Silicon Valley’s Illiquid Bubble Cracks Begin To Widen

Daily Chart September 9 InvestWithAlex

9/9/2015 – A down day with the Dow Jones down 237 points (-1.44%) and the Nasdaq down 55 points (-1.15%) 

Today, most investors in the stock market subscribe to the “Buy The Dip” mentality. After all, it has worked for close to 7 years and there is no apparent need to change. Now, the same mentality is making an appearance in Silicon Valley.

Silicon Valley feels the aftershocks of Wall Street’s turbulence

“For venture capital investors, it’s a great opportunity to pick up some interesting assets on the startup side,” he said. “As an example, in 2008, 2009 downturn, we made investments in companies such as New Relic (NEWR), Zulily (ZU), T-Mobile (TMUS), all of whom have gone public and they were terrific investments for us, all made during the downturn.”

That sounds wonderful, but there is one big problem. Thus far, the Dow has corrected 16% off of its May 19th top. Between 2007-2009 the Dow declined 55%. Most of the high flying tech stocks and illiquid start-ups proceeded to collapse to the tune of 80-95% at the same time.

I am confused, did Uber’s valuation collapse over the last few weeks? 

And since the answer is no, I continue to maintain my view. Mark Cuban is dead on in identifying Silicon Valley’s Tech Bubble 2.0: Why This Tech Bubble is Worse Than the Tech Bubble of 2000.  At the end of the day, Silicon Valley has about as mush liquidity as California’s dried up reservoirs. Something that Angel investors, venture capitalists and stock option millionaires are about to find out.

How big is this bubble? Consider the following. Uber’s valuation went from $60 Million in 2011 to $50 Billion today(not a typo).  They must be making a ton of money…..right?WRONG. Bloomberg estimates that Uber showed $470 million in operating losses with $415 million in revenue last year. Plus, the company was set a major legal blow in California by requiring their drivers to be classified as employees. And as far as I am concerned, it is just a matter of time before other states and countries regulate Uber out of business to protect taxi drivers.

In other words, the valuation above is not only outrageous, it is, how should I put it, retardedly outrageous.

Back to Mark Cuban. It is now evident that most market pundits out there are dismissing Mark’s view. And while Mark talks about Angel Investors and illiquidity in that market, his analysis can just as easily be applied to today’s stock market. More about that in a second.

First, here is what most people don’t realize about Mark Cuban. After selling his first business Mark became a heck of a trader and investor in the 1990’s. His returns were so good at the time that Goldman Sachs tried to bring him in order to figure out what he was doing. This same ability helped him unload Broadcast.com for $5.7 Billion to Yahoo right at the top of the tech bubble. Here is what he thinks.

I have absolutely not doubt in my mind that most of these individual Angels and crowd funders are currently under water in their investments. Absolutely none. I say most. The percentage could be higher. Why? Because there is ZERO liquidity for any of those investments. None. Zero. Zip.

So why is this bubble far worse than the tech bubble of 2000 ?

Because the only thing worse than a market with collapsing valuations is a market with no valuations and no liquidity. If stock in a company is worth what somebody will pay for it, what is the stock of a company worth when there is no place to sell it ?

We often talk about the stock market, but we rarely look at this side of the equation. Mark is absolutely right. If you are an Angel Investors, good luck getting your money out. Especially when today’s Silicon Valley’s bubble bursts. Plus, the chances of hitting a good exit in tech are about as good as winning a lottery.

What’s more, the bubble Mark Cuban has identified in the tech industry is the same bubble I see in the stock market. The drivers behind both are the same. The only difference is the amount of liquidity available.

This conclusion is further supported by my mathematical and timing work. It clearly shows a severe bear market between 2015-2017. In fact, when it starts it will very quickly retrace most of the gains accrued over the last few years.  If you would be interested in learning when the bear market of 2015-2017 will start (to the day) and its internal composition, please CLICK HERE.

(***Please Note: A bear market might have started already, I am simply not disclosing this information. Due to my obligations to my Subscribers I am unable to provide you with more exact forecasts. In fact, I am being “Wishy Washy” at best with my FREE daily updates here. If you would be interested in exact forecasts, dates, times and precise daily coverage, please Click Here). Daily Stock Market Update. September 9th, 2015  InvestWithAlex.com

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please share our blog with your friends as we try to get traction. Gratitude!!!

