since it continues to have the highest customer retention rate by a wide margin.

    22. Re:Even companies with real profits are overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Even if it was "proved" that stock market is mostly gambling, it's not a zero sum gamble so it's still probably a good investment.
      2. Obviously, stocks are a high risk venture that most people can't beat the average. But the market isn't totally efficient. There are investors who consistently beat the market outside of what would be expected from a pure "luck of the draw" (i.e. for some investors, past performance does have some indication of future returns, albeit very slight). The correct claim has a heck of a lot more qualifiers - *most* investors who pick stocks in the market will have hard time edging out overall market performance after factoring in transaction costs.

  20. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee. I'm a factory worker, and I bought a house recently. So have other people I have known. Look outside your insular bubble. Very few people work in technology as a whole. It's the factory workers, and other non technology people buying/using your product that provide YOU with a job, not the other way around. So quit thinking you are Atlas and your sector of the economy is holding the world up.

  21. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    the only one that is productive is technology

    Social media is productive? Hey, it's not like we're talking real tech here.

  22. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by dugancent · · Score: 1

    I make pretty good money in medicine.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  23. That again! by jonfr · · Score: 1

    Oh dear..... This is not going to end well is it.

  24. whole lotta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whole lotta collapsn' goin' on out there

    "Silicon Valley Could Be Heading For a New Stock Collapse."
    "Bitcoin Protocol Vulnerability Could Lead To a Collapse."

  25. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    I guess you do not live in California. That's the problem.

  26. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    It's the factory workers, and other non technology people buying/using your product that provide YOU with a job, not the other way around.

    It's both, and neither. Both "tech" and factories are productive parts of the economy. All productive sectors add something.

    Gee. I'm a factory worker, and I bought a house recently. So have other people I have known. Look outside your insular bubble.

    A lot of people from areas where housing is very expensive (like where I live) don't realize that housing is much more affordable elsewhere. I'm just glad I bought before the bubble went nuts. I don't think I could afford my own house today, even after prices have dropped a bit, and I assure you my house is nothing fancy.

    P.S. Glad to know there are still some people working in factories here. We ought to have more of them.

  27. Impact by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    The question is: how will a tech bubble burst impact economy outside of silicon valley?

  28. Eh, maybe by khallow · · Score: 1

    I'm not connected to high tech like I was during the dotcom days, but it strikes me that this bubble is still a bit immature. What I see as somewhat more concerning is the wide variety of things that are getting overvalued, such as high tech stocks, renewable energy, bonds (due to central bank quantitative easing), and a couple of US-centric things (higher education loans and the coming health insurance market).

    I think any bubbles and their bursts will be moderate in size and effect until a lot of people find ways to leverage the hell out of one or more of these things. Then it'll be full blown tulipmania. But I think that'll take some time to set up politically and financially.

    In the meantime, I wouldn't go dumping your nest egg into Yahoo. It's also possible in several different ways to lose your shirt on the stock market and still end up paying capital gains tax. I point this particular thing out because it's clear from the talk that a lot of people think of bubble collapses in a particular way (asset goes up to a high unsustainable price and then falls). Unfortunately, such bubbles can fail in a number of exciting ways.

    On the plus side, if there is a high tech collapse, there probably won't be any "too big to fail" firms in there.

  29. Re:Bullshit from statists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In that case it'd be satire. And from the looks of things high quality satire. After all the best satire is the kind that you can't tell is real or not.

  30. What this means is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once people start talking about a stock bubble, then the those stocks will continue soaring - the Nasdaq probably doubles or triples from here. Then when all the people talking bubble have finally lost every penny trying to short those stocks, then the crash will finally come.

  31. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I come from Detroit where Factory jobs if they still exist make less than 15 bucks an hour on average, but nice try. How about Ohio where all of those factory jobs.. oh wait, they have mostly closed and been shipped overseas. I know, the steel workers in factories making.. Fuck not that either!

    Look, I get that there are a few decent paying jobs in production. That said, the majority of the factory jobs are no longer in the USA.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  32. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

    It's not just in California where housing is insanely priced. Go to Northern Ohio or Detroit and see what life is like there. Perhaps these two areas are the only extremes in the country? I doubt it, I have read similar stories about Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc.. Nobody is doing well on average, but technology markets have been doing better than others.

