[HN Gopher] Tech bubbles are bursting all over the place ___________________________________________________________________ Tech bubbles are bursting all over the place Author : vadertemp Score : 378 points Date : 2022-05-13 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.economist.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com) | 1270018080 wrote: | I'm really hoping a16z's crypto scams collapse too. I don't know | how to put it succinctly, but I would get a strong dose of | schadenfreude from it. Their buzzword driven business plan and | throwing money at actual nonsense is so frustrating. I can't | imagine being one of their investors. | paulpauper wrote: | Nasdaq up 3% today. great timing lol . these kind of stories tend | to mark bottoms. | tristanperry wrote: | I'd be stunned if the Nasdaq above 11,800 (i.e. it's current | level). | | There seems to be too many economic headwinds. I think today | was a short term relief rally, not the turning point of one | month's sell-offs. | paulpauper wrote: | It fell 30% because of Covid and recession in 2020. It was | down as much as 30% yesterday of its peak but without either | of those. | Victerius wrote: | And all it took was the Federal Reserve raising the federal funds | rate by less than 100 bps after a decade and a half of rock | bottom rates. | | I have nothing more to add. I'm going to go outside and breathe | some fresh air. | wozer wrote: | More is expected, though: | | > More rate rises are expected. The Economist Intelligence Unit | expects the Fed to raise rates seven times in 2022, reaching | 2.9% in early 2023. | | (The Guardian) | duckfruit wrote: | A rate hike that that was widely telegraphed and has been | anticipated for years, to boot! | sroussey wrote: | Don't fight the Fed. | fullshark wrote: | And no evidence inflation is under control + future rates | increases are anticipated as well. | | I'd love to get a flash poll of the finance industry and see | how much people believe 1-8% interest rates are possible over | the next 5 years. I bet a lot in the market think 3% interest | rates are just not gonna happen. | babyshake wrote: | You mean rates won't get that high? Or that they will be | much higher? | fullshark wrote: | Won't get that high. Just what's the max interest rate we | see over say the next 5 years? I imagine there's still a | lot of denial interspersed with the fear. | teepo wrote: | Looking at some of the prediction markets has some ideas: | https://www.metaculus.com/questions/7439/u-s-interest- | rate-p... | epgui wrote: | But it's the _tone_ with which it was said, and the | expressiveness of Chair Powell 's eyebrows when he said it | that was unanticipated. | | /s | 1minusp wrote: | Know that parents comment is /s but in truth, it really | feels like interpretations of body language and text to | indicate hawkishness/dovishness actually seems to matter. | epgui wrote: | Yeah, just to clarify, my own "/s" tag in this case | didn't mean I wasn't serious, it just meant that I | believed the market placed too much emphasis on purely | subjective interpretations of things left unsaid. | | It's good to try and get all all the data you can, but | inferring how someone feels based on extra-textual | elements is not a particularly scientific affair. Judges | and lawyers commonly say "you can't possibly know how | this other person felt" or "you can't possibly know what | this other person thought", even when appearances are | highly suggestive... for good reason. | billmalarky wrote: | That's not a fair statement though. There is also the war in | Europe, and the covid pandemic is not a solved problem, | especially in China. | | There are many more serious factors than simply a rate | increase, each of which alone could lead to a recession, all of | which come close to guaranteeing one. | woeirua wrote: | There is a nonzero chance that all of the "growth" that we've | seen over the past 14 years was just fueled by cheap credit. If | we can't avoid a recession after raising rates by 100bps then | we've had a false economy the entire time. Hope you got to ride | the wave while you could. | freeqaz wrote: | A lot of these companies have very reasonable P/E ratios now. | Microsoft is sitting at around 27, Apple 25, and Facebook 15. | | None of those strike me as "inflated". Those are normal values | for the stock market (20-25). Are investors just panicking? | FredPret wrote: | 25 for a huge tech company is insane, unless there is reason to | expect burgeoning profits. | | The implication is that if you bought them outright, they are | going to generate the present level of profits for 25 years | before you pay off your investment. | | How many tech companies have lasted 25 years? How many will | last 25 more? | | 25 makes sense for a startup with potential for explosive | growth, not for an established company. | mirceal wrote: | Lol. Tesla would like a word | FredPret wrote: | >unless there is reason to expect burgeoning profits | | >25 makes sense for a startup with potential for explosive | growth, not for an established company | peyton wrote: | They are monopolies/oligopolies with pricing power. That | is the reason. | FredPret wrote: | Fair, but they are vulnerable to having the rug innovated | from out under them like the holy-grail-of-investment | railroad companies of yore. I wouldn't bet my retirement | on the current crop of big tech companies lasting 20-30 | years. | rubidium wrote: | Don't rising interest rates put a downward pressure on p/e as | growth (often) requires capital thus loans? | JamesBarney wrote: | They do, but the biggest way this happens is investors | shifting their asset allocations into bonds. So if bonds pay | 10% per year a company with a p/e of 30 looks less attractive | than if bonds pay 3% per year. | drexlspivey wrote: | > They do, but the biggest way this happens is investors | shifting their asset allocations into bonds. | | The opposite is true actually, when rates go up there is a | sell-off in bonds which is exactly what is happening right | now where bond prices are down 10%-20% | JamesBarney wrote: | You're saying if interest rates increased and stock price | P/E remained the same most funds would allocate less | money to bonds? | | I don't understand why that would be. If the expected | future cash flow of one asset increases (bonds), and | remains the same for another (stocks) why would you | allocate more money to stocks and away from bonds? | drexlspivey wrote: | The future cash flow of existing bonds is fixed and it | does not increase. If you have a bond that pays a 2% | annual coupon you will see it's value drop when interest | rates increase. The reason is that you can now get a | newly issued bond that pays a higher (say 3%) fixed | coupon so your's is worth less. | | Your bond's price will drop to say 90% of the notional | amount while the new bond will trade at 100% so they will | effectively have the same "yield" of 3%. | ericmay wrote: | I think there's some panic, yea, but the P/E doesn't tell the | whole story. Take Facebook or maybe Google (just to pick on, | others like Apple have their own headwinds to face) - how does | advertising fair in a recession? Maybe the P/Es have retracted | to _look_ appealing, but here in about 2 years when ad revenue | is down 30% those same P /Es look expensive. | | Personally I think if you are investing with a longer-term | horizon the next few years don't matter and if you like to buy | individual stocks now is as good of a time as any. | | Not a financial advisor and not financial advice. | r0m4n0 wrote: | Google has been around for 20 years so we can see what | happened to advertising revenue during the last recession. | | https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising- | reven... | ericmay wrote: | Which is definitely a piece of data to look at while making | an investment decision. | | One thing I'd recommend is asking how was Google as a | company different in say, 2008 where revenues increased | despite the recession compared to now. | megaman821 wrote: | What about a recession would cause FB or Google to leave the | advertising business, and not have some the largest | advertising revenue whenever the recession is over? It is | more of a choice can your money be invested somewhere better | in the short-term and then hop back on to FB and Google | before they get too expensive. | | It is probably the same for all large tech companies. I don't | see any titans falling in the next few years. | prepend wrote: | They wouldn't leave the as industry, but their revenue | would suffer greatly. | | A decent percentage of Google ad spend is | waste/useless/whatever. So during a recession companies are | probably tightening their ad spend and getting more | precise. | ericmay wrote: | > What about a recession would cause FB or Google to leave | the advertising business, and not have some the largest | advertising revenue whenever the recession is over? | | I'm not suggesting they would leave the advertising | business, I'm suggesting revenues could be lower as | advertisers cut their spend, which would drop Google/FB | revenue and make the current 12 PE more like a 25 during a | recession. I guess, you can't just look at P/E ratios. They | don't tell you too much. | | > I don't see any titans falling in the next few years. | | Well, they've fallen quite a bit since January. Haven't | they? | | I don't see anyone going bankrupt or anything, so if that's | what you mean then yea sure I agree - hence I think they're | attractive to buy now as well. | mmaunder wrote: | If you've gotten used to paying $20 for a beer at Whole Foods, | $5 may seem cheap until you realize the corner shop sells the | same beer for $2. | | Applying this analogy to our high inflation environment, those | stocks seemed worth paying that high price per dollar of | earnings, until the base interest rate started rising. Then you | realized you can get the same return that your dividend yield | provides by investing in a zero risk CD with no risk of losing | the principle. Suddenly those stocks seem way too expensive for | each dollar of earnings, and their price keep crashing until | that price earnings ratio is something closer to the | alternatives that the stock is now competing with. | qeternity wrote: | > Those are normal values for the stock market (20-25). | | Presuming your experience in equities markets is within the | last decade... | | Historical average is more like 15 for SPX. | happythebob wrote: | Right but this is MSFT and AAPL. They're not going anywhere. | Inflation is. | kgwgk wrote: | I don't know where they are going but they were trading | around ten times earnings less than one decade ago. A PE | ratio below 15 may look at some point even more reasonable | than the current PE ratio over 25. | 300bps wrote: | Agreed and not only that but he needs to take into | consideration forward look P/E whereas he's looking at | trailing P/E. | | If interest rates go up, everyone is surmising that tech | stocks that benefit from lower interest rates will not be as | profitable. | | And of course if we have a recession... | epgui wrote: | If you're doing any fundamental analysis, you're going to end | up doing one form or another of a DCF model. The expected | rate of growth has a very big influence on your final | estimated valuation, and it's normal for companies with a | higher expected rate of growth to be valued at higher | multiples. | | Whether the rate of growth will be as high as expected, that | is the real question, and it is not a simple one or one you | can easily wave off. | jerf wrote: | This has been what has been confusing me about the market | for the past quite-a-while with regard to the tech stocks. | Were some of them doing well? Sure. Were some of them | basically money fountains that needed just a slight turn to | prioritizing profits over growth to make lots of money? | Sure. | | But a lot of the tech giants were priced as if they had not | already expanded into well over half the market, but as if | they still had 99% of their market still in front of them | and no competition in sight. | | As of this time last year, it is not plausible that | Facebook is _extremely likely_ to continue growth like | crazy and increase their revenues per customer by a factor | of 10 or 50 or something. Sure, their whole VR play may pay | off hugely, but I couldn 't say it's _extremely likely_ the | way their stock said. Netflix was not going to grow their | subscription base by 10x and /or charge their customers | 10-50x more. Etc. | | I mean, I _guess_ it 's within the range of possibilities | for these companies, but these stocks were priced like it | was _all but guaranteed_ that these companies were going to | see smooth sailing to levels of revenue I couldn 't even | remotely guess how they were ever going get to. How is | Facebook, at this point, going to pivot into making | $500/user/year from their current ~$20/user/year? And | whatever your answer, what is the _probability_ of that | just smoothly working with no hiccups within the dollar- | cost-value window it would have to take place in? | | In the last couple of months, I've been getting my answer | to this question, and my confusion has been resolving. | epgui wrote: | The devil is certainly in the details, and