Mark Cuban: This tech bubble is ‘far worse’ than back in 2000

[Chef Ramsay]

What a week for Mark Cuban. Fresh off being tapped for the role of the president alongside Ann Coulter in the upcoming blockbuster “Sharknado 3,” the brash billionaire’s bearish forecast has landed him a spot in MarketWatch’s call of the day.

“If we thought it was stupid to invest in public Internet websites that had no chance of succeeding back then, it’s worse today,” he wrote in a blog post detailing the risks facing the current crop of angel investors and crowdfunders (more on that below).

He’s not alone in his fear-mongering. While retail investors are all-in, equity-wise, as are corporations, prophets of doom are counting the moments until the cards fall in the public markets, as well. The thing is, they’ve been counting them for years now. Check out the chart of the day for how long it’s been since we’ve felt a serious pullback. Spoiler alert: almost three years.

More...http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mark-cuban-this-tech-bubble-is-far-worse-than-back-in-2000-2015-03-05

[Rishblitz]

Some of the comments of on that site are spot on. Mark Cuban is an egotistical jerk but then again who isn't when they are worth billions?

[Chef Ramsay]

Mark Cuban is the type of guy that should be legit on this whole heap of cards. Can I get some help?

[Agestorzrxx]

There is a big difference between 2000 and now. The biggest is that many of the tech companies are making profits, have cash flow and reasonable multiples.

[Possum577]

Ha, and it's hilarious that Cuban's analogy for the companies that suffered greatest or lead the tech bubble crash in 2000 were "Broadcast.com, AOL, and Netscape"...guess which one of those is not like the others? Shameless self promoter, Broadcast.com wasn't on anyone's radar except the people who bought it from them...it sure as hell wasn't at the size of AOL or Netscape!

Cuban also cited kickstarter as part of the problem, but Kickstarter doesn't offer equity to their contributors does it?

What goes up must come down but the fear mongering now just makes me want to buy into it.

[pattu1]

There is a big difference between 2000 and now. The biggest is that many of the tech companies are making profits, have cash flow and reasonable multiples.

I still feel that valuations of companies like Whatsapp are crazy.
The price shot up just because Facebook and Google were interested in it.

[NUFCrichard]

There is a big difference between 2000 and now. The biggest is that many of the tech companies are making profits, have cash flow and reasonable multiples.

Reasonable multiples? from wiki:

As of 13 December 2013, Twitter had "a market capitalization of $32.76 billion".[79]

On February 5, 2014, Twitter published its first results as a public company, showing a net loss of $511 million in the fourth quarter of 2013

It loses half a billion but is valued at over 32 billion... in Q3 last year they made $7mil (or lost $175mil depending how you count it)

IPOs have been a joke this year.  The companies that are fueling the bubble are the social media and chat apps, they will never earn enough to be worth what they are priced at.  The companies people actually use and spend money with, like Amazon, are generally making losses too somehow!

The bubble is massive and should pop at some point.  It is a little different to 2000, as the internet is more heavily used and people do spend money on goods online now, it is the snapchats and instagrams of the world that are the real crazy ones and need to come down to normal levels.

[BitCoinNutJob]

Mark Cuban is the type of guy that should be legit on this whole heap of cards. Can I get some help?

Mark Cuban is the type of guy who ignors bitcoin #1 and waits to invest in its competitor.  Hope he didnt buy litecoins @ $50.

[kitarohotono]

Mark Cuban is the type of guy that should be legit on this whole heap of cards. Can I get some help?

Mark Cuban is the type of guy who ignors bitcoin #1 and waits to invest in its competitor.  Hope he didnt buy litecoins @ $50.

Litecoin never went to $50, it's peak was @ $48 

[BitCoinNutJob]

Mark Cuban is the type of guy that should be legit on this whole heap of cards. Can I get some help?

Mark Cuban is the type of guy who ignors bitcoin #1 and waits to invest in its competitor.  Hope he didnt buy litecoins @ $50.

Litecoin never went to $50, it's peak was @ $48 

Actually it was more than both of them if you check the 1 week on bitfinex it popped up to $55 briefly.  Wish i could go back in time.