    I also agree that numerous segments are holding each other up. That said, 20 years ago you could not have moved the auto industry without collapsing a whole lot of work. That happened, and technology filled in some of those jobs. As wealth disparity and poverty levels in the US indicate, it has not been enough to keep everyone going.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  33. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    It's not just in California where housing is insanely priced.

    I live on Long Island. Cheaper than SV, but about the same as San Diego. It's nuts.

  34. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I come from the south where 15 bucks an hour can get you a nice house with a decent chunk of land, how's those unions working out for you?

  35. Re:Bullshit from statists. by psm321 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Poe's law: Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

  36. The Real Reason for Self Driving Cars by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    After reading the article at the link you posted, I finally understand the true urge behind the self-driving car - so that when you park at night to sleep the car can just move itself if it detects cops show up to check it out!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  37. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess you do not live in California. That's the problem.

    "California" is NOT just the SF Bay area, and your extreme myopia is showing...

    Guess where you can buy a 1,500sq.ft. house on half an acre for $30,000?
    Answer: California

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  38. I think I'll Retweet this by Aeonym · · Score: 1

    *cough*Twitter*cough*

  39. The Fog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not the one San Francisco is famous for, although it's an interesting coincidence.

    It's the new buzzword developing momentum in Silicon Valley and it would be a red flag in any bubble book--except for the fact the word is for the upcoming industry for the Internet of Things (IoT). The timing for it to mature into the mainstream is almost perfect and it'll probably save the valley from imploding, im(not-so)ho.

    Slashdot, you read it hear first.

  40. Stupidity Fee by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    As long as they don't tank the entire economy, a burst would be a Tax on Stupidity, since they didn't learn from prior dot-com bubble.

  41. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 1

    Costs extra if you want the half acre to be roughly horizontal and have electricity and water to the site.

  42. You can't time the markets (poem) by istartedi · · Score: 1

    It's a cliche that you can't time the market.
    There's a reason for that.
    It's true.
    Now that's all well and good Mr. Market
    But tell me
    What should I do?

    Very good question, now listen with care
    Bend over, and lend me your ear
    When talk is of bubbles
    The alarms's set for troubles
    Next month
    Or maybe next year

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  43. Shifting Sands by b4upoo · · Score: 2

    I suspect that with the types of devices using computer chips and software and the proliferation of OSs it is a risky bet to put money into the computer or electronic device industry. We can see this in the smart phone segment where companies jockey for position without knowing if a brand or new enterprise might suddenly sweep up the market. Although risk might yield a lot of earnings second guessing the computer industry is just far too difficult.

  44. complete bullshit by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

    While unemployment generally may be high, in the tech sector it is very low.
    Tech companies, led by Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, are lobbying Congress to relax immigration rules so they can hire more foreign talent because they believe domestic talent has gotten too scarce and too expensive. It's driving up wages bills like crazy. Matt Allen, a tech recruiter at Vertical Move, told me recently:

    of course he told you that, he's a recruiter! the truth is that the tech sector jobs are either offering insultingly low wages or out-sourcing to save a buck, the bigger the pool, the more control they can screw people over, especially if you are under the threat of being deported if they fire you. The whole rent-a-coder thing went awry because people offer to work for wages below minimum wage because in their country, $3/hr is a good wage and tax free by keeping it in paypal.

    You don't see every tech person driving around in beamers.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  45. College = good bargain? huh? by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    How do you figure that a college education is a good bargain? Tuition prices have vastly outpaced inflation, mainly due to permissive government loan programs (throw money into a system, watch prices rise, economics at work). Meanwhile, because a college degree is the new high school diploma, the college offerings in - let's be blunt - useless fields have expanded. Here is some data from DOE:

    Degrees with, um, limited employment prospects, change since 1985
    - Visual and performing arts: up 150%
    - Interdisciplinary studies: up 175%
    - Recreation, leisure, fitness: up 620%
    - Liberal arts, general studies: up 120%
    - Family science (wtf?): up 50%
    - Social science & history: up 80%

    Meanwhile, technical degrees with good employment prospects, again since 1985
    - Mathematics: no change
    - Engineering: down 5%
    - Computer science: down 5%

    The only real exception seems to be in medicine and healthcare, which is eminently employable and is also up quite a lot. Otherwise, our colleges seem to be producing more and more well-qualified hamburger flippers.

    p.s. I didn't mention business, although that is the most popular degree by far. Up 50%, whichever category you care to place it in.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:College = good bargain? huh? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      How do you figure that a college education is a good bargain? Tuition prices have vastly outpaced inflation, mainly due to permissive government loan programs (throw money into a system, watch prices rise, economics at work).

