It's almost a duplicate of the tech bubble of the 90s. The technology has merit and is very useful but it's too early and the valuation is ahead of time by some 10 years.
Rising hedge fund stars crushing former stars Einhorn, Ackman
- Thread starter learner88
- Start date
It's almost a duplicate of the tech bubble of the 90s. The technology has merit and is very useful but it's too early and the valuation is ahead of time by some 10 years.
L
lovethetrade
Tech Today Is Not Similar To The Dot-Com Bubble
Tech stocks are partying like its 1999, but Wall Street pros say it's no irrational bubble
"Tech companies aren't climbing solely on potential or the belief that a "new era" has arrived. Most leading tech companies are embedded deeply in the fabric of the digital economy and earn billions of dollars each quarter in profit."
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/888624001
P..S. This discussion is about the US Equities market, not cryptos.
- Neither absolute or relative value metrics for the S&P 500 tech sector look anything like what we saw at the height of the dot com bubble.
- Likewise IT now contributes about 1/4 of S&P500 earnings, which is on par with its market cap representation (in contrast to 2000).
- This time is different: it's *not* the dot com bubble all over again.
Tech stocks are partying like its 1999, but Wall Street pros say it's no irrational bubble
"Tech companies aren't climbing solely on potential or the belief that a "new era" has arrived. Most leading tech companies are embedded deeply in the fabric of the digital economy and earn billions of dollars each quarter in profit."
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/888624001
P..S. This discussion is about the US Equities market, not cryptos.
Last edited by a moderator:
L
lovethetrade
It's relevant to their outdated valuation methods used which should be factoring in the premium. The others said that's exactly what investors were saying in 1999 and the similarities are stark.
I'm saying this is a different market that requires a different approach and looking into the future to factor in the premium is justified.
What I was saying is that you heard the same statements in 1999 and in the end the value investors were outperforming a few years later.
There are value investor and then there are value investor.
Please Mr. Einhorn, explain to us plebs, why did the other value investor, Mr. Buffett do so well in 2017?
Like they say back in 1999, this time it is different.
Future is value-based with quantitative approaches influencing strategy and reflexive/behavioral philosophy influencing understanding. Efficient market theory is a thought experiment. There will always be irrationality in the market.
All lies. Real reason is he was shorting the bullish market all along, hoping to be the first in when it falls, which never materialized and all the contrary happened. Thus the abyssal losses in equities
One reason Buffett figures to outperform hedgefund value gurus is that Buffett does not charge hedgefund fees, like 2 and 20.
Also, Buffett leverages his insurance float. In essance, he is being paid to use leverage while hedgefunds pay for leverage.
Over half of Buffett's putperfmance can reasonably be attributed to his leveraging his float and well... most hedgefunds flat out underperform and they figure to underperformed because of the extreme fees they charge.