<story><title>Why This Tech Bubble is Worse Than the Tech Bubble of 2000</title><url>http://blogmaverick.com/2015/03/04/why-this-tech-bubble-is-worse-than-the-tech-bubble-of-2000/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sixQuarks</author><text>I think Cuban is wrong.  It&amp;#x27;s WORSE when ordinary investors are risking their money.  Today, you&amp;#x27;ve got angels and VCs that have risked their money.  And this is money they don&amp;#x27;t need.  Big deal if everything implodes, what do they lose?  Simply their bets.   Back in 2000s, a lot of ordinary people lost money they couldn&amp;#x27;t afford to lose.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dogma1138</author><text>VC&amp;#x27;s are not risking their money they are risking yours.
VC&amp;#x27;s get money from your insurer, pension provider, 401K and similar saving options. 
While you might invest and gamble with your own money, VC&amp;#x27;s are literally gambling with everyone&amp;#x27;s future. And these days the regulations limiting insurance companies and private pension providers in investing their money in a VC or other types of risky capital are looser than ever.&lt;p&gt;While I won&amp;#x27;t to pretend to understand the details behind the article, but just looking at the many &amp;quot;startups&amp;quot; without a clear business plan, revenue stream not to mention profits which are valued in billions of dollars all of a sudden should make everyone&amp;#x27;s eyebrows rise if just a little.&lt;p&gt;10-15 years ago if you made an exit in 100&amp;#x27;s of millions it would be a worldwide sensation, these days it seems you sneeze and get 100M in funding and the WSJ posts an article about your company being valued higher than the GDP of some developing nations.&lt;p&gt;I remember when in the mid 90&amp;#x27;s Checkpoint got like 70M $ in it&amp;#x27;s NASDAQ IPO which was then a sensation which was talked about for year, these days that&amp;#x27;s considered a cold round 2 funding run for the next sexting app.
Even with &amp;quot;inflation&amp;quot; and all that other nonsense the fact that since 2006-2007 you could probably count at least 40 US techstartups which got valued for over 1bln should hint a that something stinks.&lt;p&gt;Heck evernote which their current business model seems to be more focused around selling 70$ socks and 200$ messenger bags instead of you know their own actual techonlogy is valued these days at what 4-5bln, really? A company with 18M in yearly revenues after almost 8 years with no real assets to speak off, with a user base smaller than even marginally popular online games with almost no profit that hasn&amp;#x27;t even returned it&amp;#x27;s initial investment runs is valued at 300 times their pre-tax income?</text></comment>
<story><title>Why This Tech Bubble is Worse Than the Tech Bubble of 2000</title><url>http://blogmaverick.com/2015/03/04/why-this-tech-bubble-is-worse-than-the-tech-bubble-of-2000/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sixQuarks</author><text>I think Cuban is wrong.  It&amp;#x27;s WORSE when ordinary investors are risking their money.  Today, you&amp;#x27;ve got angels and VCs that have risked their money.  And this is money they don&amp;#x27;t need.  Big deal if everything implodes, what do they lose?  Simply their bets.   Back in 2000s, a lot of ordinary people lost money they couldn&amp;#x27;t afford to lose.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>shockzzz</author><text>What he seems to be implying is that there are investment funds that exist solely for private equity investments, i.e. investments in startups as &amp;quot;VC&amp;quot; money. If that&amp;#x27;s true, and it&amp;#x27;s true that stuff like pension funds are sinking money into these &amp;quot;Equity Crowd Funds,&amp;quot; then we&amp;#x27;re in real big trouble.</text></comment>