valuations are | often overly optimistic... | | But similarly, I believe there are a few really strong | companies that are dramatically under-valued today, | partly because they (purposefully and strategically) | don't turn a profit yet, or because they trade at a very | high multiple. | | Facebook is not one of the companies I spend a lot of | time researching (but don't interpret this as me having a | negative view of the stock-- I just have "no view"). | | Taking the time to read filings, as well as any investor | materials these companies put out (with a critical and | open mind, of course) goes a really long way. | qeternity wrote: | Thanks bud. Have spent my career trading at hedge funds, | with a major focus being US equities. | epgui wrote: | Then I'm sure I didn't tell you anything you didn't | already know :) | | I just had no way of knowing your background. | cyral wrote: | Here's a chart of the historical average: | https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio | IshKebab wrote: | Presumably higher average ratios correlate with lower | interest rates though. | xyzzyz wrote: | In fact, you should expect P/E and interest rates to be | strongly inversely correlated, purely by the nature of | what these things represent. | mupuff1234 wrote: | It seems like the average p/e shifted higher in the last 30 | years, so maybe 15 is no longer the "correct" baseline to | compare to. | francisofascii wrote: | My gut says you are right, but why is 30 years a better | baseline timeframe than 5 years or 100 years? | versale wrote: | Intel's P/E is 7 right now. So, the other ratios do look | inflated. | dilyevsky wrote: | Blue chips and intel in particular always had low p/e | kgwgk wrote: | For some values of "always". In 1972 Coca-Cola traded at 48 | times earnings. | ant6n wrote: | Intel has most of its (cpu) market right now so not exactly a | growth stock. The market doesn't believe in the new growth | potentials (gpu, fabs). Intel also pays 3.3% dividend right | now, not exactly a growth strategy. Also, the market may stay | irrational for a while. Also, many investments are in the | form of funds, etfs etc. so stocks will tend to move | together, esp if in the same sector. | deepnotderp wrote: | That's because the market calculates a high probability of an | Intel implosion | 55555 wrote: | Why? | rank0 wrote: | They've got plenty of cash, and they're still the strong | leader in the server space. AMD is eating away at their | consumer grade cpus I concede. | | I would be shocked if we had an intel "implosion" they have | a sustainable and successful business model and there's no | world where we need fewer processors. | georgeburdell wrote: | AMD is probably making more progress in server right now. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | With an engineer on the helm, rehiring big names in the | field, opening more fabs, and having access to TSMC's | newest node over AMD[1].. it seems unlikely. | | [1] https://www.extremetech.com/computing/334897-amd-might- | have-... | epgui wrote: | If you know something the market doesn't know, and you're | confident that you're right, then put all your eggs in | that basket: that's how one beats the market. | | (Don't follow this advice, I'm just a dude on the | internet, this is not financial advice and my background | is biochem + software, not finance) | PartiallyTyped wrote: | I'd put my eggs in some Dutch company _cough_ asml | _cough_ that has an enormous backlog and controls a | segment of the manufacturing process ;). | | But what do I know, I am just a grad student. | FredPret wrote: | ASML is a fantastic business to own but has a price tag | to match. Intel might be good and is selling for a song. | epgui wrote: | Not a bad long-term bet IMO! I'm partial to both ASML and | TSMC. | sremani wrote: | Intel has to do next 4 years what it failed to do for the | past 8 years and the complexity of execution in the space | is getting harder and hander. Also, they are fighting on | multiple fronts, upstarts in GPU, write-offs on AI | hardware, Losing share of x86 with ARM et al. Losing | share in x86 to AMD, having to rely on TSMC for advanced | chips. Also, some bright spots where, they are opening up | their foundries for design firms etc. | | Over all, Intel has to do perfect execution and we did | not fully talk about Apple, Amazon, Microsoft designing | their own chips and using Intel's competition for fabbing | them. They are in a tough spot, but if any company can | come out of it winning, its Intel. They have done it | before. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | With the rise of AI chip startups (Jim Keller has one) | and a voracious demand for chips, perhaps their fabs may | allow them to weather the storm. | | If I were putting money anywhere, it'd be in ASML... but | their shares are too expensive for my poor grad pockets. | ben_w wrote: | Is 20-25 really normal? I thought it was more like 5-15? | gitfan86 wrote: | A PE of 5 on a company that would grow or contract 0% for the | next 100 years would be able to pay a 20% dividend for the | next 100 years. | epgui wrote: | It completely depends on the expected rate of growth of the | company. Even 100x can be fair for a very high growth | company. For companies that don't have such great prospects, | <5 may even be appropriate. | | "PE should be close to X or between A and B" was always an | extremely rough and imprecise heuristic, and it is no | substitute for a real analysis with a DCF model. | EnKopVand wrote: | Out of those I think Microsoft is the only one that isn't sort | of inflated. If Facebook disappears the world will hardly | notice. If Apple does it'll be hard to find a good laptop that | can keep battery for 9 million years and it'll be hard to find | a "tech works out of the box so well that if you buy your | grandmother/mother an iPad you'll never need to do tech support | again", but still, it's just a luxury brand. | | If Microsoft disappeared the entire European public sector and | most Enterprise companies in the world would cease to function. | That being said, I would be some what comfortable owning Apple | stock through the coming crash because they are likely to | bounce back. I wouldn't buy them at current market prices, but | that goes for Microsoft as well. But I mainly put my | investments into green energy on long term plans that tend to | 4-6x the money over 7-10 years. Which isn't where people who'd | risk it with things like tech company stock are likely to | gamble. | | All three companies make healthy money though, as you point | out, and that makes them pretty solid as far as this topic | goes. I don't even think Facebook/Meta is "inflated" in the | bubble sense, I just don't think it has a good future because | legislation is coming after them big time; and unlike Microsoft | and Apple, Facebook isn't very diversified in its business | models. | seydor wrote: | apple and google own all the phones in the universe | crate_barre wrote: | The issue is that when tech companies look reasonable, everyone | and their mother buys in until they look unreasonable. | | There is nothing else to believe in. We have one growth | industry in this world and it's tech. It's not a bubble, it's | the economy running on one lung. You can deflate it and hold | your breath, but once you need oxygen, you are going to fill it | up rapidly from holding your breath that long. | | The same is true for housing. We need other viable industries. | paulpauper wrote: | agree. I think now is a good buying opportunity for large cap | tech | screye wrote: | My intuition is that those are 3 of the select few companies | that are not in a bubble. I would add Google and Amazon to that | list too. | | They make insane amounts of money and continue growing at a | steady pace. Apart from Facebook, they have all shown the | capability to expand into other verticals and successfully end | up as major player on a consistent basis. This sets a high | ceiling on growth despite being country sized already. | | To me, most other big tech companies are inflated by the | promise of ending up like these money printers and not because | they have the money to show it. Uber, Doordash, Zillow, Airbnb, | Netflix all have valuations that are completely disconnected | with an 'average case outcome '. Don't even get me started on | literal gambles like Lucid or Rivian which have 100b | valuations. Stripe and Elon Musk Inc. might be the only recent | ones to show successful ability to scale horizontally. | | At the end of the day, the real way to make money is to provide | real tangible value over the long term. Making money on the | margins for someone else's labor is all well and good, but that | runs into hard scaling limits fast. Even Google and Facebook | know that the content creators are their value, and the | customers are advertisers. | | Nvidia, Unity, Cloudflare and similar companies with products | with tangible value will survive most downturns. Non-ads based | companies that extract value on the margin will struggle in | this bear market. | rvz wrote: | > Nvidia, Unity, Cloudflare and similar companies with | products with tangible value will survive most downturns. | Non-ads based companies that extract value on the margin will | struggle in this bear market. | | Yes. Cloudflare was a very good buy signal 2 days ago. [0] | Now it has gone up again. Most likely a short term upwards | side, but I wanted to tell everyone about it, but I was | downvoted to hell and beaten up for my correct Cloudflare | signals. [0] | | They should have listened, but instead they held all the way | at the top. [1] | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31339476 | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29355360 | bern4444 wrote: | I love cloudflare. I see them becoming as big as | AWS/Azure/GCP etc. They are moving fairly quickly but | extremely deliberately and I agree with you that them being | down recently has been a great time to buy. | scoofy wrote: | This is an area where Warren Buffett and Nassim Taleb agree in | opposition to the efficient market hypothesis. Speculative | investments are occasionally culled, and when that happens, some | investors are injured, while others are completely wiped out. | | These moments of extreme plain make a fully diversified or even | an anti-fragile strategy effective _in the long run._ Value | investors don 't get wiped out, they live to fight another day. | This lesson was forced into me by my father during the dot com | era, and it's been shown painfully true. The value trap is a | concern, but market fundamentals are the only way to sleep at | night. The biggest issue in markets is, due to the lack of need | and cost of most public offerings, most companies with | fundamentals are now out of reach of non-accredited investors and | are completely funded by private equity. | 1024core wrote: | TY. Such comments should be pinned to the top. | dang wrote: | (We detached this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31369432, which is now | pinned to the top) | DerekBickerton wrote: | Redirects to archive.ph for some reason: | | https://archive.ph/qziMw | whimsicalism wrote: | they have a lot of tlds | Animats wrote: | This may be the end of meme investments. Low-end crypto products | are collapsing. Some now have a lot of zeroes after the decimal | point. | | * LUNA coin, the backing of UST, dropped from $183 to $0.0001178. | UST itself is no longer tradeable. Its blockchain has been turned | off. (Apparently that can happen.) | | * SLP coin, the currency of Axie Infinity's play to earn game, | dropped from $0.30 or so to $0.005607. Remember when Axie was | being touted as the future of play to earn, the way NFTs were | going to make poor people in the Philippines rich? That was last | year. | Ekaros wrote: | Now I have serious question. Which big stable coins could just | stop being on chain? That is stop all transactions, that aren't | just some database entries? | [deleted] | cmrdporcupine wrote: | So, given this... I have a product idea, along with another | technical co-founder. I have a few months savings to feed my | family, so I could feasibly work on it fulltime. ... Let's say I | came up with a demo, a pitch deck, etc. Would people say the | chances of getting seed capital is _significantly_ reduced now? | Or do we just not know yet? | methyl wrote: | It'd be best to work on product idea that can sustain itself. | Bootstrapping never made more sense than today. | TSiege wrote: | From personal experience over the last few months, it's going | to be really really tough | ctime wrote: | I don't think we need the latest Cloud/AI/ML/Crypto/Web3.0 | bullshit to spin up fuckedcompany.com again. | | I remember thinking in ~2015 going to conferences that this shit | was never going to last. Then around 2018 driving (sitting) on | 101 listening to advertisements for "C3 IoT AI" on NPR thinking, | could a company jam more meaningless buzzwords into a single | company name? For shits, looked up their stock just and its down | 85%[1] since it's IPO. ofc. | | To anyone who hasn't lived through a .com explosion, hold on to | your butts. | | (also consider moving to cash and $SARK $VIX) | | [1]https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/AI | cmrdporcupine wrote: | Damn fuckedcompany was awesome entertainment. | | The question is... if it gets spun up again, does it just | create a self-fullfilling prophecy and begin the 2000-era | implosion for real? :-) | mjmsmith wrote: | Sadly too late to nominate #6C000E for Pantone color of the | year. | paulpauper wrote: | _I remember thinking in ~2015 going to conferences that this | shit was never going to last_ | | it's still going on. Facebook & Google are still worth a lot | more than they were in 2015. The difference nowadays is that | the largest of tech companies are much more profitable and | dominant. | whiplash451 wrote: | Indeed. C3AI IPO buyers must feel really good today (despite | today's results, actually). | golergka wrote: | And I remember thinking back in 2010 that investors who have | Facebook valuation of $10b were plain stupid. Taught me not to | take myself too seriously. | the_doctah wrote: | Any time I ask on some financial forum about moving a chunk of | investments to cash I get told that would be stupid, don't try | to time the market, and just keep buying. | | I would have saved myself a bunch of losses if I had done it | when I was thinking about it. | bonoboTP wrote: | Keeping your money as cash is also an investment. It's not a | guaranteed value preserver, inflation can eat it. So in the | end it comes down to trying to predict the future, just like | everyone else is trying to do. There is no guarantee, cashing | out can make you lose or make you win. | shrimpx wrote: | "Don't time the market" is stupid advice. The problem with | that advice is that virtually every action you may or may | _not_ take is a form of timing the market. People going all | in "now as opposed to later" are timing the market. Dollar | cost averaging is timing the market. Staying in the market | instead of selling is timing the market. People encouraging | you to stay in the market because if you sell, that's "timing | the market," are bullying you into adopting their own | strategy for timing the market. | maigret wrote: | > Dollar cost averaging is timing the market. | | No this is the exact opposite. It's like passive vs active | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/markettiming.asp | shrimpx wrote: | That definition is incomplete. It makes it sound like you | have to be constantly moving funds around to time the | market, vs "buy and hold". | | But you can certainly time the market using "buy and | hold", by waiting for the right moment to buy. And even | if you buy "asap", you're still employing a market-timing | strategy, that "buying asap is better than buying later". | | Dollar-cost averaging is a form of timing the market, | because you're effectively reasoning that fixed-interval | purchase will fare better than lump sump or other | strategies. You're still predicting market behavior. | | Good resource: | | https://youtu.be/w_aOERmUWdA | 331c8c71 wrote: | IMHO a more precise way to put it is that by choosing one | investment strategy vs another one implicitly makes | assumptions about the market. | | There's also the emotional side we are kind of neglecting | here. | mirceal wrote: | You cannot time the market. | | When you have invested in something, did you do your DD or | did you do it because everyone else did it? | | I would recommend a book called "the intelligent investor". I | also recommend low fee mutual funds that track the market as | the default thing to invest. Once you educate yourself more | you can make more sophisticated investments. | | I also don't have anything against speculative investments. | Just don't call it investing. It's gambling and it's fine as | long as you know what you are doing and are okay with | basically losing most (everything) you put in. | rebelos wrote: | > Once you educate yourself more you can make more | sophisticated investments. | | There are countless well-capitalized and mostly | underperforming hedge funds that were built on this | premise. | twic wrote: | I sold off a large pile of stocks for tax reasons just before | the end of the UK tax year. That also turned out to be | roughly the top of the market. So maybe you can time the | market, but only if you're not trying to time the market? | paxys wrote: | When would you have sold? When the market was at its "peak" | in 2011? Or 2014? Or 2015? Or 2018? Or 2020? | the_doctah wrote: | The first time Netflix stock ate shit, so in January. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Why Netflix? I stopped my Netflix to use Amazon Video. | Bad for Netflix but still good for streaming and tech. | 1270018080 wrote: | The caveat to "just keep buying" is that you shouldn't be | buying individual stocks. As a retail investor, the best you | can do is get lucky and confirmation bias yourself. | Acknowledging you don't know what you're doing is the first | step to success. | Trasmatta wrote: | > I would have saved myself a bunch of losses if I had done | it when I was thinking about it. | | Or, alternatively, you might have cashed out when you thought | you should, then completely missed the bottom trying to time | it, then sat on cash for years, watching it lose value to | inflation anyway. | TSiege wrote: | Same. In December I had the urge to sell a bunch of stocks | for the sake of cash and peace of mind because the whole | market seemed wildly unsustainable. But the "don't time the | market" kept being shoved in my face by friends and family. | Who could've known /s | quickthrower2 wrote: | Conversely I missed out on $300k gains maybe by selling an | asset too early in 2018 thinking a blip back them was the | crash. | debacle wrote: | How many dead unicorns can the industry withstand? | scollet wrote: | Unicorns are DoA in my opinion. | | If everyone's a unicorn, no one is. | vishnugupta wrote: | It's fascinating to trace the genesis of present crash to Fed's | policies post 2008 crisis. The interest rates were kept | artificially low to prevent another Great Depression. 2010s saw | an unprecedented rally of tech/growth stocks, fuelled by cheap | capital. Growth at all cost was the mantra, hoping companies will | turn profitable at some point a la Amazon. Uber's CEO hit the | nail on the head when he wrote "The average employee at Uber is | barely over 30, which means you've spent your career in a long | and unprecedented bull run". | | There were signs of rate hike in 2019 but COVID forced Fed to | create trillions of $$. Which only added fuel to the fire; | equities, housing, crypto saw unbelievable growth. | | However the signs of inflation were clear in early-mid 2021 they | were hoping it to be transitory. But when the inflation data came | in late 2021 it turned out to be multi-decade high leaving Fed | with no choice but to raise interest rates for the first time in | more than a decade. | | Which brings us back to growth companies. As Uber's CEO candidly | stated "Channeling Jerry Maguire, we need to show them the | money". 2020s will be all about cash flow and efficiency. | | On the other hand expect to see cool innovations as it requires | genuine scarcity to look for out of the box solutions. While | Amazon's stock soared in 2010s their core tech was being built in | 2000s while they were relentlessly driving for efficiency. | stjohnswarts wrote: | The market is having issues now not because of inflation being | kept low but because people panic when everything isn't going | smoothly. The supply chain and WW3 have investors scared, and | now they're panicking and leaving the markets and taking their | profits with them. Others panick and get what cash they can. | Some will buy low and it'll level off soon probably. I think | this is more of a pull back than a recession. Generally the | economy is in good shape it's just the speculators are bailing | from the market. | Foobar8568 wrote: | Typically one can take a look at HOOD 13F, institutionals are | enjoying free meals while retails are bleeding money by | getting out. | joe_the_user wrote: | By effectively guaranteeing the market, the Fed made stock | and bond markets more "money like" and so it didn't even have | to overtly print money to create a money -printing-like | effect ("the wealth effect") even though they also did print | money to prove they were serious. So effectively we've had | inflation for a while but most of it was inflation of asset | values. | | If the Fed talks the market down and people sell, it will | have destroyed money without other harsh measures. That | doesn't mean there won't be more pain other ways also. | paulpauper wrote: | _2010s saw an unprecedented rally of tech /growth stocks, | fueled by cheap capital._ | | Correlation does not mean causation, as it's commonly said. | Interest rates were high in the 80s and 90s yet tech stocks | boomed. Tech stocks did so well because they make so much | money. Facebook earned $40 billion in profits for 2021, 3x | Walmart. Google makes even more. Also, market dominance and | moat factors working to big tech's favor. | slickrick216 wrote: | "The average employee at Uber is barely over 30, which means | you've spent your career in a long and unprecedented bull run" | - quite an American experience this. Many across Europe and the | rest of the world were in a recession until 2014-2015. It was | difficult to find a job out of college even with masters | degrees in comp sci from tier 1-2 unis. | mkr-hn wrote: | It's also an American experience outside tech and finance. | strikelaserclaw wrote: | its an american experience outside silicon valley. | juanjmanfredi wrote: | Inflation metrics show that the economy post 2008 was in fact | under stimulated, which is why the recovery from the financial | crisis was so slow. The recent COVID-related stimuli are what | went too far. | shakezula wrote: | I don't know if I disagree but we were also in a really bad | position if we didn't do it. The stimulus did a lot of good, | I saw the first hand benefits of what it did for people who | really needed it. | joe_the_user wrote: | _It 's fascinating to trace the genesis of present crash to | Fed's policies post 2008 crisis. The interest rates were kept | artificially low to prevent another Great Depression._ | | I think 2008 and 2001 basically saw "cut some fat and reflate | the bubble" as the standard approach. I expect the same | approach this time though I can't predict if it will work. This | is basically the method of Greenspan and Bernanke, explicitly | said that the Great Depression didn't have to happen, that | juggling interest rates could have solved it. | | The thing about these situation is that by just killing weaker | players, the Fed allows the basic imbalances to remain and | increase (income inequality, monopoly positions, speculative | enterprises, etc). The Great Depression was the single biggest | equalizer of income, I think in US history and certainly in the | 20th and 21st centuries. Not that I'd be in favor of such a | thing. | immigrantheart wrote: | I almost got offer from DoorDash, with obviously RSU as one of | the compensation. Eventually didn't get the offer because they | said I didn't pass leadership interview. Apparently I was | interviewing at one level above I thought I was interviewing (the | recruiter messed up). | | Anyway, I accepted an offer from a hedge fund, comparatively | similar, but all cash. | | Now I feel that I am glad I accepted the hedge fund offer. | | I don't have a property, not looking to get one due to HCOL high | property prices and high interest rate. | | My assets are mostly crypto and total stock market index. I think | I'm good with my crypto investment for now (already filled my | goals) so I am thinking to get more stocks. | | As someone with just cash compensation, what can I do in this | downturn to make a lot of money in the stock market? Maybe I just | stick with the old boring Apple. | jeffreyrogers wrote: | Since you work at a hedge fund and are getting all cash | compensation just put part of your paycheck into some ETFs | every month. Someone else recommended the bogleheads forum | which is good advice. If you were able to time the market you | wouldn't be asking on HN for advice so just assume you can't | time it and invest a set amount from every paycheck. You'll | miss the bottom but you'll probably come out ahead of any other | strategy you'd choose. | akhmatova wrote: | _Eventually didn 't get the offer because they said I didn't | pass leadership interview. Apparently I was interviewing at one | level above I thought I was interviewing (the recruiter messed | up)._ | | That sounds very encouraging. Need to tell all my friends to | invest hours and hours of their time in this company's careful | and considered hiring process. | xtan6491 wrote: | I just left a hedge fund to join aws. Even the aws is famous | for its worst WLB and toxic culture, it is much better than the | hedge fund I worked for. Knowing many friends switched from | finance to tech, I found no one regretted. Plus the TC is still | much more than HF even after the 40% drop. | ripper1138 wrote: | You know it's ok to get rejected on an interview. Almost | everyone has been! You don't need to have an excuse about wrong | level even if it is true. | brobinson wrote: | Same as any other time... build an intra-sector long/short | beta-hedged portfolio with minimal net