Tech Bubble? What Tech Bubble?

HughPickens.com writes: Conor Dougherty writes in the NYT that the tech industry's venture capitalists — the financiers who bet on companies when they are little more than an idea — are going out of their way to avoid the one word that could describe what is happening around them: Bubble. "I guess it is a scary word because in some sense no one wants it to stop," says Tomasz Tunguz. "And so if you utter it, do you pop it?" In 2000, tech stocks crashed, venture capital dried up and many young companies were vaporized. Today, people see shades of 2000 in the enormous valuations assigned to private companies like Uber, with a valuation of $41 billion, and Slack, the corporate messaging service that is about a year old and valued at $2.8 billion in its latest funding round. A few years ago private companies worth more than $1 billion were rare enough that venture capitalists called them "unicorns." Today, there are 107 unicorns and while nobody doubts that many of tech's unicorns are indeed real businesses, valuations are inflating, leading some people to worry that investment decisions are being guided by something venture capitalists call FOMO — the fear of missing out.

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

Comments

Who cares if it kills companies?

[msobkow]

What ticks me off is not that bubbles kill companies, but that bubbles kill retirement plans because of all the greedy "analysts" betting on a "sure thing."

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are taking the headline too literally. We care about the companies because PEOPLE depend on them.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[msauve]

Where are you that you are still in a pension plan which you don't control? I'd think most /. users have 401(k) which they have at least a bit of control over. Too bad that doesn't stop a common mistake, though - someone betting everything on the company they work for, salary, stock/options, and 401(k) investments.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[msobkow]

And there is nobody in the world who could be affected except /. users, right?

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Workers care... Dumbass.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[ranton]

Too bad that doesn't stop a common mistake, though - someone betting everything on the company they work for, salary, stock/options, and 401(k) investments.

There is no level of diversification or foresight that can protect the masses from major bubble collapses. Sure some people will get lucky, and they will spend the next 20 years pretending it was their expert planning that explains this luck, but the vast majority will have their investments take a significant hit. You can put your money in index funds to avoid excessive fees, but have the stock market tank. You can put your money into buying rental properties, only to have your local real estate market tank. You can put your money into bonds, only to have their value erode as interest rates and inflation rise. You can put your money into precious metals only to have that bubble burst too.

Most people don't have enough money to diversify any better than just putting their money in diversified mutual funds. But then they lose almost all of the control you seem to expect them to have over their investments.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no level of diversification or foresight that can protect the masses from major bubble collapses.

Actually, there is. It's called "adjusting your portfolio for risk." If you're young, then you choose good mutual funds (low cost index funds, generally speaking), keep dumping money regularly into them, and ignore the short-term ups and downs of the market. On average, over any given 10+ year interval, the market has returned 6-7%. That includes the Depression. So if you're retiring more than 10 years from now, you *ignore* the ups and downs, and dollar cost average your way to more money over the long run.

If you're less than 10 years from retirement, you should be shifting your investment mix into a more bonds and money market oriented investment mixes to insulate against the downturns in the market. During 2008, one money market fund actually broke the buck (e.g., lost money) - and that fund lost 3%. Of the 30 funds in the market that lost money, all but one absorbed the loss themselves to avoid the loss of investor confidence. Of course, the downside of a money market investment is that the interest is very low, and may very well not even keep up with inflation - but that's the same thing that'll happen if you just stick it all in a sock under your mattress, too.

There is no real magic to it - if you choose low-cost index funds from a reputable broker, and leave it invested for the long term, you will almost certainly see returns of 6-7%. This means that when the market tanks, you can't panic and rip all the money out, realizing actual losses. Invest regularly, start investing early, and keep investing when the market turns down - over time, it will recover, and you will end up ahead. You can get more aggressive in your investment mix, and that incorporates more risk, but that should NEVER be done when your retirement horizon is within 10 - 15 years.

And yes, GP is right: don't invest it all in one particular company or stock. You are not a better stock picker than professional fund managers who have billions of dollars worth of research, modeling, and staff available to them to assess risks and rewards. Give the money to a low-cost fund managed by a professional manager with a reputable broker, and let them do their work.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[lgw]

There is no level of diversification or foresight that can protect the masses from major bubble collapses.

Sure there is. It's so easy, you probably can't see it. Just stay away from individual companies, even individual industries, invest broadly across the market as a whole and ignore collapses - just ride them out. If you invest in some SP500 or "all stocks" fund, or whatever, you've own the same micro-% of the American economy before, during, and after the crash, and through the recovery. The exchange rate between USD and "micro-% of all sticks" may fluctuate wildly for a while, but just don't sell in a panic and you'll be fine in a few years.

The closer you get to retirement, to more you'll need some share of your investments in quality bonds, so that if you need money to live on through a crash bottom you won't need to sell stock. (Government bonds are not quality bonds any more - after the US government punished ratings agencies who dared question the rating of US debt, you can never again trust any sovereign debt rating in the US - just steer clear of the category.) The old-school rule of thumb was "your age as a % in bonds", but that's from a time when interest rates were quite high. Less than half your age as a % in bonds is probably a mistake, however - you need something to be selling that's not stocks when everyone is screaming about the end of the financial world in every decade's crash.

Don't over-think the problem, don't act out of emotion, just accumulate wealth and have patience. In times when everyone seems emotional about the market, make damn sure you're not being emotional before you take any action. I've sailed through the dot-com crash, the 08 finance crash, and I'm fully expected the next one will be along soon enough, but you just keep accumulating "micro-% of all stocks" regardless and, sure enough, you become more wealthy over time.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[mrchaotica]

1. Rule 1: put most of your money in a total stock market index fund (60-90%, depending on how risk-averse you are) with the lowest expense ratio possible.
2. Rule 2: Put the rest of it in a bond index fund (10-40%), also with the lowest expense ratio possible.
3. Rule 3: Never, ever sell, even in the worst recession imaginable, except to rebalance or (after retirement) to withdraw living expenses.

Rule 3 is the hard part (psychologically), which is why so many individual investors screw it up. The key is to understand that recessions are irrelevant because the market always eventually goes back up. (And yes, I am including Japan's market in that statement. If you had dollar-cost averaged into Japan's stock market before it crashed and then kept doing that, and did not sell, then you'd still have managed a decent return once you account for dividends.)