Silicon Valley’s Illiquid Bubble Cracks Begin To Widen  Google

Silicon Valley’s Illiquid Bubble Update.

silicon-valley-bubble-investwithalex

Mark Cuban is dead on in identifying Silicon Valley’s Tech Bubble 2.0: Why This Tech Bubble is Worse Than the Tech Bubble of 2000.  At the end of the day, Silicon Valley has about as mush liquidity as California’s dried up reservoirs. Something that Angel investors, venture capitalists and stock option millionaires are about to find out.

How big is this bubble? Consider the following. Uber’s valuation went from $60 Million in 2011 to $50 Billion today(not a typo).  They must be making a ton of money…..right? WRONG. Bloomberg estimates that Uber showed $470 million in operating losses with $415 million in revenue last year. Plus, the company was set a major legal blow in California by requiring their drivers to be classified as employees. And as far as I am concerned, it is just a matter of time before other states and countries regulate Uber out of business to protect taxi drivers.

In other words, the valuation above is not only outrageous, it is, how should I put it, retardedly outrageous.

Back to Mark Cuban. It is now evident that most market pundits out there are dismissing Mark’s view. And while Mark talks about Angel Investors and illiquidity in that market, his analysis can just as easily be applied to today’s stock market. More about that in a second.

First, here is what most people don’t realize about Mark Cuban. After selling his first business Mark became a heck of a trader and investor in the 1990’s. His returns were so good at the time that Goldman Sachs tried to bring him in order to figure out what he was doing. This same ability helped him unload Broadcast.com for $5.7 Billion to Yahoo right at the top of the tech bubble. Here is what he thinks.

I have absolutely not doubt in my mind that most of these individual Angels and crowd funders are currently under water in their investments. Absolutely none. I say most. The percentage could be higher. Why? Because there is ZERO liquidity for any of those investments. None. Zero. Zip.

So why is this bubble far worse than the tech bubble of 2000 ?

Because the only thing worse than a market with collapsing valuations is a market with no valuations and no liquidity. If stock in a company is worth what somebody will pay for it, what is the stock of a company worth when there is no place to sell it ?

We often talk about the stock market, but we rarely look at this side of the equation. Mark is absolutely right. If you are an Angel Investors, good luck getting your money out. Especially when today’s Silicon Valley’s bubble bursts. Plus, the chances of hitting a good exit in tech are about as good as winning a lottery.

What’s more, the bubble Mark Cuban has identified in the tech industry is the same bubble I see in the stock market. The drivers behind both are the same. The only difference is the amount of liquidity available.

Z31

Silicon Valley’s Illiquid Bubble Update. Google

Warning: Are Silicon Valley Nerds About To Eat It….Again?

Yes, we are indeed playing the game of musical chairs here. Today’s valuations are out of sync by any measure, particularly for the high tech start ups like Facebook, Twitter, Tesla, etc… Are these companies about to collapse as their predecessors did in the early 2000? 

My answer might surprise you…. 

NO. Nasdaq will not collapse to the extent it did in 2000-03 in the upcoming bear market of 2014-2017. At least based on my mathematical and timing work. Sure, the companies above will decline to the X multiple of the market when the bear market accelerates, but they will NOT collapse to the tune of 90-95% as they did back then. For instance, while it is highly unlikely that Facebook drops into the single digits over the next 3 years, it is likely Facebook will decline from today’s price of $70 to about $20. Making it a fairly good short bet.

Again, please do your own research and make your own investment decisions. Timing is the most important element here. If you would like to get it right, please check us out here.  

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please share our blog with your friends as we try to get traction. Gratitude!!!


Click here to subscribe to my mailing list

 

Silicon Valley Nerds About To Eat It….Again. Google 

american economic recovery investwithalex

Not many executives have seen their companies double in value in one day. Peter Bardwick has seen it twice. Bardwick was chief financial officer of financial news site MarketWatch when it started initial trading on Jan. 15, 1999, at $17 a share. By day’s end it hit $97.50, for a market value exceeding $1 billion. Fourteen years later, on Sept. 20, 2013, Bardwick, now CFO of digital advertising firm Rocket Fuel(FUEL), watched its stock almost double in value on its first day of trading.

