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?"

43 of 200 comments (clear)

  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 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?

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

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

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

  4. 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 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?

    3. 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.

  5. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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! --
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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! --
  8. 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.

  9. 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: 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

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

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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.