exposure. Overall market | and sector movements don't affect this. You can do cross-sector | trades for even more profit at the cost of assuming sector | risk. | dewlinedew2 wrote: | Why not ask your friends at work? | short_sells_poo wrote: | Yeah this would be my first question too. Even beyond that, | many (most?) hedge funds have an employee investment scheme | where employees have a special vehicle via which they can | invest into the fund performance without having to meet the | often egregious criteria (e.g. not everyone has $100mln lying | around in cash to meet minimum investment thresholds). | quickthrower2 wrote: | Maybe he was supposed to blow it on lifestyle to stay hungry | and doesn't want to own up to the FU money. | ddorian43 wrote: | > As someone with just cash compensation, what can I do in this | downturn to make a lot of money in the stock market? Maybe I | just stick with the old boring Apple. | | Depends on your risk. You can buy TQQQ or do HFEA as examples. | pojzon wrote: | If you dont mind the risk you can short. Can earn a lot of | money but you have to get a habbit of constantly following the | market. | mattwest wrote: | American ag tech: seed companies, machinery, fertilizer, | biostimulants, carbon sequestration | jdlshore wrote: | Index funds. Check out the Bogleheads subreddit for a | levelheaded investing approach. | metamet wrote: | Seriously. Unless you're looking to gamble, open a Vanguard | account and pick an index fund targeting your retirement age | or go with one that tracks S&P (VOO). | | Vanguard's fees for index funds (esp Admiral shares) are | absurdly low, to boot. | jorblumesea wrote: | Doordash has compensation ideas where they will top you up if | your comp falls under some percentage of grant price (80-90%). | Many companies are moving to this model to ensure that stock | prices don't impact TC too highly. | | Another way to look at it is that people were all too happy to | accept the status quo until now. | lvl102 wrote: | This market is so wild. The big techs are making so much money | yet the market is in turmoil if you simply remove the big four | (Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon). There are some great | "value" if you look hard enough. People are quick to draw | parallel to dotcom, but this one is quite different in so many | ways. | woeirua wrote: | The fundamentals that drive each bubble are different, but it | always ends the same way. | seydor wrote: | As always, when things crash it's the best time to read the | comments | fullshark wrote: | Something that's funny right now is there are a lot of bears | gloating about what they think is going to happen in the market | and cryptocurrencies the next 2 years without it even having | happened yet. They've been waiting literally years for this | moment and they think it's finally arrived and can't wait to | dance. | wayne-li2 wrote: | The market as of last year couldn't be divided by bulls and | bears. It was more like "mega bears, bears, bulls, mega | bulls". | | You're talking about mega bears and they're gloating because | the mega bulls talked so much shit in the last 3 years. | | But most people are just regular bears and bulls. We don't | comment on the market. We understand the cyclical nature of | it. Some of us may have rebalanced portfolios according to | our beliefs. That's about it. | RGamma wrote: | And then the ngate take on it. | quickthrower2 wrote: | ngate hasn't updated for a while. :( | scollet wrote: | You would have better luck running the comments through GPT. | acd wrote: | I think companies with Schiller P/E price to earnings greater | than 15 will get hit. Exponential growth till hit a linear | reality and higher interest rates. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclically_adjusted_price-to-e... | | Plus some will call on tech startups not generating real organic | revenue growth with realistic valuations. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes | hintymad wrote: | I remember people were talking about Coinbase doted out $750K | package to engineers with less than 2 years of experience (or new | grad? I can't remember exactly). I had to wonder: what can a | newly minted engineer do to generate so much value to Coinbase? | fidrelity wrote: | Some of the strongest tech companies were built during a downturn | (PayPal if I remember correctly). | | It's a great time to build, but probably not the best time for | fundraising. | mabbo wrote: | That's selection bias at work though. | | Getting funding isn't a lottery, in which everyone's odds are | the same. The funding you receive and the terms of that funding | are related to the current market _and how good your business | /idea is_. | | When times are tough, VCs are still investing, but they're only | investing in better ideas, more likely successes. Why take a | chance on your long shot when a government bond is a sure thing | at a reasonable percentage? | | We should expect that those companies that got funding during a | downtime are better companies based on the fact that they got | funding at all. | trompetenaccoun wrote: | It's rather that founders with a proper vision build companies | regardless of market swings. During a boom cycle there's | abundant founding, even for trash projects. Markets aren't as | efficient as many assume, especially not in the short term. Now | we're at the end of a boom cycle and everything gets battered | but that's just the valuation changing, nothing else. It's | speculation. In the public eye quality projects will emerge | again a couple of years down the line when they're starting to | get really big and no one except those actually interested in | the tech will have paid attention to how they were working hard | the entire time. | scollet wrote: | I think we will see even more optimization with constrained | budgets. | | Software is pliable. You will have a network of middlemen | running at cost. | malwarebytess wrote: | I'm expecting brutal, decimating, RIF across the industry at the | end of Q2. | notacoward wrote: | Also, if things follow the same pattern as I remember from the | 90s and 00s, each RIF will be associated with a _rise_ in stock | price. So it 's not all bad, depending on where you sit | relative to the action. | rubidium wrote: | RIF? | gowld wrote: | Reduction in Force == layoffs | jonny_eh wrote: | Thanks, I wish people could speak clearly. | Clubber wrote: | It's a euphemism for layoffs which is a euphemism for | mass firings, a la corporate speak. "Rightsizing," is | another one. | malwarebytess wrote: | It's different from layoffs. RIF comes with the | implication that the reduction is permanent. | Clubber wrote: | >It's different from layoffs. RIF comes with the | implication that the reduction is permanent. | | Academically, yes you're right. Practically, they are the | same. No one can afford to sit around and wait a year or | two to get rehired after layoffs, if that ever happens; | and anytime a RIF happens, the positions are usually | refilled once finances are better. | compiler-guy wrote: | RIF is an industry standard term with a long history. The | problem isn't others speaking unclearly. It's assuming | others are in the wrong rather than being happy to learn | something new. | olddustytrail wrote: | Indeed it is! Part of the token ring header iirc? | compiler-guy wrote: | Context is everything. In an economic discussion, one | would use the economic meaning. | olddustytrail wrote: | I know. It was a joke. I thought someone with the | username compiler-guy might appreciate it but I guess | not. | | Edit: otoh I've been a bit grumpy myself this week so who | am I to judge. It wasn't a very good joke. I'll tell you | the "youthful porpoise" one next time | CoastalCoder wrote: | Why wait? Now I'm curious. | jonny_eh wrote: | This issue is that the audience of HN isn't limited to | industry veterans. | compiler-guy wrote: | The industry I'm referring to is the HR industry, and | this term is used all over the place when discussing | employment and recessions. | | No harm or shame in not knowing it--lucky 10,000 and all | that--but taking a chance to learn over blaming others | would be my choice. | karaterobot wrote: | Using industry jargon is usually not a good idea outside | of the industry. Readers are happy to learn, but you have | to teach them first. This is why most newspapers at least | provide the unabbreviated phrase on first usage, and give | the abbreviation in parentheses, i.e. "Reduction in Force | (RIF)". It's not safe to just assume everyone already | knows everything you know. | olddustytrail wrote: | I too expect brutal, decimating euphemisms across the | industry in Q2. | ilamont wrote: | Yes. The causes are different but the effects will be similar. | | Already open positions are being quietly withdrawn, people | leaving are not backfilled, big projects are delayed or | cancelled. | | Then as customers start pulling back or failing themselves, | layoffs begin. It's terrible for the people impacted and those | left behind who are often called on to take up the slack. | | My advice for anyone in the position of having to lay off | staff: Be decent, help people move on, and do it early and do | it all at once, not in uncertain "maybe things will turn around | next quarter" waves which destroys trust. | lanevorockz wrote: | Our country might be starving, the economy is destroyed and we | are looming into nuclear holocaust. But at least no one can | misgender me online anymore. Congratulations America, you played | yourself. | mattwest wrote: | I bet you're fun at parties. | gitfan86 wrote: | Thank God. It has been so tiring listening to all the people | playing the Greater Fool game of trying to get to an acquisition | or IPO or SPAC. Maybe people can go back to build real actual | useful products and services. | prohobo wrote: | People said this was the "best time ever to get funding" for a | startup. I disagree. In my view, it was the best time ever if you | played a particular game and had the right connections. | | I pitched an idea to a VC, which I had a prototype for, looking | for $100k. He liked it but wouldn't fund because I didn't have a | solid business plan. Fair enough, I need to find a business | partner. But then he told me something about how I have to | imagine that it's $100k of _my money_. I need to respect it | properly and ask myself: would I give someone this money so | easily? Meanwhile he had his hands in various bullshit crypto | (not hating on crypto, just the projects) defi startups. | | I thought it was absurd, of course I don't respect your money: VC | firms throw $250k+ around like candy to people who happen to give | a specific quasi-Silicon Valley impression or are in crypto. | You're telling me you can't spare $100k? Also, I haven't seen a | single "promising" startup actually be profitable, except those | ones made _without_ major funding. | | This has all been some kind of weird ass circus for years, I'm | glad the bubbles are bursting. | taway-yc-reject wrote: | Yes, exactly this. And since you aren't chummy with the VC, | even if you had a business model, you would be rejected | "because you don't have revenue" yet. Fuck that noise. The V in | venture is supposed to mean you're supposed to take risks. | | SV has lost its soul. A VC that respected tech nerds would see | your technical idea, (maybe) discount the investment, and then | get on the phone and _help you find_ a business partner that | will take you all the way (and give you first right of refusal | on assholes). | nostromo wrote: | VC is a numbers game. You'll get lots of nos; every seed round | gets lots of nos unless you've got a track record of big | successes. | | Just keep at it. Don't get upset at any particular no. Remember | that it's their money and you're not entitled to it. | jstarfish wrote: | I hate SV culture, so not one to WK or make excuses for it, but | when you have as much money to throw around as he does, you | don't have time to deal with requests for pocket change. | | Look at your own investment portfolio. Are you investing $1 at | a time in fractional shares of a million different stocks, or | investing $1000 at a time on a smaller number of stocks/funds | you expect to have solid returns? (You think his crypto bids | are misguided. Maybe you're right. Not your money though.) | | If you're certain about your product, you don't need an | investor. You need a small business loan. | axg11 wrote: | Do you know which website you're on? | triceratops wrote: | What's your project? $100k seems like an odd amount of money to | ask for, to me. You can't staff up very much with that, but it | seems like a lot of money to pay for AWS/hosting-type bills | when you're just starting out ($10-30k should be more than | enough). It only makes sense (again, to me) if what you really | want is access to the VC and their network. But again, I don't | know shit about VC and angel investing. | prohobo wrote: | It was odd, but my envisioned development window was about | 3-4 months (planning for 6) and I had potentially high upkeep | after launch ($500-$1000pm for production ready servers). I | could have found a co-founder or two and funded them for that | period as well. So it would have been just enough + a buffer. | At least in my mind. I realize you need more runway than to | just get to launch and survive 2-3 months now. | | The idea is a service that could open the black box of online | video content. Right now you search for something and get the | whole video as a result; if it's a 3 hour long podcast you're | going to be doing a lot of seeking for specific information. | I want to index and enable deep visualized search through | video libraries and in videos. Basically splitting videos | into linguistically salient topics, keywords and entities. | That would allow you to analyze and visualize content | (YouTube channels, videos, etc.) to find interesting | information. Good for researchers and people looking for | something specific, or people wanting to find new content | (relationship graphs). | gamblor956 wrote: | That sounds like a moonshot rather than a $100k, unless you | already have a working prototype that simply needs to be | refined for commercialization. (Meaning: an actual working | prototype, not a demo created solely to show off the | concept.) What you've suggested is a job that would take a | team of developers a few months. I'm not surprised the | investor was skeptical that a 1-man team could do it in 6. | | And what are your plans for revenue? How do you plan to | make money? You'll be dealing with a lot of legal questions | related to IP licensing, and the legal fees alone would eat | your $100k in a month or two, even before the licensing | costs for the videos. | | All-in-all, I can't fault the investor for turning you | down. You haven't put enough thought into the _business_ | aspects of your idea for him to entrust _his money_ to you. | | And don't bring up this crypto bullshit. It's irrelevant | that he's investing in crypto companies; he already knows | he's gambling with those and he's not treating those like | real investments. Given crypto's history, he just needs to | bail at the right time to come out ahead. | ant6n wrote: | Sounds very interesting but like also like a big project. | Feels like 100K would only fund a demo. | [deleted] | vineyardmike wrote: | > Also, I haven't seen a single "promising" startup actually be | profitable, except those ones made without major funding. | | The whole point of VC is cash to be unprofitable. Grow faster | by overspending today. | debacle wrote: | If you consider VCs as brokers rather than investors, it makes | sense. There's a lot more dumb money looking to invest in | crypto. | MomoXenosaga wrote: | Is there a crypto business that is actually making a profit? | | Besides Matt Damon I suppose. | shrimpx wrote: | The idea that you should treat VC money with the same level of | frugality as as your own personal savings is preposterous. | Sounds like a petty, inexperienced VC. | csallen wrote: | _> You 're telling me you can't spare $100k?_ | | That's not how it works. You're not the only person asking this | VC for $100k. A thousand other people are, too. A policy where | he spares it for (what he considers) a bad investment like | yours means sparing it for all the other bad investments, too. | That would cost a lot more than just one check. | prohobo wrote: | I'm saying that he was already neck deep in bad investments, | which he happily funded. That's the main point I'm talking | about. I'm not saying my idea _deserved_ investment, just | that this whole industry has been full of bullshit for years. | MattGaiser wrote: | He wouldn't consider them bad investments though. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Often the company is the product. The customer is big | tech companies acquiring small startup companies. The | company itself in that scenario might just be some smart | people working on an idea but no idea how it will make | money. | cercatrova wrote: | Maybe you think the investments he made are bad, but | obviously he doesn't think so. However, you think your | company is good enough to pitch to him to get investment, | and he doesn't think so. There's nothing wrong with either | side, it's just a difference of opinion. That doesn't | necessarily make the "entire industry [...] full of | bullshit." | prohobo wrote: | But, it _is_ full of bullshit. Just because it happens to | align with my ego doesn 't mean I'm wrong to say it. I | would say the same thing even if I did get funded. | cercatrova wrote: | Again, that is your specific opinion that is not shared | by everyone. | micromacrofoot wrote: | indeed the emperor loves his new clothes | gowld wrote: | > Meanwhile he had his hands in various bullshit crypto (not | hating on crypto, just the projects) defi startups. | | Your confusion is assuming that "bullshit" means | "unprofitable". Plenty of projects turn profit for their | owners. | prohobo wrote: | Maybe. In any case, it seemed to be much more about | extracting profit through facades rather than funding real | products. | searchableguy wrote: | > In any case, it seemed to be much more about extracting | profit | | What do you think purpose of a fund is? To provide returns | for their LPs. | | You need to pitch to an angel investor who might care about | the mission than a business fund. | [deleted] | nouveaux wrote: | I think there is some notion that VCs are these rational, | brilliant people who are making money hand over fist investing | in the best projects. The reality is that many VCs do not make | money and invest in tons of bad projects all the time. | | Why would they invest in bad projects? Because they are humans | who happens to have a crap ton of money. As humans, they're | susceptible to FOMO and hype. They are susceptible to things | like first impressions, a good slide deck, a good sales person, | etc. | | All this to say is that it might be the VC, it might you, or it | might be your project. Who knows. This is why many founders end | up pitching to 30-40 VCs because sometimes it's a numbers game. | | The whole VC funding thing is a game that you have to learn | about and crack. The easiest way to crack it is to show you | have growing revenue. The next best thing is to show you have | growing users. If you do not have growth, then you'll just have | to hustle and put on your best sales game. | 33MHz-i486 wrote: | If your capital cost is low, you can buy growth (sell below cost) | and use that to distract investors for a long time. Capital costs | are not going to be low anymore. A lot of investors are going to | blow up and be more skeptical/disciplined. | SemanticStrengh wrote: | tesla is dead | tempsy wrote: | This is actually a good time to switch jobs because you'll be | offered a compensation package with equity at relatively | depressed prices. | xdavidliu wrote: | usually companies have hiring freezes because of this reason, | so this is not so easy | Gravyness wrote: | Tech? like technology? What does it mean? Because surely | companies that apply scientific knowledge for practical purposes | aren't 'bursting' all over the place, right? Does it refer to | specifically these huge companies quoted on the article? | pc86 wrote: | You know exactly what it means. There is no way that you think | tech in this context means "applying scientific knowledge for | practical purposes" unless you have - and I truly, deeply mean | this with zero disrespect whatsoever - weapons-grade autism. | | When did it become the cool thing to pretend to not know | anything about the context in which a particular discussion | happens? It's maddening, but also completely exhausting. | whiplash451 wrote: | I see where your anger is coming from, but there were quite a | few other words than "autism" that you could have used. | 55555 wrote: | I think "weapons-grade autism" paints a most vivid image. | quickthrower2 wrote: | "smart ass" would be a more accurate way to say how they | come across. | Ekaros wrote: | Software and related things as main product. So things that | have low marginal cost per unit after they are done... | | But really messy as anyone offering some type of platform or an | other is also tech... Even if they don't have low marginal | costs... | mmaunder wrote: | "Then there are rising interest rates. Besides possibly | triggering a downturn, they reduce the present value of tech | companies' profits, most of which lie far in the future." | | This is key. If you have a 10 year horizon for your startup | investments, hoping that one in 100 will become the next Amazon | or Google, you're going to discount those future cashflows into | todays dollars by applying an interest rate connected to current | reality. If the base interest rates have skyrocketed, then the | net present value of that future cashflow is way less. It's | mentioned briefly in the article, but I wanted to unpack it here | because it's a key reason that high inflation makes investment in | startups far less attractive. | | "It would be wrong to compare the current tech slump to the | bursting of the dotcom bubble two decades ago. Back then | companies had neither healthy balance-sheets nor promising | business models." | | I disagree with this. I'm not going to call out specific public | companies, but there are many with no Price/Earnings to speak of | because they are running at a massive loss. These companies are | highly speculative investments and have yet to prove that they | can turn a profit. It's not hard to generate revenue growth of | 30% per year while running at a 20% loss. Creating a truly | profitable company is hard, and much of the reason why these | companies are listed on public markets is because early investors | wanted to cash out by selling their stock to the public, rather | than bear the risk of finding out whether the business can turn a | profit. | | Many of these never-been-profitable companies have eye-wateringly | high valuations based on multiple of revenue. We've seen 10x to | 25x revenue in the past few years, while losing money hand over | fist and never having proven they can ever turn a profit and | become self sustainable. Just like the dot-com era, these folks | are world class at creating the right optics and making the right | noises on quarterly investor calls. But at the end of the day, | creating a business that makes more money than it spends is what | it's all about, and that is very difficult to do. These never- | profitable businesses have been benefiting from the era of free | money, and as that time ends, so will they. | disqard wrote: | > "... at the end of the day, creating a business that makes | more money than it spends is what it's all about, and that is | very difficult to do. These never-profitable businesses have | been benefiting from the era of free money, and as that time | ends, so will they." | | Indeed. You cannot cheat the fundamentals -- you can | avoid/delay them, but they'll eventually catch up with you. | avgDev wrote: | I work for non-tech generating 100million+ in revenue. Cushy job, | fully remote, good pay and full autonomy with flexible hours | working as an IC. | | I recently talked to a startup, similar pay, culture would be a | better fit since it was mostly techies and I'm a nerd by | nature.....but things just got awkward as soon as I asked about | their revenue....they were bleeding money and I was told they | were being acquired by a big corp. Also, the tone worried me, the | confidence the CEO presented early in the call disappeared. | | I also tried digging deeper into their business and what they | were selling, as I have interest in that space due to my hobbies. | I literally didn't see a need for their startup to exist. But I'm | just an average developer what do I know. | lumost wrote: | Across every investment class there has been a trend of buyers | needing to become more financially irresponsible in order to | participate in the market. | | Need to buy a house? bid 20% more than asking, if you don't - | someone else will.. in cash. | | Need to build a ride-hailing app? prepare to pay people to ride | indefinitely. | | Need to own a growth stock? prepare to pay upwards of 100x | multiple on revenue. | | All around, there have been too many dollars chasing too few | assets. I suspect the pendulum is swinging now that housing got | to the price point where employees demanded equivalent pay | increases to housing cost increases. | amelius wrote: | Housing cost is part of how inflation is computed. | tremon wrote: | That depends. Here in NL, housing costs are explicitly | excluded from the official inflation numbers, presumably | because housing is still seen as an investment rather than | a short. | lumost wrote: | The owner equivalent rent measure that the Fed uses in the | US has been decoupled from Housing prices for a long time. | House price increases or rent increases don't necessarily | have an impact on inflation if few are paying the marginal | rate, and they choose to eat the higher cost rather than | asking for more money. | | When a critical mass of individuals pay the marginal rate | for housing, and they choose to demand more for their | services to compensate - then it will show up in the | inflation reports. I'd argue that it was a miss for the Fed | to focus on owner equivalent rent rather than a broader | measure of what consumers are paying for housing as the | overall mix of housing has also been changing as the number | of investment properties increases. | mym1990 wrote: | This depends. Housing