If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Don't look now, but it's just possible the "pop" sound you heard from the NASDAQ was the latest tech bubble bursting   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 41
    More: Scary, NASDAQ, dot-com bubble, Dow Jones Industrial Average  
•       •       •

2442 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 Apr 2014 at 10:59 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-12 11:13:04 AM  
www.thereformedbroker.com
 
2014-04-12 11:15:25 AM  
Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with these sky-high valuations for these tech companies who don't make any money like snapchat or instagram or twitter.

/rant off
 
2014-04-12 11:20:24 AM  
* fetches popcorn *

** starts digging up articles justifying Facebook's $150bn market cap **
 
2014-04-12 11:27:51 AM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]


And what the fark does the value of NASDAQ over 1999-2000 have to do with the S&P over 2012-13?
 
2014-04-12 11:31:01 AM  
QUICK! Stockpile lots of Bitcoins now!!!!
 
2014-04-12 11:31:50 AM  
Yeah, we've been eyeballing the tech sector a little warily lately.  This isn't much of a surprise.  Everyone's moving to blue chips.
 
2014-04-12 11:35:49 AM  

TV's Vinnie: QUICK! Stockpile lots of Bitcoins now!!!!


We're getting a Bitcoin ATM here.  That's good, right?

photos.prnewswire.com
 
2014-04-12 12:00:16 PM  
Maybe it will turn silicon valley into the next Detroit over the next couple decades. Many of the major companies will survive but realize they don't need the human capital they now think they need. The Detroit area still manufactures plenty of cars and is the auto engineering capital of the world. Detroit just doesn't need as many people, highly paid people at that to do what it once did and still does, manufacture and design autos. Its not that silicon valley wont be the center of tech and software for some time to come, just that as mergers and efficiencies take hold similar to the auto industry, the number and curtainly amount of highly paid workers in the sectors will decline. Its inevitable.
 
2014-04-12 12:02:36 PM  
Wait, I was told that this time it wasn't a bubble and that the economy was permanently different?
 
2014-04-12 12:04:43 PM  
The only company that's going to win as that bubble bursts is one devoted to sneaking around ad blocking software so that all these silly sites and services can scramble to monetize their fleeing user bases.
 
2014-04-12 12:08:22 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]

And what the fark does the value of NASDAQ over 1999-2000 have to do with the S&P over 2012-13?


They both went up at a similar rate (although at different times), therefore they are exact mirrors of each other, so because one went down later, everybody panic sell short.
 
2014-04-12 12:10:51 PM  

Sliding Carp: Benevolent Misanthrope: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]

And what the fark does the value of NASDAQ over 1999-2000 have to do with the S&P over 2012-13?

They both went up at a similar rate (although at different times), therefore they are exact mirrors of each other, so because one went down later, everybody panic sell short.


""technical""analysis"" -- making nonsense out of noise since 1929. (and selling it to the rubes).
 
2014-04-12 12:45:44 PM  

Sliding Carp: Benevolent Misanthrope: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]

And what the fark does the value of NASDAQ over 1999-2000 have to do with the S&P over 2012-13?

They both went up at a similar rate (although at different times), therefore they are exact mirrors of each other, so because one went down later, everybody panic sell short.


Thank you.  On second reading, my question was badly stated and sort of dickish.  I apologize - that was not my intent.  I know almost nothing about market analysis and honestly had no idea what I was looking at.
 
2014-04-12 12:55:38 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]


In 1999-2000 the Nasdaq grew 200%, therefor it is just like in 2012-2013 when it grew 25%.

Your graph is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2014-04-12 01:01:16 PM  

ZatCSU: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]

In 1999-2000 the Nasdaq grew 200%, therefor it is just like in 2012-2013 when it grew 25%.

Your graph is bad and you should feel bad.


Chart comparisons (fractals) can be a pretty surprisingly efficient predictor, though usually applied to the same chart.

Ignoring past behavior, it's worth taking a look at other global equities like the Nikkei which are taking it on the chin right now. Whether we follow suit is anyone's guess of course, but markets tend to act like dominoes... When some fall, the rest tend to follow. At the very least on a macro level.
 