Amid such Day One stock pops, high valuations, and buoyant equity markets, warnings of an asset bubble are again echoing across Silicon Valley. Nasdaq’s(NDAQ) 38 percent climb last year, and deals such as Facebook’s (FB) recent agreement to spend as much as $19 billion on fledgling messaging service WhatsApp, have added to worries about a crash like the one that sent the Nasdaq Composite Index plummeting about 80 percent from its March 2000 peak. By the end of 2004, 52 percent of dot-com startups that had sought venture capital—including investor darlings Pets.com and Webvan.com—were extinct, according to research by the University of Maryland and the University of California at San Diego.

“The real question is whether a crash will occur now or after the markets rise another 30 percent,” says Ian D’Souza, an adjunct professor of behavioral finance at New York University who co-founded Tri-Ring Capital, a technology-focused equity fund. Other investors, bankers, and venture capitalists say too much has changed to put the initial public offering market in danger of imploding now. “Investors have become more discriminating and more focused on the individual businesses,” says Bardwick. “In the ’90s, everything was just going up, and when that stopped, it happened in a really bad way.” MarketWatch never exceeded its opening-day value, falling to a low of $1.26 in 2001 before Dow Jones acquired it in 2005 for $18 a share, just above its IPO price. Rocket Fuel remains at almost double its IPO price.

Last year 208 companies went public in the U.S., raising more than $56 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Their stocks rose an average 21 percent on their first day of trading, the biggest annual average increase since 2000. In their debuts in November, Twitter (TWTR) jumped 73 percent and Zulily (ZU), a shopping website, rose 71 percent.

Companies and bankers are setting initial prices at reasonable levels, according to data compiled by Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida. IPOs were priced at a median of 30 times sales in 2000, compared with 5.2 times last year, the data show. MarketWatch traded at 46 times 1999 sales on its first day, while Rocket Fuel’s valuation was 7.6 times 2013 revenue.

Thanks in part to the Fed’s low interest rate policies, startups have been able to delay IPOs while receiving repeated rounds of funding from hedge funds, private equity funds, and institutional investors. That means businesses are older when they go public and have longer sales and profit histories, making it easier for investors to value them accurately. Businesses backed by venture capital or private equity firms were 12 years old on average in 2013 when they went public, compared with six years old in 2000 and four years old in 1999, according to Ritter’s research. Twitter was seven years old at its IPO. “You want to make sure you have a company of reasonable scale before you go public, which ensures much more certainty in the planned financial results,” says Doug Leone, a managing partner of venture capital firm Sequoia Capital.

The median annual revenue for companies going public in 2000 was $17 million, compared with $109 million in 2013, adjusted for inflation, Ritter’s data show. And fewer companies are doing IPOs with no profits. Last year 64 percent of all initial offerings were done by profitless companies, compared with 80 percent in 2000, according to Ritter’s data.

The high cost of going public is a hurdle that discourages smaller companies and may lead to a more stable offerings market. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in 2002, requires extensive financial disclosure, raising the cost spent on auditors and legal work. “There’s just a much higher bar today,” says Ron Codd, a consultant to companies on the IPO track.

Another element missing this time: The boutique banks that underwrote many of the Internet IPOs in the 1990s don’t exist independently today. They were known as the “Four Horsemen”—Hambrecht & Quist, Montgomery Securities, Alex. Brown & Sons, and Robertson Stephens. None remain independent. Technology IPOs today are underwritten by the larger banks, primarily Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), which tend to decline underwriting IPOs of smaller companies, says Ritter.

While bankers and venture capitalists are confident about today’s IPO market, the shadow of the dot-com bust lingers. “Now in the Valley, the idea of a bubble is a practical conversation,” says Ted Tobiason, who worked at Robertson Stephens beginning in 2000 and now heads equity capital markets for the technology industry at Deutsche Bank (DB). “It’s a healthy discussion, which gets people to think about risk and not just potential upside.”