cost if you're considering the price | of _owning_ a home is not part of CPI for the same reason | that stocks are not a part of CPI, that being they are | considered assets. | | If you talking about specifically _renting_ housing, then | correct(in US). | tomrod wrote: | Part of this is because bonds have been out of the picture. | Bring bonds back as valid investment vehicles, which impacts | many other parts of the economy, and we'll see more assets | going to "useful" investment like roads, power lines, and so | on. | garren wrote: | Rising interest rates are starting to slow the housing | craziness, at least where I'm at. I was regularly seeing | 20-27% over asking with limited to no inspections, new | listings going in hours. Nuts. | | All-cash is basically the new norm. Two years ago that was an | issue for regular buyers, but it's workable now since lenders | have jumped into the mix, more and more offer an all-cash | option - they make the purchase and transfer it to you under | a traditional mortgage. You still have an appraisal gap to | contend with, sine they'll only pay what the place appraises | for, but anyone who qualifies for a loan can probably qualify | for the all-cash option. | sydd wrote: | Where I'm from (EU) experts say that prices will stagnate | amd the market will slow down. | | On one hand the high inflation pushes out lots of buyers -- | they can't or don't want to pay the high interest rates. | This lowers demand and prices. | | On the other hand global supply chain issues (which got | much worse with the war) lead to material shortages and | rising material costs. This pushes up housing prices. | | The net result is likely stagnation -- few houses are built | and few exchange owners. But prices stay high. | | Except if there will be a large recession causing people to | loose their jobs and unable to pay their mortgages. This | will crash the housing market, but looks unlikely now. | chaircher wrote: | Definitely looks that way in the UK - I've been watching | my local housing market like a hawk because I'm looking | to buy soon. Houses are staying listed a lot longer, a | fair few getting reduced, and newer listings are coming | in at more reasonable prices (as much as over PS100k is | reasonable for a 1 bed flat miles into poverty stricken | suburbia). | | I think people are feeling more risk adverse cost of | living etc and want to hold onto money and stay put where | they are. | YeBanKo wrote: | > I was regularly seeing 20-27% over asking with limited to | no inspections, new listings going in hours. | | Another way say "20-27% over asking" is "an agent | underpriced it by 20-27%". Surely good for their marketing | materials, but it comes at the cost of withdrawn | information from the seller. | shrimpx wrote: | > All-cash is basically the new norm. | | It's paradoxical that all-cash became the norm in a period | where mortgage rates were at all time lows... | DragonStrength wrote: | Well, only if you ignore how we got there. Housing output | took far too long to recover after 2008, and on top of | that, many homeowners felt entitled to the gains they | lost during the recession because that is what the | American Dream promised. | | We could also pull on the demographic weirdness of the | moment as Baby Boomers only finally cede political power, | skipping a generation. What have all are priorities | concerned since they came of voting age? Should we be | surprised our recent policies continued to favor older | people who owned homes over young people deciding the | shape of our next generation? And to be clear, I'm not | blaming any motives. I'm saying much of this can be | explained by an "accident" (or maybe "conclusion") of | demographics. | | The worst is if our incentives are for lazy capital | returns (like rapidly rising residential real estate) for | retirees the people who benefit in the younger | generations are not going to be the people taking risks | like starting businesses. | david927 wrote: | > Need to buy a house? bid 20% more than asking, if you don't | - someone else will.. in cash. | | Buying in cash is being done to skirt the tightened up | lending standards that followed the 2008 Crisis: | | https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/uflzht/the_2022. | .. | winter_blue wrote: | > where employees demanded equivalent pay increases to | housing cost increases | | How can employees realistically speaking even do this? | bityard wrote: | The old fashioned way: ask for a raise and go somewhere | else if they don't pay? | DragonStrength wrote: | Well, if you're in California and don't own a house, you | move. It's not a great option if you were raised here, but | a whole bunch of people can take a small pay cut | (especially thinking about down equity and inflation) to | move back to their hometowns right now. For me, a home | (3/2, 1500sqft) in the neighborhood I'd move to in my | hometown (US city; 1 mil metro area) is less than my | household income, which we'll realistically keep 80+% of | when we move. I'd wager a healthy segment of Bay Area mid- | level, domestic-born engineers fit this profile. I'd wager | that holds true in many metro areas, even those we don't | consider tech hubs because it is all relative. | | I wouldn't want to be a mid-level Bay Area manager in my | 40's with a mortgage on the peninsula right now. Who is | coming to buy that house? Who is going to train all the 22 | year olds moving here? | | EDIT: And I didn't even think about all the early retirees | the major changes to the workplace will obviously prompt. | Who wants to spend the last couple years of their career | re-learning how to do a job you've done for decades and | have been well-compensated for? I'd be at the beach. | nostrademons wrote: | Mid-level Bay Area manager in my 40s with a mortgage on | the peninsula here. Why would I want to sell my house? We | bought it because we have kids that we want to raise in | the Bay Area. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I don't think it's housing. It's just that the market had a | boom during the bored pandemic times and now that that is | over (except in china) the market is readjusting. The market | is highly leveraged by psychology over the short term, but in | the end even the most exuberant people have to face reality | and tighten their belt. Housing will flat line or decrease | now as well, since people realize the cost of mortgages is | too damn high. Also with lumber and other prices falling that | will help new home builds. If Russia ever stops the attempted | genocide of Ukraine then markets will probably soar as gas | prices come back down instead of increasing. | zitterbewegung wrote: | The markets are efficient but they aren't perfect. In any | situation the markets will do the best to optimize but will | always fall short of perfection . Since markets aren't | perfect that's why you can make money by speculation. | worik wrote: | > In any situation the markets will do the best to optimize | but will always fall short of perfection | | The problem with markets is a "market efficient" outcome | can be catastrophic for social welfare. | | During the Irish potato famine the markets allocated food | away from Ireland because there were not many there who | could afford it. They starved. The market functioned | perfectly. | | Markets find equilibriums. Total collapse is an | equilibrium. Starvation can happen at equilibrium. | | You can have 100_000 homeless people at market equalibrium | metadat wrote: | You nailed it! It's the same "excessive dumb money" | phenomenon as with the dotcom bubble back in 2000. | bushbaba wrote: | ...or housing will drop as interest rates go up. And a non | insignificant number of folks were over extended in leverage. | | I know too many folks who did 7/1 ARMs cash out refi to | purchase another home in a 7/1 ARM loan, banking not on | cashflow but appreciation. | | I know of folks who bought homes using margin loans in their | stock portfolio. | | If housing stagnates, there will be margin calls, leading to | supply shock, and price declines. Especially now that | mortgage interest rates have nearly doubled year to date. | simulate-me wrote: | The price may also decline just because borrowing is more | expensive. The difference between 2 and 6 percent interest | is huge. | mym1990 wrote: | Rising interest rates don't typically signify lower home | prices because rising interest rates are usually a | biproduct of a hot economy that needs to be tempered. With | the exception of 2008, home prices have _almost_ never gone | down. Now, it _may_ be different this time. There is tons | of speculation now and you are starting to see some sectors | show big cracks. There was also a massive re-allocation of | capital during the pandemic as people moved from high COL | places to more reasonable locations(due to remote work), in | turn making those new location high COL places. | | My theory is that eventually the unemployment rate will | start rising, and people who lose their jobs that just got | a 600,000$ 2/1 will be in a pretty tight spot. It would | lead to either cutting consumption in other parts of life, | defaulting on the house, or selling for a loss. And so on | and on... | JTbane wrote: | >I know too many folks who did 7/1 ARMs cash out refi to | purchase another home in a 7/1 ARM loan, banking not on | cashflow but appreciation. I know of folks who bought homes | using margin loans in their stock portfolio. If housing | stagnates, there will be margin calls, leading to supply | shock, and price declines. Especially now that mortgage | interest rates have nearly doubled year to date. | | I can't be alone in wishing that would happen. Yes, people | would lose a lot of money (potentially everything), but | they played stupid games. | bogomipz wrote: | >"I know too many folks who did 7/1 ARMs cash out refi to | purchase another home in a 7/1 ARM loan, banking not on | cashflow but appreciation." | | What's the strategy behind the "7/1 ARMs cash out refi" and | the second homes? | | It's curious that would people do an ARM when interest | rates were at historic lows no? Were these second home as | in part vacation home, part AirBnBs lets? | bombcar wrote: | Margin loans for house purchases isn't as insane as it | might sound - assuming your financials are there. Margin | interest is deductible against investment gains, house | interest may not be for many earners. | | But not refinancing afterwards into a low fixed rate may | come back to bite them, and soon. | lostmsu wrote: | Margin rates are also lower, and you don't have to pay | the principal. | georgeecollins wrote: | >> Margin loans for house purchases isn't as insane as it | might sound | | I understand the tax logic you are speaking about, but I | think tax benefits are sometimes oversold to convince | people to buy things (like homes and investments). You | aren't a corporation, your liability isn't limited. | Trying to shave a bit off taxes may have less benefit to | you than the peace of mind of not having to juggle debt. | You seem like you understand that when you talk about | refinancing asap, so I think you know what you are | talking about as well. | kevstev wrote: | In the typical scenario, I could have sold my stocks and | incurred a 20-39% tax on the gains. | | The other option was to instead take a margin loan out at | a hair over 1% blended which is tax deductible and incur | no tax bill. | | There was a bit of risk in this yes, but I came out way | ahead despite there being a pretty sharp pullback right | after I closed on my house. I wasn't leveraged to the | hilt at all, I think I had a loan equivalent to about | 25,maybe 30% of my portfolio when the market pulled back. | | If you have significant assets this is something you | should be considering. This is imho one of those "rich | guy" things that's available at a relatively low level of | wealth, and the risk associated with it is well worth it | in most cases. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | > I think tax benefits are sometimes oversold to convince | people to buy things | | People will pay more for diamonds that are less likely to | have human rights abuses in their supply chain. | | People will pay more for eggs if you don't keep the | chickens in cages. | | People will pay more for money if the government gets a | smaller cut. | BbzzbB wrote: | Yes, you need some level of financial creativity to justify | buying into one of the many bubbles. But that's where the | timeless Buffett quote[0] on Ted Williams and batting comes | in, there's no called strikes in securities markets. Mr. | Market doesn't force you to do anything at all, we're all | free to ignore the speculation and focus on proper cash | flowing businesses at reasonable valuations. The more boring | the better (tho there are opportunities even with exciting | companies these days), but just wait for the right pitch, no | need to force it. You'd need a gun to my head if you wanted | me to hold a portfolio of cash burning (even generating for | that matter) businesses with valuations based on 5-10 year | outlooks. | | 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Mw8hCzQ1I | | >The trick in investing is just to sit there and watch pitch | after pitch go by and wait for the one right in your sweet | spot. And if people are yelling, 'Swing, you bum!,' ignore | them. | chiefalchemist wrote: | > All around, there have been too many dollars chasing too | few assets. | | You can thank the central banks for this. They seem to be too | focused on propping up the wrong metrics. Meanwhile the real | economy - and the real people in it - are limping like a | three-legged dog. | | Yet the top layer ignores the messages (e.g., in the USA, | Trump being elected, and perhaps re-elected) and persists | with the insanity. This cycle - and the associated level of | denial - is not sustainable. | | Not economically. | | Not socially. | | And not ecologically either for that matter. | | We can't consume our way out of this madness. | vkou wrote: | It's not irresponsible to bid 20% over asking. Asking is | deliberately underpriced, because it is excellent advertising | in a hot RE market. | | It's irresponsible to bid 20% over what the house is worth | (which has nothing to do with asking price), just because you | got emotionally attached to the house, and started a bidding | war with another person emotionally attached to the house. | cwilkes wrote: | No broker in their right mind is deliberately underpricing | the homes they represent. Why would they? A homeowner talks | to another broker and they say they can get 20% more than | the first one. Who is the seller going to go with? | | When we sold our house the broker put it at a fair price. | Then along came a couple that's been outbid a number of | times and offered 30% over within 24 hours of listing. | | Was the home underpriced? Maybe, but the housing market is | such that it doesn't have to appeal to hundreds of people. | Just one. | | Looking at the people going through the home most of them | were using flyhomes.com (they operate as sort of a "we will | pay cash for the house and then you pay us back") and | probably had no intention of living there. | mancerayder wrote: | They set the price well under market in order to generate | interest and visits. Next, in the same time interval | multiple people bid, and you get a bidding war. | Alternatively, price it at what you want it, and let it | sit however long it takes. For hot markets, the former is | what is done, in the US at least | ploika wrote: | "Price to Entice" is a very real thing where I live. It's | basically a way of getting your listing seen by more | people, and increasing the chances of a bidding war | pushing up the final sales price. | monktastic1 wrote: | It bears repeating that there is no "what the house is | worth" in the abstract. If you somehow know that other | bidders will pay at most $X for it, then of course you'd | never bid $X * 1.2 -- you'd bid $(X+1). And if lots of | people are (or can be made) emotionally attached to a house | and pay an apparently unreasonable amount, that _is_ what | it 's "worth." | vkou wrote: | > It bears repeating that there is no "what the house is | worth" in the abstract. | | No, but there is a 'what was selling price for similar | homes in this area' price in nearly every specific. | | Listing prices are intentially set to be much lower than | selling prices. Selling prices are the real prices, | listing prices are fiction. | | People paying 20% over listing usually means that listing | was 20% under selling. Boring! And not financially | imprudent! | | People paying 20% over average selling in the area, for | an equivalent home is what raises my eyebrows as | financially imprudent. | gtowey wrote: | > Listing prices are intentially set to be much lower | than selling prices. Selling prices are the real prices, | listing prices are fiction | | I feel like this is only true in irrational housing | markets, or at least those that have a chronic | undersupply of housing . | | In my local non-insane market I went through two | different purchases where I successfully bid less than | asking. | | That's gone since the pandemic though since everyone | tried to move out of cities and work remote in my town. | s1artibartfast wrote: | It is basically true for sellers markets, because it | gives more advantage to the seller. being a sellers | market doesn't make it an irrational housing market. | | During a buyers market, prices usually approach the list | or go under. | | This reflects the fact there is how much the house is | worth to the seller, and how much it is worth to the | buyer, and neither of these are the sale price. | corrral wrote: | It's not "emotionally attached", it's that it's been | impossible to buy a house for _a while_ if you 're not | willing to pay _more than it will appraise for_. You 'll | repeatedly lose to buyers who will do that, with cash | offers to boot. | | This has been true even in many cities that aren't trendy, | and have been building housing like crazy for a decade. | s1artibartfast wrote: | In what market? In the SF bay area 99% of houses | appraise, even if they go 50% or $0.5m over asking | corrral wrote: | Boring Midwestern City that's not even a 3rd-tier tech | hub. Other boring Southern city that's also not even a | 3rd-tier tech hub. Buyers are having to take on the risk | of having to cover any extra over appraisal in cash, | consistently, while that used to be rare (and, yes, | usually for "I am super invested, emotionally, in getting | this particular house" reasons). | | My unremarkable suburban house in a boring city that's | been building housing _constantly_ and _extensively_ for | the last 10 years, is up like 25% in value over the last | 2 years. We thought, based on extensive experience in | this market, that we were already paying a bubble-induced | premium of 15-20% when _we_ bought it (possibly no longer | true--thanks inflation). WTF. | otterley wrote: | I think the appraiser is doing you a favor by not | appraising it for the contract price in this case. Why | would you want to overpay for a house and have to cover | the financing shortfall yourself? Especially in a market | that traditionally has slow RE price appreciation. | | Let the cash buyers suffer the losses. You'll thank | yourself later. | s1artibartfast wrote: | You're assuming that the deal doesn't go through if it | doesn't appraise. | | In my market nearly all winning offers have waived the | appraisal contingency | otterley wrote: | Not assuming that at all. I'm saying that if the | appraisal doesn't go through, then the lender won't cover | the remainder of the purchase price, and then the buyer | will have to make up the difference out of his/her own | pocket. At that point, I'd bail, because the appraiser is | raising a red flag. | | But since you mention it, in the slower market being | discussed here, I would definitely not waive an appraisal | contingency. | s1artibartfast wrote: | sure, the appraiser is always providing the buyer a | service by giving them an accurate appraisal (more | information is better). | | If the buyer chooses to proceed, this can be a financial | disadvantage reducing access to a highly leveraged loan. | corrral wrote: | > At that point, I'd bail, because the appraiser is | raising a red flag. | | The point is, in a lot of markets, if you bailed on | offers over this in the last couple years, you wouldn't | be winning any bids in the first place, and wouldn't have | been able to buy a house at all. The winning bids include | guarantees that the buyer will cover the difference. If | you won't do that, you'll lose to an all-cash offer from | someone who will. If you're lucky, you won't be competing | against superior offers _that also waive all | contingencies_. | | I have no idea where all these people are coming from | with hundreds of thousands in cash and the ability to | cover several thousand more on top of the appraisal | value, but they seem to be involved in damn near _every_ | sale the last 2ish years. Given how many are OK waiving | inspections and such, I have to assume they 're | institutional buyers who can spread that risk around, not | individuals who could be ruined by that kind of thing. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Counterpoint: as home prices keep climbing, many of the | kind of things that would be caught by a home inspection | become less and less financially relevant. When you're | buying a million dollar house, 20K for a new roof is in | the noise | otterley wrote: | Something seems a bit off, then, because if the market is | appreciating, then the appraisers should be taking that | into account. As another commenter said, they were | certainly doing that in hot West Coast markets like SF | and Seattle. Both houses I purchased (each in those | locations) appraised at the contract price, and I bought | them both within the last 7 years. | corrral wrote: | They do, but it lags. If prices are going up fast enough, | given the way these things are determined, it can easily | be the case that damn near _every_ house isn 't | appraising at what it sells for. | | The "solution" to this, in the run up to the '08 crisis, | was for appraisers to "help out" by fudging their figure | to make it match the sale price. I know this because a | real estate agent whose husband was a loan officer, told | me so. "I know they were just trying to help out with | these new regulations, but it's had the unintended | consequence that appraisers can't fudge their numbers | slightly higher to match an offer that's only a couple | percent above the natural appraisal, like they used to". | LOL, yeah, the _exact thing_ they were trying to | accomplish was an "unintended consequence". Talk about | not being able to understand something because your | paycheck depends on it. | | Possibly some appraisers in at least some markets have | figured out ways around this, and are back to fudging | numbers. I dunno. | s1artibartfast wrote: | It comes down to what the appraiser is really saying with | their appraisal. Are they saying that in today's market | this is what the house could go for or are they | predicting the future value outside of a bubble | [deleted] | s1artibartfast wrote: | I think Inflation scares are a big part of it - at least | it was for me. | | If inflation is 8.5% and a mortgage is 3%, the bank is | paying me to buy a more expensive house. | | At the same time, If I hold and wait to buy, my savings | are evaporating while the price goes higher. | bombcar wrote: | Which is exactly what the "ask below" is trying to get you | to do; you act differently (emotionally) in a bidding war | than in a price negotiation. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I don't think it has to be emotional at all. | | There is what the house is worth to the seller, and what | it is worth to the buyer, and the sale price is always | somewhere in between. | | It is just taking advantage of an information asymmetry | to get the sale price closer to what it is worth to the | buyer. | asta123 wrote: | And for these reasons I question the whole concept of money, | working for it, and saving for whatever dream. Flood of money | can be so easily created but you have to work for it? Then | you have to max out on debt, speculate and risk your hard | earned funds, otherwise you are falling behind. Central banks | have stuffed this one up and I it is a much bigger problem | than inflation. | gonzo41 wrote: | This is also a central banking fail in so far that there's | that much liquidity in the market that can't find a | productive outlet. | | There's a lot of money, but also not enough concentrated in | one spot to do really useful ventures like large | infrastructure projects. So instead the money is distorting | everything. | | Imagine if lending was less cheap for home owners but it was | still cheap for governments or really large companies to be | able to build train lines or advanced manufacturing or | affordable medium density housing. | | I see the problem as too much credit is able to be spent with | too little focus. So silly stuff is being funded because the | money is becoming meaningless. | im_down_w_otp wrote: | The central bank doesn't control policies like that though. | They have scant few actual knobs to turn on their own | without Congressional intervention. | chiefalchemist wrote: | On the other hand, The Fed goes over the top with what | they can do and Congress refuses to lean in on its | supervision of The Fed. | | Imagine that. You refuse to do your job and you still | have a job. | | Only in America. | boucher wrote: | The fed actually has more tools than the ones it | currently uses, some of which have been used in the past. | | Robert Hockett has written a lot about productive | investments via the federal reserve banks, and how that | could be used to transform the economy. | | Here's one recent paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pap | ers.cfm?abstract_id=4023614 | | He wrote a short book about it as well: | https://www.amazon.com/Financing-Green-New-Deal- | Renewal/dp/3... | im_down_w_otp wrote: | Thanks for the links. I'll pick up that book. | | One thing I've been a long-time advocate for is States | setting up their own banks akin to that of North | Dakota's. If for no other reason than to have a way to | leverage national monetary policy for regional aims, so | that when the Federal government rushes to the aid of | Wall Street (e.g. by flooding it with cheap