2014-04-12 01:03:56 PM  
ZatCSU: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]

In 1999-2000 the Nasdaq grew 200%, therefor it is just like in 2012-2013 when it the S&P grew 2533%.

Your graph is bad and you should feel bad misleading.

FTFM
 
2014-04-12 01:29:11 PM  

czetie: Wait, I was told that this time it wasn't a bubble and that the economy was permanently different?


Of course it's permanently different. People with money say so.

Now if you'll excuse me, I just woke up from a coma and need to check the value of my Pokemon card and Beanie Baby collection. It's probably in the trillions, so I may need to buy a continent or two for tax reasons.
 
2014-04-12 01:52:15 PM  

mythikal03: ZatCSU: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]

In 1999-2000 the Nasdaq grew 200%, therefor it is just like in 2012-2013 when it grew 25%.

Your graph is bad and you should feel bad.

Chart comparisons (fractals) can be a pretty surprisingly efficient predictor, though usually applied to the same chart.

Ignoring past behavior, it's worth taking a look at other global equities like the Nikkei which are taking it on the chin right now. Whether we follow suit is anyone's guess of course, but markets tend to act like dominoes... When some fall, the rest tend to follow. At the very least on a macro level.


Any time something moves quickly up or down on at least a moderately broad scale, it's bullshiat that won't last.  Camel humps can be seen on so many graphs, reverting back to a clear longer-term trend.  Why we don't understand this is beyond me.  Actually, most investors and even trader-types do probably get it, but investors are in it for the long haul (sensible) and traders want to see if they can still make more bullshiat money off the hype.  The journalism meanwhile is written as if it doesn't know, but even that is just trying to sell the short-term daily story instead of the obvious bigger picture.
 
2014-04-12 01:53:18 PM  

mythikal03: Chart comparisons (fractals) can be a pretty surprisingly efficient predictor, though usually applied to the same chart.


People tend to cherry pick the time frames that get compared.  There have been two peaks in the S&P that could also have been used to match up with the NASDAQ peak.  The S&P corrected then continued up.  Does that mean the NASDAQ will bounce like the S&P?
 
2014-04-12 02:07:28 PM  

czetie: Wait, I was told that this time it wasn't a bubble and that the economy was permanently different?


1998-2000 was a bubble, this is not.  Price-to-earnings ratios are solidly in the "a bit high, but certainly sane" range:

www.multpl.com

Ignoring 2008, when earnings briefly fell much faster than prices before recovering, the 1998-2001 period was at a sustained historical high and kept going up.  That's a bubble.

Facebook, Twitter, linkedIn, hell, even King at least have revenue and some idea of how they can be profitable.  Pets.com had a sockpuppet and a Superb Owl commercial.
 
2014-04-12 02:22:45 PM  
Netflix trades with a p/e over 200. By any sensible metric the company would have to grow ten times as large. While it might do that as they finish saturating this hemisphere and expand foreign markets, there's no room in the price to benefit from that growth. Assuming it ever comes.

Biotech? Well, most of them are going to fail early, or get bought up. It's a key field for black swans. You might buy into a hundred of them over the years and not see much, then one will come up with the next Viagra or statin. Imagine the profit to the company that can market a pill that cures alzheimers.
 
2014-04-12 02:46:38 PM  
It'll hit 10,000 by November
Buy buy buy!!
 
2014-04-12 03:06:28 PM  

OptionC: czetie: Wait, I was told that this time it wasn't a bubble and that the economy was permanently different?

1998-2000 was a bubble, this is not.  Price-to-earnings ratios are solidly in the "a bit high, but certainly sane" range:

[www.multpl.com image 780x384]

Ignoring 2008, when earnings briefly fell much faster than prices before recovering, the 1998-2001 period was at a sustained historical high and kept going up.  That's a bubble.

Facebook, Twitter, linkedIn, hell, even King at least have revenue and some idea of how they can be profitable.  Pets.com had a sockpuppet and a Superb Owl commercial.



Don't forget to factor in inflation.

www.aboutinflation.com
 
2014-04-12 05:21:05 PM  

wildcardjack: Netflix trades with a p/e over 200. By any sensible metric the company would have to grow ten times as large. While it might do that as they finish saturating this hemisphere and expand foreign markets, there's no room in the price to benefit from that growth. Assuming it ever comes.


There aren't enough people on earth to justify Facebook's P/E.

That said, Zuckerberg warned them that this was an interesting project and not a money maker.
 
2014-04-12 05:45:51 PM  
I wont sell my Fark stock.
 
2014-04-12 05:51:55 PM  

farkeruk: wildcardjack: Netflix trades with a p/e over 200. By any sensible metric the company would have to grow ten times as large. While it might do that as they finish saturating this hemisphere and expand foreign markets, there's no room in the price to benefit from that growth. Assuming it ever comes.

There aren't enough people on earth to justify Facebook's P/E.

That said, Zuckerberg warned them that this was an interesting project and not a money maker.


It's because everyone has put their savings into vehicles run by people who have a job title and bonuses structured in a way that means when everything blows up they aren't in the same boat.

/mixed Nassim Taleb with a hangover
//be an agent or publisher
 
2014-04-12 08:57:31 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: TV's Vinnie: QUICK! Stockpile lots of Bitcoins now!!!!

We're getting a Bitcoin ATM here.  That's good, right?

[photos.prnewswire.com image 229x400]


Cool. I'd like one of those around here but am kind of in the sticks so I'm not holding my breath.

I am beginning to gently pester the local stores to accept bitcoin, so it won't matter so much for me in time.
 
2014-04-12 09:29:24 PM  

wildcardjack: Netflix trades with a p/e over 200. By any sensible metric the company would have to grow ten times as large. While it might do that as they finish saturating this hemisphere and expand foreign markets, there's no room in the price to benefit from that growth. Assuming it ever comes.

Biotech? Well, most of them are going to fail early, or get bought up. It's a key field for black swans. You might buy into a hundred of them over the years and not see much, then one will come up with the next Viagra or statin. Imagine the profit to the company that can market a pill that cures alzheimers.


Netflix is one of the best consumer tech companies for the next few years as they actually are bringing in real revenue.  Of course Comcast et al are bleeding mush of it off for bandwidth priority, but they actual have a viable business model as long as the Comcast et al vultures do not siphon most of the profit to keep going.
 
2014-04-12 09:46:58 PM  

undflickertail: wildcardjack: Netflix trades with a p/e over 200. By any sensible metric the company would have to grow ten times as large. While it might do that as they finish saturating this hemisphere and expand foreign markets, there's no room in the price to benefit from that growth. Assuming it ever comes.

Biotech? Well, most of them are going to fail early, or get bought up. It's a key field for black swans. You might buy into a hundred of them over the years and not see much, then one will come up with the next Viagra or statin. Imagine the profit to the company that can market a pill that cures alzheimers.

Netflix is one of the best consumer tech companies for the next few years as they actually are bringing in real revenue.  Of course Comcast et al are bleeding mush of it off for bandwidth priority, but they actual have a viable business model as long as the Comcast et al vultures do not siphon most of the profit to keep going.


You miss my point. ALL THE GROWTH IS PRICED IN. Buying it right now is like buying young cattle at adult weight and waiting for them to fatten up to be worth what you paid. It's a great product that seems to have a lock on the market, but remember it can still die.
 
2014-04-12 10:11:55 PM  
When you hear your co-workers talking about getting in on a trend, it's usually close to selling time.
 
2014-04-12 10:42:44 PM  

Sliding Carp: Benevolent Misanthrope: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]

And what the fark does the value of NASDAQ over 1999-2000 have to do with the S&P over 2012-13?

They both went up at a similar rate (although at different times), therefore they are exact mirrors of each other, so because one went down later, everybody panic sell short.


No, they did not go up at a similar rate - if you look at the scale on the left, the S&P went up 33%, while according to the scale on the right, the Nasdaq went up 400%.

It would be nice if people would read "How to Lie With Statistics".
 
2014-04-12 10:44:47 PM  

OptionC: czetie: Wait, I was told that this time it wasn't a bubble and that the economy was permanently different?

1998-2000 was a bubble, this is not.  Price-to-earnings ratios are solidly in the "a bit high, but certainly sane" range:

[www.multpl.com image 780x384]

Ignoring 2008, when earnings briefly fell much faster than prices before recovering, the 1998-2001 period was at a sustained historical high and kept going up.  That's a bubble.

Facebook, Twitter, linkedIn, hell, even King at least have revenue and some idea of how they can be profitable.  Pets.com had a sockpuppet and a Superb Owl commercial.


That chart of PE ratio is not a chart of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn's PE though.
 
2014-04-12 10:48:26 PM  

wildcardjack: Netflix trades with a p/e over 200. By any sensible metric the company would have to grow ten times as large. While it might do that as they finish saturating this hemisphere and expand foreign markets, there's no room in the price to benefit from that growth. Assuming it ever comes.

Biotech? Well, most of them are going to fail early, or get bought up. It's a key field for black swans. You might buy into a hundred of them over the years and not see much, then one will come up with the next Viagra or statin. Imagine the profit to the company that can market a pill that cures alzheimers.


You do realize you can buy a fund like IBB instead of individual stocks?
 
2014-04-13 02:40:20 AM  
Good.

I'm not being snarky or mean. It's better to have a lot of little corrections where investors are constantly checking in with reality, rather than claiming to have successfully ignored all the icebergs and then ramming straight into Greenland.

/no pun intended
 
2014-04-13 02:45:17 AM  

Sliding Carp: Benevolent Misanthrope: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [www.thereformedbroker.com image 850x470]

And what the fark does the value of NASDAQ over 1999-2000 have to do with the S&P over 2012-13?

They both went up at a similar rate (although at different times), therefore they are exact mirrors of each other, so because one went down later, everybody panic sell short.


But they *didn't* go up at a similar rate.  The two graphs have completely different scales.  Between 1999-2000, Nasdaq went up around 233%  (from ~1500 to ~5000 IIRC).  Between 2012-2013, S&P went up around 26%.  The slopes of the two charts are nowhere near comparable.

The only thing that graph shows is it's possible to compress the vertical range of one plot so that both plots occupy the same vertical space on the resulting graph.  The fact that on such a graph the two plots share the same slope for the last 12 months is an artifact of the vertical scale used for one of the charts and is most likely irrelevant.

I could probably come up with a graph that overlays a plot of the average height of the blades of grass in my front yard with the spot price of copper and manage to come up with a pair of scales where the plots briefly line up but the resulting graph would be meaningless.

/hell, maybe I'm on to something?  Maybe the next Nobel for Economics is hidden in lawn care habits?
 
2014-04-13 02:51:25 AM  
When people post stuff like that, I assume they're being paid to do so. Normal, and even not-so-normal people don't create those charts on their own. If they're merely crazy you might be able to coax a source for the graphic.
 
2014-04-13 06:31:27 AM  
No doubt subby was so confident this is a bubble they are giggling themselves to sleep at night dreaming about all the SH and PSQ
 
2014-04-13 07:48:01 AM  

BalugaJoe: I wont sell my Fark stock.


That's only because you can't find anyone to buy it at any price.
 
2014-04-13 09:01:02 AM  
Heartbleed had nothing to do with this. Right?
 
2014-04-13 09:28:47 AM  

arcas: Maybe the next Nobel for Economics is hidden in lawn care habits?


I would click the hell out of that Buzzfeed link
 
2014-04-13 10:35:48 PM  
Biotech is up 400% from March 2009, and was up by 66% last year. Definitely looking like a bubble.

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2014/03/23/yes-biotech-is-a-bubble- sf w/

heck, even Merck has a P/E near 40 despite revenue and profit declines.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report