      Nonsense. The supply of education is not fixed. Increase demand and the supply increases rather easily. Tuition prices have tracked wages. What's happened with education is that unlike many other things the production hasn't gotten more efficient. The same thing has happened with tailoring and the price of a man's haircut neither of which are subject to government loan programs.

      Now if you want an area where government distortion has created massive price increases: healthcare.

    2. Re:College = good bargain? huh? by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      "How do you figure that a college education is a good bargain?"

      Great question. College is a good bargain because it has a short payback period. I figure it because people with a college education earn marginally more to pay off their debt in a few years, so anyone who expects to work for more than a few years can get ahead with a college education. (My personal payback period was about eight months. Whoa, eight months of marginal earning to pay back four years of Ivy League education! What a deal!) Professional schools (law, medicine, business) extends the payback period by a few more years but those folks "get to be" lawyers and doctors, and the payback period is still much shorter than a career is.

      Also, the average cost of college hasn't gone up much faster than inflation. Only the sticker price of college has shot up so quickly, which is super great because that's one way that rich people help pay for the education of poor people. My alma is something like $55,000 a year. Wow, that's expensive... for me and my family, but not for about a third of people who go there! Those rich folks can afford it, and the poor folks pay less on a sliding scale. It's like a redistributionist's dream come true. Nevertheless, it is true that government support likely increases college costs. Alas, that's the price of expanding access.

      Finally, all of these things are irrelevant to the question of whether college is a good bargain:
      * Tuition prices have vastly outpaced inflation
      * mainly due to permissive government loan programs
      * a college degree is the new high school diploma
      * our colleges seem to be producing more and more well-qualified hamburger flippers.
      * business, although that is the most popular degree by far. Up 50%

  46. Tumblr and Instgram by jbolden · · Score: 1

    Social networks like Tumblr don't have to be profitable. Google. Facebook, Yahoo are themselves profitable. What they are buying are user bases not the business. As far as record highs:

    Cisco P/E 12
    Apple P/E 13 (and that's x-cash, including cash it is much lower)
    Microsoft P/E 13.5 (also x-cash)
    Google P/E 28 (high but still rapidly growing)
    HP is losing money but the stock is cut in half

    I don't see a bubble.

  47. Misleading Headline by GoCats1999 · · Score: 1

    The article actually focuses primarily on pre-revenue and/or pre-profitability consumer-oriented startups. While these companies do make a fair share of headlines and noise in both the tech and the mainstream media, I would hardly say that it makes up a large percentage of the *actual* jobs and capitalization of either the tech sector as a whole, or even the tech sector in silicon valley.

    While the author does make some good points with regards to over-valuation of these companies (and some of the crazy things that some companies may be doing to attract top-level talent), his comparisons to the late-90s dotcom bubble is weak at best. (I know from personal experience, as I entered into the workforce during the boom and got to experience first hand the woes of the bust).

    The original dotcom bust had such an impact on the overall economy because a majority of the investment and valuation was on these non-profitability consumer-oriented businesses (pets.com, etoys, govworks, etc.). The current tech sector economy is *significantly* more diverse, with strong B2B startups, hardware and consumer electronics, platforms and services, etc.

    However, note that the focus of the article is *only* on consumer-oriented startups. His graph on Andreessen Horowitz (ironically, founded by former Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, who was one of the poster boys of the first docom bust) I think nails is perfectly: "Andreessen Horowitz ... is saying it will no longer invest in early stage consumer-oriented startups ... Andreessen is interested more in later stage and business-to-business-oriented companies. Companies with actual prospects of real revenue, in other words."

    So in the article itself, the author specifies that there is still a very strong market for B2B companies. Who are these companies? Most of us probably have never heard of them, and likely never will. Because most of them are boring, unsexy companies that help provide business improvement, revenue generation and/or process efficiency in industries that will never make it on to VentureBeat or Tech Crunch. However, they are also boring, unsexy companies that add *actual* value to businesses, which in turn provides revenue and profitability to the company, which I would argue is a significantly stronger driver to the tech economy than the B2C startups.