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[ranton]

You discuss many of the tactics people have to use to safeguard their money because investors cannot be trusted to not create ridiculous bubbles. I agree with almost everthing you wrote, but this entire thread was started by someone complaining that these tactics are even necessary. If it were not for these extreme bubble/bust cycles then people could probably keep much more of their money in higher return index funds instead of balancing them with bond funds.

Because of these extreme cycles, retirees have to put around 50% of their retirement savings in bonds for the last 15 years of their working lives. If they could trust the investment industry more, they could be making an extra 3-4% on their money with index funds instead. This would likely yield an extra 30% on top of their final retirement nest egg. Sure you would still have ups and downs, but what really hurts retirees is those 30-40% nosedives near the beginning of their retirement.

The point of my post is to agree with the OP when he was complaining that these bubbles significantly hurt your average guy just saving for retirement. While it is possible to mitigate some of the damage, standard investors lose out on a lot of income because of these strategies.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[ranton]

There is no level of diversification or foresight that can protect the masses from major bubble collapses.

Sure there is. It's so easy, you probably can't see it.

The closer you get to retirement, to more you'll need some share of your investments in quality bonds, so that if you need money to live on through a crash bottom you won't need to sell stock.

While these techniques help mitigate the damage from bubble collapses, they also limit your returns. This is why there is no way the masses can protect themselves from these collapses. The best thing they can do is forgo significant earnings because they have to be more timid in the 10-15 years leading up to retirement. If they didn't have to fear massive bubble collapses, your average investor could likely earn an extra 30% on their retirement accounts.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[lgw]

The best thing they can do is forgo significant earnings because they have to be more timid in the 10-15 years leading up to retirement. If they didn't have to fear massive bubble collapses, your average investor could likely earn an extra 30% on their retirement accounts.

OK, but that's been true for 400 years, and isn't actually a barrier to retirement. You've IMO correctly understood the rules of the game, and under those rules anyone can retire on his own wealth, needing only to invest enough of his after-tax pay every year. I've been living on half my after-tax pay for 15 years now, and in another 5 or so I'll have the option to retire (though continuing to work would certainly improve that standard of living). You don't need to be nearly so frugal as "half" if you have 30 years instead of 20.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with almost everthing you wrote

Then why did you write, "There is no level of diversification or foresight that can protect the masses from major bubble collapses"?

I outlined a level of diversification and foresight that *would* protect the masses from major bubble collapses, and demonstrably *has* protected many people from major bubble collapses. You claim it's impossible. Only one of us can be right - either there *is* or there *is not* a way to insulate yourself.

If they could trust the investment industry more, they could be making an extra 3-4% on their money with index funds instead.

I know it's hip to just bash the "investment industry" without understanding how the "investment industry" functions, but as with *every* investment - the level of your return is proportional to the amount of your risk. If you want safe investments, you accept lower returns. That there is some "theoretically possible way to have invested and gotten more money out of the market" ignores the fact that human beings are irrational, jerky, panicked things who do stupid, reckless shit all the time - including investing in ways that create bubbles. Trying to pretend that's not the case, or trying to blame that all on "the investment industry" is stupid.

We can all wish people weren't that way, but they are. So prudence and risk management dictate that you accept lower returns in return for additional financial safety. In other words - there's no such thing as a free lunch, and if wishes were horses, how beggars would ride.

While it is possible to mitigate some of the damage, standard investors lose out on a lot of income because of these strategies.

It is possible to mitigate *all* of the damage of downturns if you invest properly, and keep your retirement timeline in mind while you're choosing asset allocations. Your philosophy is what prompts people to keep sticking money into unsafe investments - they keep thinking they're somehow leaving money on the table, and don't stop to consider the cost of the risks they're assuming. Risks have costs. Eliminating risks come at a cost. If you want to be safe, you have to pay those costs. If you don't care about safety, you CAN get better returns, but you CAN also get wiped out. If you've got 50k to drop into the market and it won't ever affect the quality of life you have when you retire, then by all means, invest it as riskily as you wish. But if that 50k is the difference between eating 3 squares a day and eating Top Ramen 5 nights a week in retirement, then you are a FOOL to pursue risky investments if you are within 10 years of retirement in some misguided effort to "maximize" your investment.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[iMadeGhostzilla]

A bubble doesn't affect all stocks equally. So you can protect yourself by moving out of the "bubbliest" stocks -- at this point, those seem to be new Internet/anything social stocks. (Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Uber, if it gets there before the bubble begins, online marketplaces, online advertising -- though not google necessarily -- and so on.)

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[ranton]

I agree with almost everthing you wrote

Then why did you write, "There is no level of diversification or foresight that can protect the masses from major bubble collapses"?

I outlined a level of diversification and foresight that *would* protect the masses from major bubble collapses, and demonstrably *has* protected many people from major bubble collapses. You claim it's impossible. Only one of us can be right - either there *is* or there *is not* a way to insulate yourself.

I agree with your strategies for mitigating the risk of bubbles. I disagree that following these strategies has no negative effect on regular investor portfolios. As I said in my post, "while it is possible to mitigate some of the damage, standard investors lose out on a lot of income because of these strategies." If drastic bubbles were not part of a more moderate boom / bust cycle, regular investors with lower risk tolerance could make much more money investing.

That there is some "theoretically possible way to have invested and gotten more money out of the market" ignores the fact that human beings are irrational, jerky, panicked things who do stupid, reckless shit all the time - including investing in ways that create bubbles. Trying to pretend that's not the case, or trying to blame that all on "the investment industry" is stupid.

No one is claiming it is possible to have markets without bubbles. Just like it is not possible to live in a world with no theft or murder. But we can still be upset at the irrational, jerky, panicky investors who create these bubbles, just like we are upset at thieves and murderers. The OP simply said these people tick him off, and my post was backing up that he had something legitimate to be pissed about. Neither of us mentioned any fixes because I doubt either of us think there are any realistic ones.

Eliminating risks come at a cost.

If this is true (which I agree it is) then anyone introducing extra risks into the system (without an equal amount of upside) is creating a negative effect for everyone else. This is basically my entire point.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[khallow]

Eliminating risks come at a cost.

If this is true (which I agree it is) then anyone introducing extra risks into the system (without an equal amount of upside) is creating a negative effect for everyone else. This is basically my entire point.

The upside is that people who routinely make bad decisions in the stock market lose their money to people who don't. There is a net transfer of wealth to the more competent.

Volatility is simply not that big a deal.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no level of diversification or foresight that can protect the masses from major bubble collapses.

Sure there is. It's so easy, you probably can't see it. Just stay away from individual companies, even individual industries, invest broadly across the market as a whole and ignore collapses - just ride them out.

Although it is certainly true that a lot of people screw themselves by panic selling at the bottom, only to miss out on the bounce back, etc, the "just ride it out" thesis is unfortunately a bit glib. If you held on to your S&P500 index fund through the '08 crash, you were indeed made whole again after only 4-5 years (and have done very well since then). However, between the highs of 2000 and the highs of 2007, before the crash got underway, the index went nowhere. So, your money invested in 2000 would be, save for a brief period around 2007, in the red right through until 2013. Which is of course fine, provided that you could still hold on to the money from 2007 to 2013, i.e., that you didn't need to (start) cash(ing) out in the intervening slump. Otherwise, well...

Now of course this is a very simplistic analysis, cherry-picking the peak of 2000 as a starting point, and if you were cashing out for retirement around 2007-2010 you would have presumably seen serious gains already in the late '90s. Plus this neglects dividend yields, etc etc. Nevertheless, the point remains that although the stock market will almost certainly bounce back (by hook or by crook...) in the long run, the period of time in which you are invested may not align with that reversion nearly so well as you would like (see: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." and "In the long run, we're all dead."). Which is to say, investing in equities is inherently speculative (not that that is necessarily a pejorative), regardless of the fact that for the most part if you simply hold firm and ride out the slumps you will be fine.

Re:Who cares if it kills companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

The retirement plans only take a hit because the companies go under. That's why you should care. Plus, there's all the people who are out of a job, even if they were hard, capable workers. The company might even have been doing something of value, but bubbles bursting hurts even good companies.

If it happens...

[alphatel]

It's a good thing for the economy to clean out the trash. There's no such thing as a market that never collapses. If we had that we could call it by its true name: fantasy.

Re:If it happens...

[bickerdyke]

Well, there is: But that's called "stagnation" and dreaded as hell as well.

I guess that's why they prefer the bubble method cause those bursts and crashs every now and then allows for recoveris that at least resemble the "eternal growth" pipe dream.

Re:If it happens...

[theguyfromsaturn]

Unfortunately, most economists subscribe to fallacy of infinite growth. If limiting factors were understood, then a stable economy at its capacity (and healthy) would be more clearly differentiated from a stagnating economy (stable, but below capacity), and you would not have to suffer these collapses. Collapses are a sign of an unhealthy ecosystem, and the same is true of the economy. Until the economy is treated as a subcomponent of the ecosystems it depends on, unfortunately, this is not likely to stop.

Re:If it happens...

[AchilleTalon]

Where did you pick economists subscribe to infinite growth? The economy MUST grow if you want the people to become wealthier, there is a lot of people out there who cannot afford more than a meal per day. So, this is where the idea comes the economy should continue to grow. The other point is, if the economy grows no more, you have a static society with a static repartition of the wealth and no more innovation. So, you probably believe someone should "control" the growth of the economy. Then, who? How? When? This is simply unfeasible otherwise than with the current system where sometimes there is bubble bursts which are something like a control mechanism.

Re:If it happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

The economy MUST grow to keep itself alive, never mind make people wealthy. They way it's been built absolutely requires growth or there will be a total collapse. Not only does it need to grow, but it needs to grow exponentially.

This is problematic because on Earth, with FINITE resources, it cannot keep growing at it's current rate. We will eventually either consume all resources or destroy the fragile eco systems or both. When this will happen nobody really knows, there are way way way too many variables to be able to make an accurate prediction. Also scientific and technological advancements help delay the issue, but never completely solve it.

So unless we expand into space relatively soon (where exponential growth will actually be beneficial to us rapidly colonizing the universe) , our current economic models will eventually implode and send us all back to the stone age.

Re:If it happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

Collapses are a sign of an unhealthy ecosystem, and the same is true of the economy.

Not really. Collapses are a part of the normal cycle of a healthy ecosystem. Go look up the history of "controlled burns" for an example. Creative destruction is a hallmark of vibrant natural and economic systems. Trying to force everything into a steady state is what makes things turn into an unhealthy ecosystem.

Are you sure you understand what a "limiting factor" is?

Re:If it happens...

[sound vision]

"The people" are already wealthy, it's just that a minority of them have locked it up from the rest. It's the ultimate expression of greed.

Re:If it happens...

[micahraleigh]

How do you explain how most people who win the lottery declare bankruptcy in a year or two?

The problem isn't that ordinary people don't have access to capital. The problem is ordinary people are poor at managing money.

Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[gstoddart]

There is no way Uber is worth $41 billion.

That's a ridiculous number trumped up by idiots in the stock market who have overvalued a tech company.

Unicorns indeed. Uber is a tech company with an app, they sure as hell don't have that as a sensible valuation based on revenues or assets.

So every company Uber is going to buy with a stock swap? The stock owners should sell off and run, because they're being bought with funny money -- like when AOL bought Time Warner.

Increasingly I think the stock market is full of drooling idiots who think they're playing the lottery -- because that's the only sensible explanation for these ridiculous valuations. And, yes, this is exactly like the .com era -- a complete lack of common sense about the valuation of things because people desperately want them to be huge.

Of course, the problem is by the time the bubble bursts it's only the little guys who were hoping to pick up some scraps still holding onto the stock, because all the wealthy people and institutions have gotten out and run because they know damned well it's overvalued.

Then it's just finding suckers to take the overvalued stock off your hands.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way Uber is worth $41 billion.

That's a ridiculous number trumped up by idiots in the stock market who have overvalued a tech company.

This is a discussion of privately held companies, not publicly traded ones, so your rant about idiots on the stock market does't apply. Uber isn't valued at $41 billion because of these "idiots". It's valued at $41 billion because of the private investors it has.... who might be idiots ;-)

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[Mashiki]

There is no way Uber is worth $41 billion.

That's a ridiculous number trumped up by idiots in the stock market who have overvalued a tech company.

Of course it isn't. Shit like the article in question is to dupe people with money to spare while the people who are knowledgeable are already pulling their money out. There was exactly the same type of shit-tier articles going on pre-dotcom crash. All you need to do is look at the investors, and you see many shifting their assets to things that aren't nearly as volatile.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[OzPeter]

It's valued at $41 billion because of the private investors it has.... who might be idiots ;-)

Do you mean the ones who loan Uber for free the means for Uber to collect their revenue .. you know .. the drivers?

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[pr0nbot]

41 billion is enough to buy what, 4.1 million second hand cars? I'd guess that's >1 car per Uber customer.

Re: Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[mattwarden]

Um, no, you are exactly wrong. Uber is valued at $41b because of public stock market traders. The private investors are willing to pay $x, where $x is less than the valuation after IPO minus the time cost of money. This is all driven by idiots investing in the public stock market. They are the engine car that pulls the train.

Re: Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[bouldin]

Agreed; IPO is the exit strategy for these private investors. It's how they cash out.

I feel like I should point out that facebook's price/earnings ratio is 80, which seems insane since their business model has matured and it's not clear how in the world they can squeeze out 4x the profits. In fact, it seems more like they are a house of cards that could easily fall over given a market disruption.

But, that's the IPO these investors have in mind when they're guiding the next facebook to a public offering.

I suspect zuckerberg knows his company is overvalued, and that's why he is willing to pay billions for companies that have no revenue model. He knows FB stock is "funny money."

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[CastrTroy]

I can see how Uber is worth a lot of money. Maybe not $41 billion, but definitely a lot of money. It's called "mind share" and "reputation". I know a lot of people don't think those are important, but I think they are very important. Look at Coca Cola. They don't make anything that anybody else can't make. Some people think they are the "best" cola, but that 's only because it's what they're used to drinking. If they were raised on Pepsi or RC Cola, they would think that those are the best.

Uber has made a name for itself as the alternative to the Taxi Monopoly. And the Taxi business is a huge market, especially if you look at it world wide. Sure, it wouldn't be difficult for somebody else to copy their functionality. But they have built up the reputation. And that make it quite difficult for somebody to get ahead of them at this point in the game. Every alternative Taxi company will be known as Uber wanna be's, just like there are a ton of people who have no idea there's any tablets other than an iPad.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[msauve]

can see how Uber is worth a lot of money. Maybe not $41 billion, but definitely a lot of money. It's called "mind share" and "reputation".

If Uber's valuation were based on their reputation, it would be negative.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[serviscope_minor]

Uber has made a name for itself as the alternative to the Taxi Monopoly. And the Taxi business is a huge market, especially if you look at it world wide.

I think this explains a lot. Yes the worldwide market is large, but the corrupt monoply problem seems to be an American one. In many countries there are no "medallion" limits. Anyone who passes the appropriate tests and checks can become a licensed cabbie. And in some countries, those not wishing to be licensed can be cabbies anyway, but they don't get the benefits of licensed cabs.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[drinkypoo]

Look at Coca Cola. They don't make anything that anybody else can't make.

Nonsense. I hardly even drink cola any more, but Pepsi still tastes like ass and Coca-Cola still tastes better. It's a complete falsehood to suggest that anyone else can do what Coca-Cola can do, because a lot of people have spent a lot of money trying and they've all failed so far. Coca-Cola doesn't have a good name just because they've had it for a long time, Pepsi is an old brand too. Coca-Cola has a good name because they make a product that people want to buy, and have been doing that for a long time. Even when they were busy dicking around with their recipes and alienating some customers they still managed to remain on top.

Uber, on the other hand, really can be replaced overnight, in whole or in part, in some cities or in all cities, in some countries or in all countries, etc. They do absolutely nothing that someone else couldn't do just as well, if not better.

So yeah, everyone else is being compared to Uber, you've got that right. And it's worth something, you've got that right, too. But comparing Uber to Coca-Cola is way off-base. I haven't consumed a cola that wasn't from a weird off-brand (Zevia, in this case) in literally years, but if I were going to get one in some mainstream establishment devoid of more potable choices like filtered water (you have to hand it to soda, they at least filter the water before using it, it's important for consistency) I would still lick the sweat off a dead dog's balls before I'd drink a Pepsi. I'd drink Tabasco. I'd drink mayo.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck coke and pepsi, give me a good ole gin or whiskey.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[CastrTroy]

Tastes are very subjective. I know people who think Pepsi tastes a lot better. I'd personally rather drink root beer, cream soda, or ginger ale given the option. Coke has a much bigger mind share than Pepsi. It had a 13 year lead on Pepsi. That's a huge gap to make up, Even if they have had over 100 years to do it. They really only started to catch on during the great depression by marketing themselves as a cheaper alternative. That may have gotten them a few more sales, but it isn't a good place to be situating yourself when the market gets good again. People will want to go back to "the real thing". Coke isn't what it used to be either. They don't use real sugar anymore and most people say you can tell the difference between Mexican or Passover Coke compared to the stuff they generally sell in the US. But people still prefer it over smaller companies that do use real sugar.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pepsi uses more sweetener than Coke, which means it's more apt to play with the tastes of other food you consume as well as over-saturate your sweetness indicators in your mouth. On average, people just can't drink as much Pepsi, as fast. It's like there's a line between Coke and Pepsi, and Pepsi is on the wrong side of it.

Pepsi absolutely wins double-blind taste tests, it's fact. But, those are conducted with people who haven't recently been drinking a soda. The sweetness helps them win at that point. However, for the long haul, it hurts them, and where they make money is on repeat customers.

That said, I'm not sure about diet Pepsi. All I know is you shouldn't trust anyone that stocks it. Sure, tastes differ... but that stuff is so bad only a psychopath could enjoy it.

Re: Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[ZeroWaiteState]

Two words: trade imbalance. When you are a non-American holding a giant corpescent wad of U.S. dollars from stuff you have exported to that great country, you need to actually find something worth spending those dollars on instead of getting screwed on Forex. It turns out one the few things America makes that foreign people actually buy is securities. More trade imbalance means even more securities sales, and so on until that bubble pops, like it did in 2007.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tastes are very subjective. I know people who think Pepsi tastes a lot better.

Seriously? I have never met anyone who even likes Pepsi.

Re: Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[mrchaotica]

That almost makes it sound good (for the US): when the bubble pops, America still has all the material goods it imported, while the securities the foreigners bought simply evaporate.

Re:Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[SchroedingersCat]

Uber is not worth $41b but it is worth $1.5b that investors put in it. VCs hold preferred shares and they will get paid first should tings turn sour. Everyone else will be holding the bag - that includes employees with stock options. Don't believe startups offering 0.00001% of $41b in stock options. Negotiate for hard cash instead.

Re: Uber not worth $41 billion ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No not 4x the profits. Zuck has to find a way to make $122 off each user to make FB "profitable". So far he's made $6.73 per user with it projected to be $8.44 by the end of the year. So no not 4x rather its 14x times the needed revenue to substantiate the 80 P/E. But if you go by the P/E ratio alone, a sensible valuation would be 12 not 80. Considering that an 80 P/E is little over 7x more than what a P/E of 12 accounts for. I.E A P/E of 12 is saying the companies' shares are worth 12 months revenue (loosely). Making it a sound investment and not an absurd one.

But even then even more solid companies like Apple are slightly over the mark (much safer mind you) but still house a P/E of like 17. You could say that 99% of tech companies are 15 - 20 or above, making this "tech bubble" systemic.

Regarding FaceBook it's worse because they have acquired useless companies like. WhatsApp and Instagram. I think he needs to make about $42 from each WhatsApp user on top of the $122 of each FB user. So in FB's case that's not just a bubble but it's 2 bubbles within 1 bigger bubble...

Remember Groupon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fluff companies sold to idiots by con-artists. Groupon continues to turn in losses, down from $12 billion at IPO to $4 billion and likely worth nothing.

Uber relies on a commercial advantage of offering a taxi service without the regulatory limits of taxis, but that won't last as they crack down on it, an an obvious taxi service.

Re:Remember Groupon?

[alphatel]

Fluff companies sold to idiots by con-artists. Groupon continues to turn in losses, down from $12 billion at IPO to $4 billion and likely worth nothing.

Uber relies on a commercial advantage of offering a taxi service without the regulatory limits of taxis, but that won't last as they crack down on it, an an obvious taxi service.

Companies that make money hire fancy accountants to hide income cleverly, and keep their valuations trading in an income/profit range.
Companies that sell dreams hire fancy accountants to create income cleverly, and keep their investors hanging on with projected profits and world domination.

Re: Remember Groupon?

[mattwarden]

That is not very correct. Investors know what the company is doing on the accounting side, in all but very rare fraud cases. Companies like you're talking about are pretty clear on what drives their Non-GAAP measures and they make an effort to explain why the non-GAAP measures are the "right" ones. It's a joke in the investor community how divergent GAAP and non-GAAP rev and earnings become over time. They know. They just invest anyway because they "know" others will too.

Re:Remember Groupon?

[CastrTroy]

Groupon had a great idea. It could have turned into a viable business. If they didn't get so greedy that they turned the businesses they were trying to help against them. There's so many stories of businesses selling more coupons than they could handle, and losing a ton of money by having to honor the coupons. Most companies learn their lesson and only use Groupon once before they decide it's not a bad idea. Try as I might, I haven't been able to get Groupon to stop sending me emails. The only products they seem to be able to get business with are online courses that cost the suppliers nothing to give a discount on. It's the exact opposite of what they used to do, where small businesses would use it to bring attention to their great product, by offering a small discount in order to entice people to try it out.

Re:Remember Groupon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I went bowling last night and my wife bought a groupon that reduced everyone's cost. A week ago we bought a groupon that was $40 credit at an Italian restaurant that cost us $24.

We use them quite a bit and if they do go away it will be sad. We also buy groupons from places we've never tried so that trying something new is less risky.

*bubble bubble*

[turkeydance]

toil and trouble...just had to say bubble.

Tech Replace Mines

[rtb61]

Basically all that has happened is tech companies have replaced mining companies in pump and dump schemes because of course tech companies require much smaller capital investment.

So tech just like mines, the initial investors working in collusion with their financiers who get a cut, work to create an illusion of a massive pot of gold at the end of a deep capital hole in the ground, which they sell to others and often pension funds are the targets.

So why do investment analysts for pension funds make so many bad investments, quite simply they are paid to do so with the money deposited in off shore tax havens. So paying a hundred million in bribes works when you are selling a billion dollar cough cough investment when you only invested a couple of hundred million in it. To put the cheery on top for themselves, they also run up huge debts paying themselves grossly inflated salaries.

It is not the front people doing it, it is the financiers doing it all in the background lending them the money to do it, advising them how to do it, cashing in on it being done and the culprits earning the sales commission selling the rubbish investments whilst they pay purchasing commissions to corrupt pension fund managers.

Crack open those tax havens and wow, will a whole bunch of the rich and greedy end up in jail, as well as corrupt politicians. The pressure is mounting for justice and it will come.

Re: Tech Replace Mines

[mattwarden]

You didn't talk at all about record low interest rates for 7+ years, which I found interesting.

Re: Tech Replace Mines

[Required Snark]

Stock Buybacks are driving stock prices.

One big source of demand for stocks in recent years has come from companies buying back their own shares. These buybacks have not just provided extra demand — they have decreased the total supply of shares available. So the buybacks have shifted the supply-demand balance and helped drive stock prices higher.

All these buybacks, which have ranged between $75 billion and $159 billion a quarter for the past four years, have provided a steady flow of demand for shares. As the chart below shows, the buybacks have not been offset by new share issuance, so they have modestly reduced the total supply of shares available for S&P 500 companies. The number of shares outstanding is now lower than it was back in 2005, almost 10 years ago.

This is a direct effect of low interest rates. Companies are taking out loans for the buybacks

Another big source of cash for buybacks, however, has been debt. As the chart below shows, companies have been borrowing like mad in recent years. And they have been using lots of the cash they borrow to buy back their stock.

Why are they doing this? Because high stock prices disproportionally favor the top level executives. The get stock at a discount (stock options) and can game the tax code for lower taxes as well. It's a legal way to loot their companies.

Why are rates so low? Because the previous generation of corporate criminals wrecked the world economy with their greed. Low interest is the way that governments are trying to regrow their economies.

Now governments all over are giving free money to the same group of people (and even the same individuals) who caused the damage in the first place with these near zero interest rates. (For example, the US Federal fund rate for the big lenders is 0.25%.)

Stock buybacks don't grow the economy. There is a direct relationship between the sky high stock market and the long delayed general recovery outside the stock market.

This effectively redistributes wealth upward. The rich get richer at the expense of everyone else.

It's also another bubble. Whenever rates do go up there will be another crash. And given recent history, it will end up turning into another way of stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

Re: Tech Replace Mines

[Rob Y.]

Low interest is the way that governments are trying to regrow their economies.

Low interest is the way that central banks are trying to compensate for governments run by ideologues who continue to (pretend to) believe that 'austerity' and tax cuts will solve all economic problems. It amounts to trickle-down economics at its worst, but that's fine with the liars who got that ideology enacted into law in the first place - and are managing to keep it locked in through lies and obstructionism.

Re: Tech Replace Mines

[Required Snark]

I completely agree.

Austerity doesn't work. Instead of giving money to incompetent self serving bankers, it would be far better to spend directly on productive economic projects: infrastructure, education, health care. In fact, significantly increased spending on unemployment payments would be better then stock buybacks for the general economy. People on unemployment spend the money immediately which generates immediate real economic demand, a driver of growth.

The reason I did not say this in my post was that I was trying not let it become too long and I wanted to avoid detail that would make things overly complicated.

As long as I'm going into detail, the ideology that you refer to is the F-word: fascism. I hate to use it, because it's just become a meaningless curse word, but it is a term of art in politics. In theory fascism combines the interests of the state, capitalists and workers into a single unified organization. In practice there are a lot of ways to do this, although they share some common patterns. One is that they are authoritarian to a great degree, and suppress (or eliminate) democracy. Another is they foster a demand economy, which is far away from free market capitalism.

Demand economies replace market forces with central decision making. Left wing regimes do this as well. Demand economies fail in one way or another, because you can only ignore market forces for so long before things go bad. An extreme current example is Venezuela, which is suffering a collapse because of ridiculous left wing policies.

In the US and Great Brittan, the right wing demand economy is run for the benefit of the wealthy elites. As I described earlier, that's how low interest rate siphon wealth from the general economy into the hands of the Wall Street elites. It's also why corporate tax rates are at an historic low, and why the 1% have so many tax avoidance opportunities.

Re: Tech Replace Mines

[Anonymous Coward]

ECONOMICS FAIL!

Re: Tech Replace Mines

[micahraleigh]

What austerity exactly are you talking about?

Name for me one country that has spend LESS money on any given year than any of the previous years.

Re: Tech Replace Mines

[mattwarden]

Dude, come on. Note how you had to say "spend money on productive economic projects". Of course it would be beneficial to spend money on things that are productive. That is circular logic. The problem is that government has an extremely poor track record of doing this, because it requires central planning.

Re: Tech Replace Mines

[mattwarden]

When the left talks about austerity, they are referring to increasing deficit spending a little more slowly than originally planned. YoY govt spending growth of +3% when the plan was 3.3% is austerity in their warped minds.

Interviewed

[Anonymous Coward]

I interviewed with one of these kinds of companies just recently. They didn't seem to be trying to work, as much as they were simply holding on until they got purchased. Sure they worked. Worked hard by the look of it. But it wasnt so much a going concern as busywork until that magical day we all get wealthy.

I guess this is just how business is now. Many companies make more on stock sales and accounting tricks than they do on their purported "product". But it's a shame to me that the stock market has gone from a place one to go to support a company to just another gambling hall.

Re:Interviewed

[Anonymous Coward]

I interviewed with one of these kinds of companies just recently. They didn't seem to be trying to work, as much as they were simply holding on until they got purchased. Sure they worked. Worked hard by the look of it. But it wasnt so much a going concern as busywork until that magical day we all get wealthy.

I worked for a company like that.

It died when the CEO decided he'd rather run a lifestyle company (that was actually profitable) forever instead of exiting. All of a sudden, management convinced the CEO to hire lots of people - agilistas, conslutants, UXtards - and develop new products to grow the business. The profits got "reinvested" in the new people, whose job it was to keep their jobs by telling the old people how to do theirs.

The people who were only waiting for the buyout left because the numbers were shit. The people who were waiting for their next jobs used the money to brush up on the buzzword-du-jour technologies of the day and then left for greener pastures. The company "exited" with a valuation of zero.

Same old tired game....

[Anonymous Coward]

...that we (as in we in the middle class) keep falling for.

We all keep chasing the American dream, thinking that hard work and persistence = financial success.

The truth is, the system has always been rigged from the start. It always has been since the current financial system came into existence (in the 1600s).

The only people who can reliably use it to make money are those that already have money. It's those who with a 2-3% return on their investment (which would be considered low) still amounts to million and hundreds of millions in profit.

For the rest of us, it's a game of hot potato; If the music ends and you are the one holding it, you lose. Everything. And others profit at your loss.

Are there people that made it from rag to riches? Of course....However you have to understand that is the exception not the norm. And every time somebody manages to accomplish it, forces move quickly to close the loophole in the financial system that allowed it to happen.

I am not sure how people do not see the blatantly boom=>bust cycle that has been occurring ever since the tulip boom in the Netherlands in the late 1600's. IN everything. And this is how the rich get even richer...because when the bust happens, most average people lose everything, and those with capital to invest sweep in and purchase their assets for pennies on the dollar of what they are worth! Then after a few quarters of negative growth it starts all over again....

Re:Same old tired game....

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize you're feeding the troll.

seems inevitable

[jbmartin6]

With base interest rates at effectively zero, it isn't hard to predict that asset values like this would inflate. In other words, financing is so cheap that things that wouldn't get it at higher interest rates now find it easy to come by.

Re:Bouldin's Golden Top 10 'greatest hits' fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Bouldin claims he's a security engineer n' college grad? Can't be true after that!

it depends

[MrKaos]

Consider that venture capitalists invest in the exit, not in you having a great time building a great idea into a great company with great people.

Then consider 1915-1965 had innovations like penicillin, the auto mobile, aircraft, the space race, and that 1965-2015 has had the IC and internet as really defining innovations then from that perspective the rate of innovations is on the decline.

All the new "inventions" I can think of that are available to the masses are all designed to improve something that already exists to get people to consume more efficiently. I think this is directly attributable to patent and copyright laws preventing long term economic growth that comes from innovating new things which is the longer term fall out from activities conducted by the music industry and patent trolls. IT is just the most obvious sufferer.

Until the X and Y generations (or N-generation for those born *after* the invention of the internet) start taking political power from the Baby Boomer's we are going to be stuck in 1950's thinking. And that's not to say some Baby Boomers aren't capable of 21st century thinking, it's just that there isn't enough of them to make a political difference.

I'm convinced that humanity is on the verge of some spectacular innovations, like long carbon nano-tubes, genetic and nano engineering. However all of these ideas pale in comparison to the idea that we can change something as simple as the laws that maintain the status quo.

So this cycle of bubble and burst will continue whilst the engines of innovation are suppressed. Who knows when it will burst or deflate - just be ready when it does.

Re:it depends

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm convinced that humanity is on the verge of some spectacular innovations

If only the old people died? Am I right?

You start off with 'the previous generation created great things' but then go off on some weirdo tangent that everything has stagnated. That is not true. You are just being bigoted.

Re:it depends

[MrKaos]

I'm convinced that humanity is on the verge of some spectacular innovations

If only the old people died? Am I right?

No, you're not right at all. It's certainly not the message I intend to convey at all. What I'm saying is that the sheer bulk of intrenched capital is the political inertia that has to be overcome.

You start off with 'the previous generation created great things' but then go off on some weirdo tangent that everything has stagnated. That is not true.

Well I'm open to you telling me what radical world changing innovations have occurred from 1965-2015.

You are just being bigoted.

I am not being bigoted. Did you read my comment in full? I said And that's not to say some Baby Boomers aren't capable of 21st century thinking, it's just that there isn't enough of them to make a political difference.

I completely value the wisdom of the older generations and hope that our culture hasn't grown to be so short sighted that it will ignore it.

Re:Bouldin's Golden Top 10 'greatest hits' fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously to not undo moderation. Agreed indeed. No way Bouldin's a computer security guy after that, much less a college grad in it!

Last time we saw crazy market valuations,

[doug141]

It was because wall street knew they would be bailed out, so. The banks are even bigger now than they were then. What will it take to get reform?

Re:Last time we saw crazy market valuations,

[LostMonk]

What will it take to get reform?

Blood on the streets. Lots of it.

Re:Last time we saw crazy market valuations,

[Anonymous Coward]

That's really worked well or countries on the revolution of the month merry-go-round.

Re:Last time we saw crazy market valuations,

[MikeKD]

What will it take to get reform?

Blood on the streets. Lots of it.

I don't see how police^W private security forces cracking down on protesters will lead to reform.

Re:Last time we saw crazy market valuations,

[Citizen of Earth]

If the voting majority in a first-world democracy actually wanted reform, they would get it in the next election. Protesters in the streets are necessarily always fringe lunatics. The Revolution will be televised -- on election night. You only get bloody revolutions in countries that don't have democracy.

Re:Last time we saw crazy market valuations,

[Anonymous Coward]

Protesters in the streets are necessarily always fringe lunatics.

That's a sad way to look at it. Consider most protests are just photo-ops anyway - going out and making an issue you care about visible does not take any lunatic zeal.

Re:Last time we saw crazy market valuations,

[micahraleigh]

Wouldn't that make the countries in Africa very wealthy?

Re:Last time we saw crazy market valuations,

[cwsumner]

If the voting majority in a first-world democracy actually wanted reform, they would get it in the next election. ...

In fact, that is the major advantage of democratic systems. We don't have to shoot -nearly- as many people, to have a revolution. And the infrastucture usually survives! 8-)

Breeding Unicorns

[Anonymous Coward]

107 unicorns is almost enough to revitalize the species. Who knows, perhaps there will be more rainbows at the skies of the future, rainbows which have pots of gold at the beginning and the end. That is the goal of every angle, after all.

Toil and trouble

[Hognoxious]

Better not perform The Scottish Play, then. Any other unmentionables I forgot to mention?

"unicorns" are the new buzzword for "bubble" BS

[Anonymous Coward]

VCs, the youngster having smarts w/no experience, and supporting business around the tech valley want a bubble. Period.

Youngsters: You can make a lot of cash fast, then cut and run afterwards without the burden of long term company building (cause you have no experience). Maybe become a serial entrepreneur? Buy that Ferrari while the going's good?

VCs: It's a short term play, hence you jump in w/the big risk in hopes fr a quick payout. A bigger payout the better of course. FOMO pays we'll to potential investors.

SV supporting businesses: party time in selling luxury services that no one wants when normalcy returns. It sure builds up the area business-wise, but will crash as operating costs become unsustainable.

And all this in the end creates the super rich affluent classes vs the poor service worker/migrant classes. Hence we have as it is Silicon Valley today.

We all talk about how bad the bubble is... but there are clear reasons why those 'it the bubble', want the bubble.
The older "tech titans" currently out there made their fortunes from the last bubble (got lucky) and run the vision of the valley today--why wouldn't the next generation of tech wizards want anything different?

need to consider inflation

[Anonymous Coward]

$1 billion in 2010 dollars is about $10 billion in 2015 dollars.

Re:need to consider inflation

[radio4fan]

Ooh... You're close, but in fact the cumulative inflation rate for 2010 - 2015 was 8.5%, not 1000%.

Interest rates

[Tony Isaac]

Interest rates have been so low that nobody wants to invest in bonds or other interest-bearing funds. Where else are people with money going to invest? Once interest rates start coming up, the picture is going to change dramatically.

It doesn't seem as bad as it was in the late 90's, when investors were throwing money at anyone who could do something "on a computer." At least this time around, most of the companies with high valuations actually do something valuable, even if they don't yet know how to make money. Still, there are a lot of crazy stock prices out there.

Re:Getting rich

[istartedi]

Not sure why you're getting slammed by mods. This is truth. If big oil disappeared, you'd be up a creek. If big pharma went away, you might die. If the industrials went away, our infrastructure would rot.

If FaceBook disappeared? The world would actually be a better place. Tesla isn't perfect; I like electric cars but I hate some of the big brother that's coming along for the ride. Same deal though, we could live without them and somebody else will eventually pick up their patents and make electrics that are more affordable.

That's beside your point though. Your thesis is valid--buy value when it's priced properly. Futuristic vision and trends aren't value. Stuff people need is value, but it's overpriced now due to Fed manipulation.

Easy fix

[Tablizer]

With interest rates at historic lows, excess capital causes investment bubbles. The result is too much money chasing too few great deals

Time for good old fashioned taxes

TULIPS

[jhecht]

TULIPS!!!

Vocabulary

[Livius]

This is highly informative! I couldn't sure until now, but the fact that they avoid using terms like 'bubble' that everyone can understand, and use Orwellian language, pretty much confirms that it's actually a bubble.

Yet another Fed disaster

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people are unaware that the Federal Reserve Bank (aka the Fed) is NOT part of the government; it's a super bank created and owned by big banks to which the Federal government has ceded enormous economy-manipulating powers. In the long dirty history of the institution, it has cause many bad economic cycles as side-effects of its attempts to manipulate the economy. For an eye-opening look, read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" .

In the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, and throughout the entire Obama administration, the Fed has suppressed interest rates so severely that the only real place to make money with money was to invest it in the market (which explains why the stock market is now nearly twice what it was in 2002 while the economy itself is NOT). When you consider that the national debt which was outrageous before Mr Obama became president has now nearly DOUBLED under his watch (to over $18 TRILLION) we are now trapped in a bubble whose popping will be SEVERE

If the Fed tries to raise rates (which would slow the growth of the bubble by making places other than the market attractive again) the interest payments the nation must pay on its debts will balloon, probably out-pacing the cost of the pentagon (and further growing the deficits and debt).

If the Fed leaves rates low, it encourages the bubble to keep growing AND leaves itself with no way to push rates down to assist the economy in any future slow-down.

No bubble lasts forever, and this one will cause world-wide disruptions when it pops (more like 1929 and less like 2008).

Tech stock inflation is very simple

[thogard]

Its like trying to buy a gift and you only have one shop open and you need something for a party in 10 minutes, so what ever you buy will suck.

There are a group of stock traders that have the problem that they have to spend $1,000,000,000 this week because another billion will come in next week and they told a bunch of suckers that they only invest in high gain, high risk stocks. There simply isn't anything left for them to buy that is a good buy so they pick some ramdon tech stocks and pour the money in.

bubble denial is sign of bubble

[peter303]

Most startups fail, even unicorns. To deny statistics is unrealistic.

What tech bubble??!? You did not NOTICE?

[Anonymous Coward]

The one that goes from around the fourth century BC and those pesky Greece philosophers and their ramblings on amber attracting feathers and autonomous machines of the gods and even that crazy something to pull water up... to the latest BOXES! and lit eyes getting all like morons standing up on any corner doing nothing like drugged with a... STONE! in their hands! THAT tech bubble. So it was about time it would trickle and burst, finally.

Bouldin's Golden Top 10++ 'greatest hits' fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Bouldin's Golden Top 10++ 'greatest hits' fails

"Nobody uses hosts files for security" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

SpyBot S&D does!

---

NOD32/ESET's says hosts = good security http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I "overturned" an expert on a false positive on my Hosts program who gave in!

(MalwareBytes' employee VETTED it & hosts + RECOMMENDS it-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

Mr. Oliver Day @ Symantec/Norton does: http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

Bouldin denied it:

"I don't see Oliver Day of SecurityFocus on there" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @08:43PM (#49747763)

FROM-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

---

Bouldin wrote a ware that secures you + SPEEDS YOU UP (vs antivirus - not as effective vs. online modern threats, mine is stopping infestation BEFORE it gets you & IF in you stops communique BACK to C&C!) security pros second me on? No.

---

Bouldin AGREES hosts give users security, speed, reliability, & anonymity:

"Hosts files are NOT effective at blocking command&control of botnets. I actually agree with most of the rest of the list, but hosts files are not the silver bullet you make them out to be." - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

I never said hosts "cure all" + challenged him to show where I have - he couldn't.

Then Bouldin RAN vs. https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/m... since served up by host names hosts block.

(He *tried* DGA botnets later & they're ephemerals - LOW infection odds & below KILLS 'em + e.g.: 0.0.0.0 DGABotnetCandC#.com )

---

Bouldin tried Python scripts w/ DNS to rogue DNS server (firewalls stop this)!

Can't sneak it in: I CUTOFF AVENUES TO IT in my security guides:

E.G.-> http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

http://forums.pcpitstop.com/in...

(Based on CIS Tool an esteemed security tool I've put fixes in)

APK

P.S.=> You fail... apk

Bouldin's Golden Top 10++ 'greatest hits' fails

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody uses hosts files for security" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

SpyBot S&D does!

---

NOD32/ESET's says hosts = good security http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I "overturned" an expert on a false positive on my Hosts program who gave in!

(MalwareBytes' employee VETTED it & hosts + RECOMMENDS it-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

Mr. Oliver Day @ Symantec/Norton does: http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

Bouldin denied it:

"I don't see Oliver Day of SecurityFocus on there" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @08:43PM (#49747763)

FROM-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

---

Bouldin wrote a ware that secures you + SPEEDS YOU UP (vs antivirus - not as effective vs. online modern threats, mine is stopping infestation BEFORE it gets you & IF in you stops communique BACK to C&C!) security pros second me on? No.

---

Bouldin AGREES hosts give users security, speed, reliability, & anonymity:

"Hosts files are NOT effective at blocking command&control of botnets. I actually agree with most of the rest of the list, but hosts files are not the silver bullet you make them out to be." - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

I never said hosts "cure all" + challenged him to show where I have - he couldn't.

Then Bouldin RAN vs. https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/m... since served up by host names hosts block.

(He *tried* DGA botnets later & they're ephemerals - LOW infection odds & below KILLS 'em + e.g.: 0.0.0.0 DGABotnetCandC#.com )

---

Bouldin tried Python scripts w/ DNS to rogue DNS server (firewalls stop this)!

Can't sneak it in: I CUTOFF AVENUES TO IT in my security guides:

E.G.-> http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

http://forums.pcpitstop.com/in...

(Based on CIS Tool an esteemed security tool I've put fixes in)

APK

P.S.=> You fail claiming to be a security pro... apk