[BitMos]

and when you start to pyramid in the money short you get : market halted. reopening will be announced in a year ... (coming). What will the algos do? And who will unplug the algos? will the AIs hire kill team to reopen the floors? who knows...

[jaysabi]

I'd like to see Cuban speak with specific examples as to why exactly he thinks there is such a big tech bubble. Did he go into any detail or was he just speaking in very vague generalities? As someone pointed out, a lot of the tech companies (at least the ones I'm aware of) have cash flows and fundementals that support an investing thesis. They may be lofty and highly optimistic, but that's quite different from the last tech bubble where Wall Street has chasing anyone with a website to throw money at them. Any IPO with .com in the name was wildly successful, until it wasn't. Pets.com is the one that I hear mentioned most often, lost several hundred million dollars worth of invested capital in the few years it was in business.

[gentlemand]

The tech bubble is now justified in terms of usability and the numbers of users compared to 2000. Valuations are so far into la la land it's bizarre though. Amazon is the world's largest online retailer. It rarely turns a profit and it sells actual stuff.

I could invent an app with a talking arsehole and if enough brain dead tossers downloaded it and then deleted it three minutes later, I could get a few million too no doubt. That's not sustainable once the real world comes knocking.

[Beliathon]

Mark Cuban is wrong, the end.

[jaysabi]

The tech bubble is now justified in terms of usability and the numbers of users compared to 2000. Valuations are so far into la la land it's bizarre though. Amazon is the world's largest online retailer. It rarely turns a profit and it sells actual stuff.

I could invent an app with a talking arsehole and if enough brain dead tossers downloaded it and then deleted it three minutes later, I could get a few million too no doubt. That's not sustainable once the real world comes knocking.

The difference with Amazon though is everyone believes it can flip a switch and juice profits at any moment. It chooses not to because that would hurt market share while it's still so rapidly growing into and dominating an ever increasing number of markets. The valuation for Amazon based on your basic metrics looks crazy, but Amazon's value as a company is rather intangible at this point. I don't think anyone believes Amazon can't be profitable, which is why the valuation looks as crazy as it does.

That's very different from the tech bubble companies of old, that couldn't operate profitably if they tried.

[BitMos]

The tech bubble is now justified in terms of usability and the numbers of users compared to 2000. Valuations are so far into la la land it's bizarre though. Amazon is the world's largest online retailer. It rarely turns a profit and it sells actual stuff.

I could invent an app with a talking arsehole and if enough brain dead tossers downloaded it and then deleted it three minutes later, I could get a few million too no doubt. That's not sustainable once the real world comes knocking.

The difference with Amazon though is everyone believes it can flip a switch and juice profits at any moment. It chooses not to because that would hurt market share while it's still so rapidly growing into and dominating an ever increasing number of markets. The valuation for Amazon based on your basic metrics looks crazy, but Amazon's value as a company is rather intangible at this point. I don't think anyone believes Amazon can't be profitable, which is why the valuation looks as crazy as it does.

That's very different from the tech bubble companies of old, that couldn't operate profitably if they tried.

who cares of your little individualist analysis, with a switch ctrl+p can make the most fundamentally timely right analysis goes to the trash faster than the paper on which it's written... playing that type of game is a lack of intelligence, even if basic lvl. sorry all.

edit: today you may be a small fish a few B, tomorrow you get to the T or Q, they can target you. unfair, systemic, avoid.

[jaysabi]

I can honestly say that I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time BitMos, or how it relates even a little to the quotes of me you quote.

[BitMos]

I can honestly say that I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time BitMos, or how it relates even a little to the quotes of me you quote.

don't worry it ain't important if you understand in a timely fashion as long as the representative of the diverse, various and mostly honest miic do, I don't care of you. with regards, bitmos.

for hint: maybe the role of central banking activities and how you can gobble up the whole system by playing interest right on a multigenerational scale... I know it ain't easy for the unwarned to plunge so deep in darkness. 1 advice, if it's very dark turn away, the Light, God. In God We Trust (to death, the Universe is just a preview of the "capabilities", except the unexpected, surprise, love it, enjoy, I will).

[jaysabi]

If you don't care if I understand what you're saying, why do you keep quoting me?

[BitMos]

the truth of the matter is that pets.com could have reached higher valuation that faceburk if played right... it clearly wasn't.