    To say "tech sector" and "silicon valley" and to only attribute it to the flashier B2C, consumer-oriented startups is simply perpetuating the disservice that the tech media gives to the women and men who are and will continue to be the true drivers of this economy.

    1. Re:Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed!

      And to add to that, the P/E of a majority of the large tech sector companies is (IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Intel) which make up over a TRILLION dollars in market valuation is still at a low 15. Stock analysts all say that anything at or below 15 is VERY appealing.

      Even if you add some of the "newer" companies like Yahoo and Google (which adds another 1/3 TRILLION), you're average PE is still not even in the 20s!

      In the late 90s, we were looking at companies that IPO-ed that didn't even have any profitability (e.g. a NEGATIVE P/E!)

  48. a bubble every decade - nature of the beast by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Seven Sisters mainframes were the go-go stocks of the 1960s. Then transistors, PCs, A.I. computing, pen-computing, dot-boom 1.0, etc.
    Every speculator thinks they sell before the crash. And technology will rise again from the ashes.

  49. The Yahoo Effect by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

    I guess we could call it this. Anytime Yahoo starts buying companies, you know the tech sector is fucked up.

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
  50. Investors are still cautious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things have improved over the past few years, but investors are still cautious when spending their money on startups. It's nothing like the golden years (late-90's), and I doubt we'll ever reach that again. It still takes a lot of work to get even a small investment -- the ones you read about that get massive amounts of funding for seemingly easy/obvious ideas are really lucky.

  51. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Costs extra if you want the half acre to be roughly horizontal and have electricity and water to the site.

    Nope, not at all. California is just a huge state, with TONS of cheap vacant land wide open once you get some distance away from the big cities.

    In fact, last time I checked: "BLM California manages 15.2 million acres of public lands, nearly 15% of the state's land area." http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en.html

    $12,500 - level lot:
    MLS# SK13219448

    $23,000 - larger lot, small house
    MLS# 41325545

    $25,500 - nice house, 1/4 acre
    MLS# 21479131

    $27,500 - needs work
    MLS# DC12107035

    $28,000 - large house - 1/3rd acre
    MLS# 21481501

    $29,900 - Good condition
    MLS# DC13046621

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  52. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone seems to be waiting for the return of the "good old days" when American manufacturing jobs were plentiful and paid high wages but those days are gone. Are the affected proactive? Do they seek retraining? Nope and nope. I've urged these people to help themselves and seek some kind of retraining. Yes, it means taking out student loans. Still, they'd rather sit around and hope than accept the reality of their situation. I get that change is scary but if you're incapable of trying hard enough to overcome your fear, I have little sympathy for you. I'll support you. I'll offer encouraging words to you. I'll make suggestions for things you can do to improve your life. I will offer any and all help I can but I will not carry you for the rest of your life while you make no greater effort than to wallow in fear and self pity. These people are my friends. I want to help them. I will not, however, be their parents and put myself through hell to teach them life lessons they should have learned 20 years ago. Fuck that.

  53. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you cannot get a 1500" inhabitable house sitting on 0.5 acres of land in California. I did an MLS search for the entire state and could not find any. There are plenty of auctions starting anywhere from $10K to $30K, but they don't count because you do know the final bid. Also, there are homes clearly mislabeled, they are rentals or a realtor entered the wrong sale price ($245 when it should be $245,000).

  54. Re:Well, "if" it does.. by evilviper · · Score: 1

    No you cannot get a 1500" inhabitable house sitting on 0.5 acres of land in California. I did an MLS search for the entire state and could not find any.

    The one I was specifically references was JUST removed between yesterday and today, so it probably just went into escrow.

    If you would have taken a few seconds to look, you would have seen that already I posted a follow-up with a list of several properties:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4410885&cid=45338157

    There are plenty of auctions starting anywhere from $10K to $30K, but they don't count because you do know the final bid.

    That's true of ANY house for sale. If more than one person wants it, the price will go up. Banks are notorious for listing properties at low prices, but refusing to sell if they aren't exceeded. It's a terrible system, but that's the one we've got, and the only easy source of prices.

    If you'd like to search through all the homes sold in the past 6 months to find a similar one and give us the price it went for, THAT would be useful information.

    Just saying "Nope" without any numbers or figures really doesn't advance the discussion any.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant