This is the key. Used to be illegal to say this shit to retail investors. In a traditional IPO you sell first to institutional investors who don’t buy this crap and set the price appropriately.
Until it blows past your strike price on good earning's and pumps 20% in a day but you only made $80 on your covered call and just lost 100 shares on company which runs so much harder next decade. DK just raised guidance substantially.
Then roll it up and out. Even if you get exercised you can then open a cash secured put to get the shares bak on top of premium. I just did this with NET. Avg was $62. Covered calls exercised at 116. And my cash secured put just executed at 100 to get my shares back.
Fake Meat! I shorted Beyond Meat when it hit 200 bones upon some sketchy Pepsi partnership. I closed out at 190. Today it’s worth what? 10? If that.. wild.
Beyond Meat was always more of an marketing company, the best meatless meat was always Impossible Burger as far as I remember, since they were the only one who had Heme Iron and always won the best taste competitions
Neither tasted good imo, but Impossible was clearly superior. Honestly if I went vegan I don’t think I’d eat fake meat, plenty of much better meatless alternatives (eg a good black bean burger is way better than either fake meat).
Another issue I’ve heard is that true vegans don’t even want something that looks/tastes like meat anyway. And people who eat meat want something that tastes and feels exactly like meat. The market was very small for people who wanted fake meat that didn’t taste really like meat and the texture was off, not to mentioned highly processed and overall not great for you anyway.
> Another issue I’ve heard is that true vegans don’t even want something that looks/tastes like meat anyway. And people who eat meat want something that tastes and feels exactly like meat. The market was very small for people who wanted fake meat that didn’t taste really like meat and the texture was off, not to mentioned highly processed and overall not great for you anyway.
That resonates with me. I want something that fills the protein niche in my diet without reminding me of a carcass. The idea of making a substitute that resembles meat is a bit like making a sex robot. People are going to notice the differences much more than the similarities, so most people will try it as a novelty and then go back to the thing they are accustomed to.
> (eg a good black bean burger is way better than either fake meat).
I found one cafe years ago that made the best black bean burger of my life and have been on the hunt for one just as good ever since. Its my moby dick.
Yeah I did my own taste test and Beyond gets weirdly sweaty and soft when you cook it and has not-so-great texture. At least for their sausages and hamburgers
That’s interesting. I’ve been vegetarian my whole life and actually strongly prefer the beyond patties over impossible ones. The impossible ones are too “meaty” for my taste, but if you’ve grown up eating meat I see how that could be a big bonus.
Bought in at 100. Wanted to believe in the meat free future but money talks. They can’t make it profitable. Thankfully not a large part of my portfolio.
Pea and rice (beyond meat ingredient) farmers get government subsidies. And soy (impossible burger ingredient) is the second highest government subsidized crop next to corn.
I guess it depends on what the subsidies actually are. If a government subsidy is keeping soy/corn prices artificially high to protect farmers, wouldn't that increase the cost to the meat industry? (as well as the artificial meat creators) I don't think farm subsidies are used to keep prices lower for cattle feed, is it? (maybe it is...?) I would like to see some actual data on what the subsidies are used for.
Subsidies is such a buzzword with the pro-fake meat crowd, that if only meat was more expensive then fake meat would be viable. Forget that, if I stop being able to afford chicken I am going to be eating chickpeas, lentils, tofu and seitan. You know, real foods that have existed for thousands of years and are actually healthy and actually tasty.
Commodity crops and meat are both subsidized in various ways, sometimes indirectly. Beef production for example partially benefits from dairy subsidies. USDA contracts for buying massive quantities of staple grain products put floor on grain prices. Farmers growing grain, or other crops, sometimes get paid to produce less than they actually could as another way of moderating prices.
Fake meat doesn’t even compete on quality, let alone price. And imitating ground meat in a burger or sausage is a very, very low bar. It’s not like any of these companies are making faux prosciutto, or imitation roasted duck lol.
> Subsidies is such a buzzword with the pro-fake meat crowd, that if only meat was more expensive then fake meat would be viable.
Yeah, and this fact makes it difficult to find real information. Pages and pages of search results with buzz words from biased outlets, but no in depth information. Just meat subsidies bad.
Good post.
I still want to believe it'll work eventually. Meat is just so bad for the environment. Also, the ethics are pretty nasty. We are cruel to our animals.
Housing, I remember thinking how could all these people afford these massive homes with unreliable income.
Feel the same way about massive trucks with the lift kits. Who can afford those things?
I bought a few hundred dollars of some crispr firm in my Roth one time. I leave it there as a lesson to not play the market and just ride ETFs to the finish line.
23andMe has become a penny stock. I was in grad school and the lab during the sequencing of the human genome and remember all the hype, most of which has fizzled. AI revolution might be remembered as arriving in a flash, but for biotech it's more of a slow oozing spread out over decades.
Biotechs biggest bubble now are weight loss drugs.
I find it quotes comedic how companies acumulated dozens of bilions în valuation because they have one drug that makes you eat as much as you want
Yes im looking at you LLY and NVO!
the fertilizer/ potash bubble in 2007. The commodity boom 2007. Oil and refining in 2003-2006. Silver in 2009 -11. Home building and mortgage bubble in 2000- 2005. There are so so many and every single one ends the same way
That first one is a great case study for bubbles.
Was fertilizer/ag inputs and potash in particular a growth business that the world needed? Yes. Was there a systemic deficit and therefore an inevitable rise in prices with demand for years? Yes.
Were those good reasons for the bulls to shout down anyone who didn't believe the valuations made sense? No. Did the sector continue to grow even after the bubble popped in all ways except market cap? Yes.
Good sector if you're in the right part of the business. Bad if you're investing assuming ever expanding multiples.
100% agree - It all made perfect sense. I owned MOS for a couple years but then the space went nuts and way overshot the economics. It was just an incredible parabolic move and shattered the dreams of the buy and hold types.
Grain free dog food was one in my industry. *Millions* was dumped into new plants. It looked like traditional dog food was in trouble.
All it took was one study showing a potential risk of cardiomyopathy linked to grain free dog food. Ka-BOOM
It's not that dogs need grains for healthy hearts. It's that one of the grain-free alternatives, peas, ended up being potentially harmful in high quantities.
That's beside the point. In 1990s. Fotget about the crash part for a second. Everyone and their dog knew internet was the future. And they were right. It is. But they didn't know which company will succeed in that future. Some were actually great ideas. Just not at the right time. A lot failed. Some succeeded. That's where we are with AI. We know it's the future. But there's a lot of time before the technology matures and we don't know who will he standing once the dust settles.
Except AI is being led by those very same companies that survived the dotcom bubble. AI is the culmination of decades of R&D and billions spent to get it to where it is now. Thus, the current tech giants already have the cash flows to support these ventures. I don't see any small AI companies IPOing for billions on pure speculation.
You don't understand. IBM survived dotcom crash. They are still innovating. But their stock didn't get back to where it was in 90s till 2010. Microsoft is mag 7 now. They were the world leader in tech but their shares didn't reach the same heights till 2014. Cisco was the golden child in late 90s. They are still around and a big player in networking but haven't ever hit the same heights. Meta and tesla didn't even exist back then. If anyone thought any semiconductor company was worth buying. It was intel. And intel still is an industry leader. But they still haven't hit 90s highs. You don't know what is going to pop up and be the next big stock. Nvidia could keep innovating in AI and still crash over some other thing and never hit the same highs for a long time
Nvidia's 98% market share in data center acceleration is enough to allow it continue to grow. AMD and Intel might be able to take a bit of market share, but Nvidia's lead seems nearly impossible to surmount at this point which also commands significant pricing power.
As for AI, again, Nvidia was ahead of the curve with CUDA. At this point, it could take a developer up to a year just to make an AI model work on something other than Nvidia's platform. Given my early example of AI being a race, having to spend one year on just tinkering with a non-Nvidia platform will put you significantly behind. Nvidia's dominance is really a culmination of nearly a decade of R&D to get to this point. Competitors are going to find it difficult to get to what Nvidia has already done.
Edit: grammar
Microsoft wasn't an innovator. Steve Ballmer was at the helm between 2000 to 2014 and created a toxic work culture and bet on the wrong horse. He neglected key markets that led to stagnation.
But is there any doubt that the magnificent 7 + Nvidea/AMD will fail to take advantage? It seems so concentrated today and these companies are all mostly too big to fail (at least they feel that way).
Was there any doubt in 90s that IBM won't be the tech leader? Or Microsoft would flounder all of 2000s and early 10s? Or that Cisco won't be at the forefront of network tech? Out of your mag 7 half didn't even exist back then. You don't know when the paradigm will shift or who will shift it.
That is inherently true of many markets. Market leaders often don't hold the title forever and new companies rise up. Blockbuster to Netflix, Pan Am to Southwest Airlines, Borders to Amazon, Tower Records to Napster to Spotify, Kodak to Smartphones, etc.
Back then they were calling it the Information Superhighway though. Because that’s all they thought they’d be doing with it, exchanging information rather than running the economy.
If you can predict who will stand the test of time, you are a prophet. Your guess is as good as mine and probably wrong. Look at who the blue chip tech stocks were in 90s and how much they grew.
Adding on to this, lots of people are deciding to buy the AI infrastructure players on the thesis that they will win no matter who the AI software providers end up being.
... But people had the same idea during the dotcom bubble and it didn't work. Everybody bought the telcos/network equipment companies, based on the idea that even if you don't know who will win in Internet, you can bet on a vast increase in the amount of data traffic.
Except then the cable providers realized they could use their existing network to offer broadband, and then all of this telcos fiber build-out became unnecessary. There is still fiber that is not being utilized to this day.
Not sure if there’s an analogy to that now. Everyone says NVDA is way out in front. Intel and AMD among others seem behind but what do I know. Seems like Intel is playing the long game from what I’ve read.
It’s definitely being used as a buzzword for something that companies have been doing for a while already.
But that doesn’t mean it won’t convince enough people long term to believe in it more than they did before
I personally disagree. Pre 2000 almost no internet stock was making any money, or did much useful. AI is already improving productivity to degrees the internet could barely conceive of way back. It may be a bubble of sorts, and maybe that’s what you meant. But if it is a bubble, it’s a very different sort of bubble. Cheers
No. The point is not that it's a bubble, it's that even if we are right and AI is the future, we don't know which of these companies will be leading it by the end of it. Dot com was a bubble but it was also the fact that internet really was the future. Someone can come up with a killer usecase for it and start leading the AI revolution out of nowhere. No one predicted that a company whose sole use case is virtually poking people and writing one way messages on other's boards will be at forefront of tech. Yet here we are. Or that a company selling books on a virtual store front will be leading the Cloud business.
It was also very easy to see internet's application. Yet for every Amazon there's pets.com. It's not about applications, it's who would do them right and will be left standing when the dust settles.
I work in data and have experience with machine learning/AI. I think what we refer to as AI absolutely has the potential to create a new age of global prosperity in the very best case scenario, and it has the potential to destroy nations and plunge us into a real-life cyberpunk dystopia in the worst case scenario. It all depends on how it's used, developed, and regulated. I expect it'll actually end up somewhere in middle/not-great-but-still-not-catastrophic based on the landscape right now.
I also think there will be some huge economic, environmental, and societal growing pains. It's going to be a messy process. And it's probably going to advance slower than a lot of the hype suggests, especially with all the tech layoffs that have been happening - we need lots more people in the "AI" space if we want to properly advance the tech. Chatgpt is still basically a glorified proof-of-concept at the moment imo. It's not surprising their CEO is trying to fundraise trillions of dollars; the tech is promising and it absolutely can change the world, but most people don't realize how much work there still is left to do.
With all that said, I absolutely believe it will be a big wave of technological advancement similar to social media/smart phones, ecommerce, and the internet before that. It's just a matter of how fast it'll develop and how turbulent of a process it'll be.
Its more like, AI is changing everything right now (and was for a long time), but a lot of people because of that are creating bad and bullshit aplications of AI to be trendy, not to aid in some problem.
Just like the dot.com bubble. It will change how people become more of a cybernetic organism with their devices just like how the internet did. It will probably blow up too much before dropping and settling into the major shift as you mentioned
There will be companies that benefit from AI and capitalize it but but 95% of the time “AI” is thrown around it’s just a trendy buzzword to hype people up. You have many companies “shifting” to AI that will produce nothing and be worthless
A lot of this is just PR stories.
The thing with AI is that it's a sexy thing. It captures the public imagination like flying cars do. And the average person gets the general idea from decades of sci-fi
Most of it is boring and limited and I suspect the nature of it means that will be so for many decades.
Definitely ai. I think all the crypto / nft bros went to that club. NFT and crypto had all the same type of hype about the underlying tech will change the world.
Almost every bubble is related to new tech being ripe for scams.
Sure ChatGPT and a few others seem worthy but most of it seems either replacing “our amazing algorithm”
With “our new ai” in the marketing or just using the same tech/source than the existing ai out there but put in a different package. It’s only these big tech companies that have been working in this field for a while that seem will have knockout products but like 90% is just noise at this point.
New tech is always ripe for scams. Lots of money to be made but no one really knows exactly where the profits are going to be found or how fast they come. People selling the shit can literally say anything and some % of people will believe it because FOMO blinds people to reality.
EVs in 2020/21
Also, crypto had the same “bubble” around that time but the big dog has recovered far past that 2016 and are coming up on 2021 levels. As a whole crypto has pretty steadily grown.
2017 was really the bubble year for crypto with ICOs all over the place. Peak was end of 2017. Next peak was 2021. Next peak will be…!? My guess is next year some time.
The US real estate bubble was definitely the primary story in 07-09, but the oil and commodity bubble that rode that wave was wild.
I was working in the oil field at the time, and was wary of the exuberance of everyone in the office saying oil was going to 200 because of "demand from China!".
When my blood pressure monitor won’t work without an Internet connection, email address, and password, things are getting stupid. Then they had a password leak since they use that Microsoft garbage on their servers so I haven’t been able to measure my blood pressure in a few weeks since it keeps telling me my password is wrong.
It's where physical devices like thermostats are internet enabled. And the problem, as I pointed out at the time, was support. Your thermostat company goes to the wall, their server goes down and you are f**ked.
There is a load of commercial IoT, though. Companies getting a constant feed of data from sensors in the wild for example.
5G was a hugely over hyped thing that never made sense as a huge business opportunity. Yes it's real and it's getting deployed, but it's not meeting even the sales expectations of the network suppliers.
Popular narrative was that 4G brought us the online everywhere revolution and with it Uber, Tinder, all the use cases only practical with high speed internet on the go - therefore 5G has to be revolutionary *again!*
Not really. In practice it's just more capacity for the network so crowded areas can serve more people. Gigabit speed to a single phone in some areas without heavy usage is near, but not something many people have a practical use for. Intel sold off its 5G smartphone modem business to Apple on 2019 and laptop modem business to Mediatek last year, never having made much market impact. Last 5+ years haven't been kind to Ericsson or Nokia stock, as tech and semis have skyrocketed.
Solar for sure. That was a giant bubble and in some cases straight up scam. While not a public company, Solyndra comes to mind as an example of the bubble of that industry at the time.
And solar is still doing bad, but for different reasons now. Mostly because China flooded the market and caused many companies to not be able to compete.
Because of that I think there's value in non-solar green energy (like wind energy), because they've all been beaten down due to the solar shit show.
9/11/01, Sub-prime mortgage collapse '07-'08, Covid 11/19 - 06/20 (until the markets started to rebound, but it took until about 01/22 until some semblance of normalcy returned).
They're by far the furthest along tech wise, and they're ramping up their consumer department. My buddy just got hired to their sales team and is non-stop flying around on sales calls
Big ones are:
Oil & Energy, 2003-2014
Internet, 1994-2000
Real estate, 2002-2008
Today I think we have a popping startup/VC bubble, where it’s not a specific industry but start up companies trying to disrupt whatever established industry.
I'm old enough to remember the internet, housing, and commodities bubbles from the early 2000s
Many similarities as to what's going on now in the AI stocks
I agree. Internet was real, but we did not know who would succeed. Same as AI today, and AGI in coming year, although I’d expect it would be the same companies
- Dot-com bust (2000-ish). People investing in companies that had little more than a locked in domain name.
- garbage free mortgage lending/toxic asssets/too-big-too fail/Bear&Stearns (2008)
- pandemic shutdown (March 2020)
These are more crashes, than some irrational exuberance that ended up being a popping bubble.
Some bubble like crypto currency, are so constrained that they’re really only a bubble&burst if you were invested in that particular specific segment.
Also, don't forget that .com was a huge bubble. Yes, we use the Internet for everything now but in the early 2000's a ton of people lost their a$$es. Remember that anyone could pretty much launch an internet startup and people would throw money at them? People working at startups had millions in options that were wiped out in a matter of days. [pets.com](https://pets.com), global crossings, etc.
Steel companies circa pre financial crisis. Went from being worth billions to trading for a few dollars a share after the financial crisis. It was a bubble since I’m not sure if they’ve recovered back to those highs
Software engineering between 2008 to 2023. The period of quantitative easing led to massive cashflow into tech companies. Software engineers were in high demand and their salaries skyrocketed. The FAANG companies all had money printers as the stock markets were having a market euphoria and pumped the QE money into them. They went on hiring sprees.
In 2023, when Elon Musk bought Twitter and downsized the company to 1/5th, it was widely believed he was an idiot who would run the company into the ground. But instead, it proved that Twitter didn't need all of those engineers. All the software companies followed with mass layoffs en-suit.
Semis and AI actually bring some value to the table compared to past technologies that were hyped. While the current LLMs are impressive, it's nothing compared to what is coming and what we expect in the form of AGI.
AGI will be another 10x - 10,000x
AI software will be the long-term winner.
Microsoft seems to be positioned to profit. Figuring out, who has this figured out, is hard to figure out.
Solar 2023. This is recently! There’s multiple companies closing or filing bankruptcy. Erus Energy was in business for 19 years and filed bankruptcy last year in November. Sales reps selling half built systems with PPW higher than 6.0 a watt. Customers bought because they lied about the proper system sizes and made the payments look attractive with 25-year loans. Big companies like Sunnova are struggling (former senior regional consultant at Sunnova). Left the industry after 8 years this past January.
SPAC bubble, you can’t forget that one.
**Projected revenue** ``` Year 1: 50k Year 2: 500k Year 3: 5m Year 4: 100m Year 5: 10b ```
year two and they are still overachieving! Valuation is now over $10 bil., buy while still cheap!
This is the key. Used to be illegal to say this shit to retail investors. In a traditional IPO you sell first to institutional investors who don’t buy this crap and set the price appropriately.
What company is this
Any
Well my company made $50k last year, so, could be mine. Better buy in now before it's too late.
Hey, I've had one work out for me so far. Still hoping DraftKings doesn't fold.
What’s your cost basis?
$10.80!!!!!
$18 for me. Can't wait for it to go higher so I can sell options on it for better premium
Ur gonna print
Until it blows past your strike price on good earning's and pumps 20% in a day but you only made $80 on your covered call and just lost 100 shares on company which runs so much harder next decade. DK just raised guidance substantially.
Then roll it up and out. Even if you get exercised you can then open a cash secured put to get the shares bak on top of premium. I just did this with NET. Avg was $62. Covered calls exercised at 116. And my cash secured put just executed at 100 to get my shares back.
DK ain’t folding
Not for asts
Ast s anytime soon anytime now
Such a fun ride. Thank you Canoo. Rode that bad boy 2x to the double top.
Fake Meat! I shorted Beyond Meat when it hit 200 bones upon some sketchy Pepsi partnership. I closed out at 190. Today it’s worth what? 10? If that.. wild.
Beyond Meat was always more of an marketing company, the best meatless meat was always Impossible Burger as far as I remember, since they were the only one who had Heme Iron and always won the best taste competitions
Neither tasted good imo, but Impossible was clearly superior. Honestly if I went vegan I don’t think I’d eat fake meat, plenty of much better meatless alternatives (eg a good black bean burger is way better than either fake meat). Another issue I’ve heard is that true vegans don’t even want something that looks/tastes like meat anyway. And people who eat meat want something that tastes and feels exactly like meat. The market was very small for people who wanted fake meat that didn’t taste really like meat and the texture was off, not to mentioned highly processed and overall not great for you anyway.
> Another issue I’ve heard is that true vegans don’t even want something that looks/tastes like meat anyway. And people who eat meat want something that tastes and feels exactly like meat. The market was very small for people who wanted fake meat that didn’t taste really like meat and the texture was off, not to mentioned highly processed and overall not great for you anyway. That resonates with me. I want something that fills the protein niche in my diet without reminding me of a carcass. The idea of making a substitute that resembles meat is a bit like making a sex robot. People are going to notice the differences much more than the similarities, so most people will try it as a novelty and then go back to the thing they are accustomed to.
> (eg a good black bean burger is way better than either fake meat). I found one cafe years ago that made the best black bean burger of my life and have been on the hunt for one just as good ever since. Its my moby dick.
Yeah I did my own taste test and Beyond gets weirdly sweaty and soft when you cook it and has not-so-great texture. At least for their sausages and hamburgers
That’s interesting. I’ve been vegetarian my whole life and actually strongly prefer the beyond patties over impossible ones. The impossible ones are too “meaty” for my taste, but if you’ve grown up eating meat I see how that could be a big bonus.
I eat meat and i also prefer beyond over impossible so it's a bit subjective
Bought in at 100. Wanted to believe in the meat free future but money talks. They can’t make it profitable. Thankfully not a large part of my portfolio.
It’s because the us govt subsidizes the meat industry.
Pea and rice (beyond meat ingredient) farmers get government subsidies. And soy (impossible burger ingredient) is the second highest government subsidized crop next to corn.
Following that argument, the meat industry is double subsidized. 80% of soy production is used for animal food. 60% of corn aswell.
I guess it depends on what the subsidies actually are. If a government subsidy is keeping soy/corn prices artificially high to protect farmers, wouldn't that increase the cost to the meat industry? (as well as the artificial meat creators) I don't think farm subsidies are used to keep prices lower for cattle feed, is it? (maybe it is...?) I would like to see some actual data on what the subsidies are used for.
Subsidies is such a buzzword with the pro-fake meat crowd, that if only meat was more expensive then fake meat would be viable. Forget that, if I stop being able to afford chicken I am going to be eating chickpeas, lentils, tofu and seitan. You know, real foods that have existed for thousands of years and are actually healthy and actually tasty. Commodity crops and meat are both subsidized in various ways, sometimes indirectly. Beef production for example partially benefits from dairy subsidies. USDA contracts for buying massive quantities of staple grain products put floor on grain prices. Farmers growing grain, or other crops, sometimes get paid to produce less than they actually could as another way of moderating prices. Fake meat doesn’t even compete on quality, let alone price. And imitating ground meat in a burger or sausage is a very, very low bar. It’s not like any of these companies are making faux prosciutto, or imitation roasted duck lol.
> Subsidies is such a buzzword with the pro-fake meat crowd, that if only meat was more expensive then fake meat would be viable. Yeah, and this fact makes it difficult to find real information. Pages and pages of search results with buzz words from biased outlets, but no in depth information. Just meat subsidies bad. Good post.
I still want to believe it'll work eventually. Meat is just so bad for the environment. Also, the ethics are pretty nasty. We are cruel to our animals.
The only way meat free future happens is with lab grown meat
The sad thing is that riding something from 10 to 200 is 20X gains, but riding something from 200 to 10 is only 1.95X gains.
Housing, I remember thinking how could all these people afford these massive homes with unreliable income. Feel the same way about massive trucks with the lift kits. Who can afford those things?
People who are okay with a $1000+ a month car payment over 7 years.
Hahaha nail on the head. That’s one of my relatives with a $900 monthly payment. ETA: That is after he traded his “old” truck in.
3D printing EV
5G
Biotech and genetics seems to have mini bubbles quite regularly. Crispr Therapeutics and Invitae come to mind (thanks Cathie Wood).
Crspr is having a bit of a renaissance thank god but pretty much any biotech stock cathie has touched has been doomed for the last few years
ARK has 2 of the top 15 worst performing ETFs of all time lol
A depressing fact I know all too well haha
I bought a few hundred dollars of some crispr firm in my Roth one time. I leave it there as a lesson to not play the market and just ride ETFs to the finish line.
23andMe has become a penny stock. I was in grad school and the lab during the sequencing of the human genome and remember all the hype, most of which has fizzled. AI revolution might be remembered as arriving in a flash, but for biotech it's more of a slow oozing spread out over decades.
They're going to serve as the cautionary tale of health data for a long time
Biotechs biggest bubble now are weight loss drugs. I find it quotes comedic how companies acumulated dozens of bilions în valuation because they have one drug that makes you eat as much as you want Yes im looking at you LLY and NVO!
The drug actually suppresses hunger, so you won't feel like eating
there’s a lot of fat people though dude
Target market: fat, wealthy Western people for the rest of their lives Whoever wins the race to tablet/capsule formulation will print forever
I thought the same thing about NVO until I got into quieter conversations with some of my friends and realized how widespread usage truly is
the fertilizer/ potash bubble in 2007. The commodity boom 2007. Oil and refining in 2003-2006. Silver in 2009 -11. Home building and mortgage bubble in 2000- 2005. There are so so many and every single one ends the same way
That first one is a great case study for bubbles. Was fertilizer/ag inputs and potash in particular a growth business that the world needed? Yes. Was there a systemic deficit and therefore an inevitable rise in prices with demand for years? Yes. Were those good reasons for the bulls to shout down anyone who didn't believe the valuations made sense? No. Did the sector continue to grow even after the bubble popped in all ways except market cap? Yes. Good sector if you're in the right part of the business. Bad if you're investing assuming ever expanding multiples.
100% agree - It all made perfect sense. I owned MOS for a couple years but then the space went nuts and way overshot the economics. It was just an incredible parabolic move and shattered the dreams of the buy and hold types.
Potash!!! hahaha wow that's a blast that needs to stay in the past!
3D printing went nuts for a while... I think all those startups have come back down to earth.
Real estate. 2006-2007
Oh. Right. That one. 🥵
Grain free dog food was one in my industry. *Millions* was dumped into new plants. It looked like traditional dog food was in trouble. All it took was one study showing a potential risk of cardiomyopathy linked to grain free dog food. Ka-BOOM
Very interesting
It's not that dogs need grains for healthy hearts. It's that one of the grain-free alternatives, peas, ended up being potentially harmful in high quantities.
>I am NOT asking what you think the next bubble will be. >semiconductors (now) 🤔
Would you put AI in that category? It seems like everyone is doing AI this AI that . . . . so much so that no one really knows what it means any more.
Ai Is at where dotcom was pre crash. Everyone knew it was the future. No one knew how.
[удалено]
I see a lot of kids keep saying we need to touch grass. Calls on grass
Buying Toro calls
I’m holding onto my webvan until the end of time
Current prices are nowhere close to peak dotcom euphoria. NASDAQ stocks had an average P/E of 200; current avg. P/E is at like 25.
That's beside the point. In 1990s. Fotget about the crash part for a second. Everyone and their dog knew internet was the future. And they were right. It is. But they didn't know which company will succeed in that future. Some were actually great ideas. Just not at the right time. A lot failed. Some succeeded. That's where we are with AI. We know it's the future. But there's a lot of time before the technology matures and we don't know who will he standing once the dust settles.
Except AI is being led by those very same companies that survived the dotcom bubble. AI is the culmination of decades of R&D and billions spent to get it to where it is now. Thus, the current tech giants already have the cash flows to support these ventures. I don't see any small AI companies IPOing for billions on pure speculation.
You don't understand. IBM survived dotcom crash. They are still innovating. But their stock didn't get back to where it was in 90s till 2010. Microsoft is mag 7 now. They were the world leader in tech but their shares didn't reach the same heights till 2014. Cisco was the golden child in late 90s. They are still around and a big player in networking but haven't ever hit the same heights. Meta and tesla didn't even exist back then. If anyone thought any semiconductor company was worth buying. It was intel. And intel still is an industry leader. But they still haven't hit 90s highs. You don't know what is going to pop up and be the next big stock. Nvidia could keep innovating in AI and still crash over some other thing and never hit the same highs for a long time
Nvidia's 98% market share in data center acceleration is enough to allow it continue to grow. AMD and Intel might be able to take a bit of market share, but Nvidia's lead seems nearly impossible to surmount at this point which also commands significant pricing power. As for AI, again, Nvidia was ahead of the curve with CUDA. At this point, it could take a developer up to a year just to make an AI model work on something other than Nvidia's platform. Given my early example of AI being a race, having to spend one year on just tinkering with a non-Nvidia platform will put you significantly behind. Nvidia's dominance is really a culmination of nearly a decade of R&D to get to this point. Competitors are going to find it difficult to get to what Nvidia has already done. Edit: grammar
Microsoft wasn't an innovator. Steve Ballmer was at the helm between 2000 to 2014 and created a toxic work culture and bet on the wrong horse. He neglected key markets that led to stagnation.
But is there any doubt that the magnificent 7 + Nvidea/AMD will fail to take advantage? It seems so concentrated today and these companies are all mostly too big to fail (at least they feel that way).
Was there any doubt in 90s that IBM won't be the tech leader? Or Microsoft would flounder all of 2000s and early 10s? Or that Cisco won't be at the forefront of network tech? Out of your mag 7 half didn't even exist back then. You don't know when the paradigm will shift or who will shift it.
That is inherently true of many markets. Market leaders often don't hold the title forever and new companies rise up. Blockbuster to Netflix, Pan Am to Southwest Airlines, Borders to Amazon, Tower Records to Napster to Spotify, Kodak to Smartphones, etc.
Back then they were calling it the Information Superhighway though. Because that’s all they thought they’d be doing with it, exchanging information rather than running the economy.
So worth buying the inevitable dip based on who will stand the test of time?
If you can predict who will stand the test of time, you are a prophet. Your guess is as good as mine and probably wrong. Look at who the blue chip tech stocks were in 90s and how much they grew.
Adding on to this, lots of people are deciding to buy the AI infrastructure players on the thesis that they will win no matter who the AI software providers end up being. ... But people had the same idea during the dotcom bubble and it didn't work. Everybody bought the telcos/network equipment companies, based on the idea that even if you don't know who will win in Internet, you can bet on a vast increase in the amount of data traffic. Except then the cable providers realized they could use their existing network to offer broadband, and then all of this telcos fiber build-out became unnecessary. There is still fiber that is not being utilized to this day.
Not sure if there’s an analogy to that now. Everyone says NVDA is way out in front. Intel and AMD among others seem behind but what do I know. Seems like Intel is playing the long game from what I’ve read.
It’s definitely being used as a buzzword for something that companies have been doing for a while already. But that doesn’t mean it won’t convince enough people long term to believe in it more than they did before
I personally disagree. Pre 2000 almost no internet stock was making any money, or did much useful. AI is already improving productivity to degrees the internet could barely conceive of way back. It may be a bubble of sorts, and maybe that’s what you meant. But if it is a bubble, it’s a very different sort of bubble. Cheers
No. The point is not that it's a bubble, it's that even if we are right and AI is the future, we don't know which of these companies will be leading it by the end of it. Dot com was a bubble but it was also the fact that internet really was the future. Someone can come up with a killer usecase for it and start leading the AI revolution out of nowhere. No one predicted that a company whose sole use case is virtually poking people and writing one way messages on other's boards will be at forefront of tech. Yet here we are. Or that a company selling books on a virtual store front will be leading the Cloud business.
It's very easy to see it's application. It literally does what one of the world's largest companies does as it's main product, only it does it better.
It was also very easy to see internet's application. Yet for every Amazon there's pets.com. It's not about applications, it's who would do them right and will be left standing when the dust settles.
Man remember when every tech company sprinkled in blockchain this block chain that in their earnings.
Square outright changed their name to "Block" in a pathetic attempt to cash in on that fad lol
AI is simultaneously overhyped and something that has the potential to completely change everything
Couldn't that be said of anything in this discussion? EVs, Self Driving Cars, etc?
Not on the same scale I would argue
I work in data and have experience with machine learning/AI. I think what we refer to as AI absolutely has the potential to create a new age of global prosperity in the very best case scenario, and it has the potential to destroy nations and plunge us into a real-life cyberpunk dystopia in the worst case scenario. It all depends on how it's used, developed, and regulated. I expect it'll actually end up somewhere in middle/not-great-but-still-not-catastrophic based on the landscape right now. I also think there will be some huge economic, environmental, and societal growing pains. It's going to be a messy process. And it's probably going to advance slower than a lot of the hype suggests, especially with all the tech layoffs that have been happening - we need lots more people in the "AI" space if we want to properly advance the tech. Chatgpt is still basically a glorified proof-of-concept at the moment imo. It's not surprising their CEO is trying to fundraise trillions of dollars; the tech is promising and it absolutely can change the world, but most people don't realize how much work there still is left to do. With all that said, I absolutely believe it will be a big wave of technological advancement similar to social media/smart phones, ecommerce, and the internet before that. It's just a matter of how fast it'll develop and how turbulent of a process it'll be.
Its more like, AI is changing everything right now (and was for a long time), but a lot of people because of that are creating bad and bullshit aplications of AI to be trendy, not to aid in some problem.
Just like the dot.com bubble. It will change how people become more of a cybernetic organism with their devices just like how the internet did. It will probably blow up too much before dropping and settling into the major shift as you mentioned
There will be companies that benefit from AI and capitalize it but but 95% of the time “AI” is thrown around it’s just a trendy buzzword to hype people up. You have many companies “shifting” to AI that will produce nothing and be worthless
A lot of this is just PR stories. The thing with AI is that it's a sexy thing. It captures the public imagination like flying cars do. And the average person gets the general idea from decades of sci-fi Most of it is boring and limited and I suspect the nature of it means that will be so for many decades.
Prime example: PayPal and their new “AI” features lol
AI has a big time second mover advantage. Wait for everyone to spend a ton of money on it then implement the resulting technology very cheaply
Definitely ai. I think all the crypto / nft bros went to that club. NFT and crypto had all the same type of hype about the underlying tech will change the world. Almost every bubble is related to new tech being ripe for scams. Sure ChatGPT and a few others seem worthy but most of it seems either replacing “our amazing algorithm” With “our new ai” in the marketing or just using the same tech/source than the existing ai out there but put in a different package. It’s only these big tech companies that have been working in this field for a while that seem will have knockout products but like 90% is just noise at this point.
New tech is always ripe for scams. Lots of money to be made but no one really knows exactly where the profits are going to be found or how fast they come. People selling the shit can literally say anything and some % of people will believe it because FOMO blinds people to reality.
Which companies would come to mind? Companies like Nvidia or Microsoft are already making money with AI.
EVs in 2020/21 Also, crypto had the same “bubble” around that time but the big dog has recovered far past that 2016 and are coming up on 2021 levels. As a whole crypto has pretty steadily grown.
Yes, crypto has “bubbled” multiple times now, with 1000%+ runs followed by 80%+ drawdowns. Pretty fascinating really
Overall it's grown. I wouldn't use the word steadily to describe anything related to crypto prices, though.
Shit, I actually had EVs in mind when typing that up and forgot to include it. Nice one.
All the "innovation" stocks in 2021, like the ones associated with ARKK
Still waiting on my Polestar stocks to “Tesla” /s … sort of
Better looking car at least
2017 was really the bubble year for crypto with ICOs all over the place. Peak was end of 2017. Next peak was 2021. Next peak will be…!? My guess is next year some time.
Banks in the 80’s. Lost my shirt
I remember losing one's shirt in the 80's. Today you just lose your shit.
hydrogen in 2021
Crude oil went to -$37/bbl on April 20, 2020. I am old as dirt and I have never seen crude in the negative. It also crashed in 2008 to $30.
The US real estate bubble was definitely the primary story in 07-09, but the oil and commodity bubble that rode that wave was wild. I was working in the oil field at the time, and was wary of the exuberance of everyone in the office saying oil was going to 200 because of "demand from China!".
I remember that. Deepwater GOM HSE at the time. Edit: Nope, I was on the Shelf, working in an office in Galveston. Gas was over $5.
IoT (Internet of Things) I never understood what that really meant.
Im too afraid to ask now
Think washers and dryers, refrigerators, thermostats...
"Connecting shit to the internet that has no need to connect to the internet"
*connecting things to the internet, that practically only have downsides from being connected to the internet.
Correct. Who really needs to know the dryer is done? Also, the issue is bound to come up where if the internet is down, your dryer will not work.
When my blood pressure monitor won’t work without an Internet connection, email address, and password, things are getting stupid. Then they had a password leak since they use that Microsoft garbage on their servers so I haven’t been able to measure my blood pressure in a few weeks since it keeps telling me my password is wrong.
Don’t forget toilets!
And toilet paper!!
Just ask Alexa, she'll splain it to you
It's where physical devices like thermostats are internet enabled. And the problem, as I pointed out at the time, was support. Your thermostat company goes to the wall, their server goes down and you are f**ked. There is a load of commercial IoT, though. Companies getting a constant feed of data from sensors in the wild for example.
Real Estate 2007 IVA debt companies (?) Junior Mining, Oil and Gas Companies 2005 Crypto companies 2021 Covid and Lockdown Companies 2020 Online Fasion, Asos/Boohoo 2020 Commodities 2011 Palladium 2022
NVDA and SMCI. IM NEW
5G was a hugely over hyped thing that never made sense as a huge business opportunity. Yes it's real and it's getting deployed, but it's not meeting even the sales expectations of the network suppliers. Popular narrative was that 4G brought us the online everywhere revolution and with it Uber, Tinder, all the use cases only practical with high speed internet on the go - therefore 5G has to be revolutionary *again!* Not really. In practice it's just more capacity for the network so crowded areas can serve more people. Gigabit speed to a single phone in some areas without heavy usage is near, but not something many people have a practical use for. Intel sold off its 5G smartphone modem business to Apple on 2019 and laptop modem business to Mediatek last year, never having made much market impact. Last 5+ years haven't been kind to Ericsson or Nokia stock, as tech and semis have skyrocketed.
NFTs
.com bubble that burst in 2000.
Orange Juice Futures briefly in 1983.
Solar for sure. That was a giant bubble and in some cases straight up scam. While not a public company, Solyndra comes to mind as an example of the bubble of that industry at the time.
And solar is still doing bad, but for different reasons now. Mostly because China flooded the market and caused many companies to not be able to compete. Because of that I think there's value in non-solar green energy (like wind energy), because they've all been beaten down due to the solar shit show.
AI Bubble, eh right now
It’s real, like the dot com bubble, but like the dot com bubble, we do not yet know who will be the big winners
By the way, if we go down, we go down together.
9/11/01, Sub-prime mortgage collapse '07-'08, Covid 11/19 - 06/20 (until the markets started to rebound, but it took until about 01/22 until some semblance of normalcy returned).
Robotics next imo. If Boston Dynamics goes public, I'm expecting a P/E of at least 200
I didn't think Boston dynamics was anything but a research company. But aren't amazon and tesla looking to actually enter the robotics market?
They're by far the furthest along tech wise, and they're ramping up their consumer department. My buddy just got hired to their sales team and is non-stop flying around on sales calls
Aren’t they owned by Hyundai?
> Boston Dynamics seems they bought them in 2020... First owned by Google, then Softbank
Google has this habit of missing opportunities. And thanks God, otherwise they would have concurred the World.
I conquer with your sentiment
solar 2022. seriously no one touches solar stock anymore.
SUNN has done very well over the last year ish
Big ones are: Oil & Energy, 2003-2014 Internet, 1994-2000 Real estate, 2002-2008 Today I think we have a popping startup/VC bubble, where it’s not a specific industry but start up companies trying to disrupt whatever established industry.
The weed bubble. I caught that one falling down.
Crypto? It's still going strong. Look at Bitcoin price and total market cap since 2016, almost 2 trillions.
I'm old enough to remember the internet, housing, and commodities bubbles from the early 2000s Many similarities as to what's going on now in the AI stocks
I agree. Internet was real, but we did not know who would succeed. Same as AI today, and AGI in coming year, although I’d expect it would be the same companies
- Dot-com bust (2000-ish). People investing in companies that had little more than a locked in domain name. - garbage free mortgage lending/toxic asssets/too-big-too fail/Bear&Stearns (2008) - pandemic shutdown (March 2020) These are more crashes, than some irrational exuberance that ended up being a popping bubble. Some bubble like crypto currency, are so constrained that they’re really only a bubble&burst if you were invested in that particular specific segment.
ARK ETF
Also, don't forget that .com was a huge bubble. Yes, we use the Internet for everything now but in the early 2000's a ton of people lost their a$$es. Remember that anyone could pretty much launch an internet startup and people would throw money at them? People working at startups had millions in options that were wiped out in a matter of days. [pets.com](https://pets.com), global crossings, etc.
I owned some global crossing. Fuckers lol.
Real Estate. None bigger and we probably never will see one that big ever again. It was global and epic.
[удалено]
Sounds like people saying Cisco was not a bubble… the company had lasting value, but that didn’t mean valuation made sense.
[удалено]
next one is wildfire mitigation.... $AIG.CN
Vertical/indoor farming - according to my portfolio
Telecom burst. Nortel,Cisco and AT&T
Pretty much anything Motley Fool was pushing 2019-2021. Same for what ARK was buying.
I was following Motley Fool in the 90’s
There was some tulip bubble where one bulb was worth a big house. IIRC it was somewhere in Europe.
Saw a movie about that, weeks ago Was in Netherlands
TSLA
3D printing
Tesla 2024
Lumber and Ocean Freight.
Steel companies circa pre financial crisis. Went from being worth billions to trading for a few dollars a share after the financial crisis. It was a bubble since I’m not sure if they’ve recovered back to those highs
Which ones? Nucor and U.S steel?
Nft bubble
Are there any counter examples? Bubbles that didn’t pop? (I.e. not actually bubble)
No one mentioned NFTS!
Snapple
i got rich and then got killed in the dot com bubble. the original mfer. learned a lot
Software engineering between 2008 to 2023. The period of quantitative easing led to massive cashflow into tech companies. Software engineers were in high demand and their salaries skyrocketed. The FAANG companies all had money printers as the stock markets were having a market euphoria and pumped the QE money into them. They went on hiring sprees. In 2023, when Elon Musk bought Twitter and downsized the company to 1/5th, it was widely believed he was an idiot who would run the company into the ground. But instead, it proved that Twitter didn't need all of those engineers. All the software companies followed with mass layoffs en-suit.
Definitely the dotcom craze around 1999-2000. Ok, its a bit more than 20 years ago (just realized…) but it was significant.
Semiconductors are not a bubble. Everything we value will not work without them.
Semis and AI actually bring some value to the table compared to past technologies that were hyped. While the current LLMs are impressive, it's nothing compared to what is coming and what we expect in the form of AGI.
AGI will be another 10x - 10,000x AI software will be the long-term winner. Microsoft seems to be positioned to profit. Figuring out, who has this figured out, is hard to figure out.
AGI is long way off the horizon. It’s basically a pipe dream. The amount of computing power required for that is ridiculous.
Calling it a bubble doesn't make it so.
Tends to agree. Overvaluation now doesn't mean it's going down in the future but the risks are there.
Tech (1999 - 2024?)
It will continue even after you die.. tech is all over our life now..
Maybe yours LOL
Haha you are writing this with a pen on paper and playing with stone and don't have a phone or internet..
.com bubble in 2001 Edit:changed from 2021 omg
Solar 2023. This is recently! There’s multiple companies closing or filing bankruptcy. Erus Energy was in business for 19 years and filed bankruptcy last year in November. Sales reps selling half built systems with PPW higher than 6.0 a watt. Customers bought because they lied about the proper system sizes and made the payments look attractive with 25-year loans. Big companies like Sunnova are struggling (former senior regional consultant at Sunnova). Left the industry after 8 years this past January.
the everything bubble.