liquidity) | there's a way for State governments to more directly | interact with those mechanisms themselves for their | benefit. | | I strongly suspect significant challenges in setting up | effective and responsive governance and incentive | structures to keep such things from not becoming their | own instruments of abuse, but ever since watching 2008 | unfold it's bothered me how easy it is to leave States | twisting in the wind while the balance sheets of | financial institutions are made whole by feeding at the | Fed liquidity trough. | | One of the basic premises of "States rights", as it were, | is that it's supposed to offer lots of little | "laboratories of democracy", but as it stands right now | there's no good way to actually finance those | laboratories to invest in ambitious things. So, what we | mostly end up with instead is only the downside of using | "States rights" in the only way that it's cheap to do so, | which is usually by restricting or denying things. It's | much harder to get the upside of investing in things | without all the latitude that the Federal government | enjoys financially. | selimthegrim wrote: | If only someone reminded S Dakota of the rule against | perpetuities at the same time. | tremon wrote: | In my view, it's not a failure of any central bank. The | additional liquidity is generated by other banks, in the | form of overvaluations and financial constructions that | allow loans without backing securities. | trashtester wrote: | This is not a case of either-or. But central banks have | more power than anyone else, as they are the only ones | who can truely "print money". | JaimeThompson wrote: | >really large companies to be able to build train lines or | advanced manufacturing | | They would use the money to buy back their own stock. | dr_dshiv wrote: | > Imagine if lending was less cheap for home owners but it | was still cheap for governments or really large companies | to be able to build train lines or advanced manufacturing | or affordable medium density housing. I see the problem as | too much credit is able to be spent with too little focus. | So silly stuff is being funded because the money is | becoming meaningless | | Jesus yes. Economists treat all spending like it is equal | in value. Stupidity. | api wrote: | Central banks have one hammer really: interest rates. | Everything is a nail. | marcosdumay wrote: | Governments as a whole have a lot of different hammers | for monetary policy. It's just that every other one | depends on the Congress understanding the problem and | cooperating. | nipponese wrote: | Central banks are not governmental organizations. | gumby wrote: | Technically they are (everybody who works for the Fed or | the Bank of England gets a governmenT paycheck) and in a | technical sense they aren't, or try not to be | (independent balance sheets). | | But they are involved in policy decisions, being | consulted and themselves asking. They do t have an | independent mission the way, say, a trucking company | does. | WalterBright wrote: | The Federal Reserve banks are. | arminiusreturns wrote: | No they are not, though it's easy to understand the | confusion. From the SF Feds website: | The Board of Governors--Located in Washington, D.C., | Board members are appointed by the U.S. President and | confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Board members and staff are | civil service employees. The 12 regional Reserve | Banks--Located around the country, the 12 Federal Reserve | Banks are chartered as private corporations. Employees | are not civil service. The Federal Open Market | Committee (FOMC)--Composed of the Federal Reserve | Governors and the Federal Reserve Bank presidents, the | FOMC is charged with conducting monetary policy. | worik wrote: | They are not part of the government. They are more senior | than that, they are part of the elite. | WalterBright wrote: | Yes, I'm aware of the legal fiction that they are not | part of the government. But they are, as they are run by | people appointed by the government, and therefore serve | the government. | arminiusreturns wrote: | I rather think the fiction is that they serve the | government, but I also have The Creature from Jekyll | Island in the backseat for light reading so my | perspective probably is heavily biased. | colinmhayes wrote: | Just because they're not elected doesn't mean theyre not | part of the government. | gonzo41 wrote: | QE as well. | | I just don't see why they can't put conditions on some of | their lending to focus the intent of the money. | mym1990 wrote: | Simple: It is not the responsibility of the Fed to | evaluate and empower or degrade certain markets according | to what "smart investments" should be. This is ultimately | up to the banks that receive the money and the people who | come up with investment ideas. | WaxProlix wrote: | This entire conversation is about how those entities | don't seem to be doing a particularly good job. | Robotbeat wrote: | Right. It's really up to businesses and governments. | Businesses to make productive investments and governments | to make the appropriate counter-cyclical investments | (beyond just interest rates) to keep the productive | investments more attractive than the non-productive | speculative ones for businesses. | vkou wrote: | Yes, but governments have other hammers, called tax | rates, and deficit spending. | WalterBright wrote: | All that extra cash looking for a use is what causes | inflation. It all goes back to supply & demand. | dominotw wrote: | why is the housing market not budging. Its just lagging | other assets? | m0llusk wrote: | Hard to say, but it has always been like that. Housing | prices are extremely sticky. With corrections most of the | work ends up being done by inflation while prices | stagnate. One peculiar advantage to the burst of | inflation is that it could help the housing bubble | correct itself relatively quickly. | waynesonfire wrote: | Because variable rate mortgages.. and once that gets | expensive maybe well see 50 year mortgages. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Supply and demand, of course. | nostrademons wrote: | Housing always lags, usually by 18-24 months. Real estate | transactions are slow - they require a bunch of research, | non-fungible goods in an illiquid market, physically | scoping out properties, financing sources that are | notoriously sluggish and thorough in their diligence, and | a slow closing process. And the sellers don't _need_ to | sell - they can just hold onto their places and live in | them or rent them out. That means that when money dries | up in the housing market, liquidity dries up before | prices drop: people just hold onto their houses and don | 't sell them rather than take the loss. | | This also means that housing is pretty resilient to | recessions that last < 1 year. Nationwide the '73, '80, | '82, '91, and '01 recessions were barely blips to housing | prices [1]. It takes a sustained downturn of > 4 years or | so in a regional economy to make a serious dent in | housing prices. | | [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS | Robotbeat wrote: | The money can find a productive outlet, it's just that for | the last 5 years or so, speculative investments (that | weren't productive) had a much higher rate of return. Which | is too bad as the productive investments like building a | solar power plant really benefitted from the low interest | rates that drove the non-productive speculative bubble. | | non-productive Speculative investments tend to get punished | at the end of the cycle by losing all value, thus punishing | those invested in it and restoring order. But that often | only happens when you increase interest rates above that | which productive investments like solar power plants often | need. And so you get contraction as even the productive | investments are starved of funding. Oh well, at least the | solar power plant hasn't lost all its value. | naravara wrote: | Also, arguably the most socially productive outlets would | have been public goods, like major infrastructure | investments and public education and health initiatives. | But that's evidently politically untenable. | mftb wrote: | This was a really interesting thread. I see what you guys | are talking about all around me, the mis-used liquidity | or whatever you want to call it. I don't know anything | about finance, so I don't know how to respond to the | people, but I feel like saying all the time, "Hey you | know someday you're gonna need that money." | ripe wrote: | > non-productive Speculative investments tend to get | punished at the end of the cycle by losing all value, | thus punishing those invested in it and restoring order. | | To be precise, the investors who are left holding at the | end of the cycle get punished. The early investors who | got out make out like robbers. | | This system incentivizes pump-and-dump. | kurthr wrote: | That is "the market" working for you! | | We could allocate resources to productive assets by | fiscal spending, but that is prevented by politics. Only | when "the market" gets its cut can any infrastructure be | built in the US. That's also true for much of the medical | establishment and pension/retirement systems. If the | market was efficient, we wouldn't be complaining about | it. Unfortunately, a "free market" and an efficient | market (and you could argue whether infrastructure or | medicine or income insurance even make sense as markets) | are not the same. Most markets that have many individual | consumers require regulation to be even close to | efficient. Like political and financial enforcement they | are too easy to manipulate and the consequences of | malfeasance are substantially less than the profits to be | made. | worik wrote: | > Most markets that have many individual consumers | require regulation to be even close to efficient. | | That is not true from what I see (modulo contract | enforcement and policing of anti-social elements). There | are many examples of smoothly functioning markets. With | my economics geek hat on the things required for a market | include: | | * All participants must have choice, be able to enter and | leave in the medium term. | | * There must be clear information available about the | properties of the goods and/or services | | * There must be clear information about the prices. | | The first condition (choice) can be rough on suppliers. | The "choice" for a coffee shop is closing or bankruptcy. | But for the supplier of electricity from a hydroelectric | dam the choice is different. There are no clear | boundaries. | | For the consumer they can substitute potatoes for kumera | but there is no substitute for food. Everybody must eat. | | So: Reticulated water and electricity are bad things for | markets. Vegetables (except during famine) and | entertainment services are good | Robotbeat wrote: | What sucks is that fiscal policy, ie government spending, | is also often not very efficient. Even when rampant | corruption doesn't destroy efficiency, crushing | bureaucracy or just plain incompetence will. (Is the DMV | a model of efficiency?) | | So you need a smart balance. And you need competent, | honest people in both business AND government. | | I don't think that government necessarily is inefficient. | The DMV could be a very efficient place. The fact that it | isn't should cause at least some pause for those | advocating more government spending (such as myself). | | And the same is true for business. Comcast is terrible. | But it doesn't HAVE to be. Rent-seeking and anti- | competitive behavior makes it terrible. | rhizome wrote: | This is due to tax policies reducing the revenue pool. | This makes it easier to judge individual divisions of the | total because there are necessarily fewer outlets, and | since it's a smaller pool there's more reason to fight. | | The idle rich who can't find anywhere worthwhile to play | with their nearly-free money (until recently ZIRPish) are | a bug in the system. Oh, but lets pretend we are captains | of industry by saturating the world with sure-failures. | "I wEnT tO GsB!" | | And government is absolutely inefficient, which is a good | thing actually. Despite the efforts of conservatives, | government still has to account for many many corner | cases and special needs. Ask any Agile TDD aficionado how | this affects velocity. | Robotbeat wrote: | I don't think the government being inefficient is good. | It gives ammo to those who are ideologically opposed to | government doing things. We should strive to improve | government efficiency, especially those of us who think | the government should be taking on more tasks. | briandear wrote: | Ideological opposition to extensive government is because | government is inefficient. See the Laffer Curve. Actual | demonstrated inefficiency is the proof, not the | justification. | xhevahir wrote: | I'm guessing the inefficiency-is-good formulation was | chosen for rhetorical effect rather than because OP | believes inefficiency is good in itself. | petra wrote: | The DMV outsourced it's service in some areas. Service | improved. So it's possible to benefit from the benefits | of public spending and private efficiencies. It's a | pretty common method for governments to spend money. | more_corn wrote: | AAA DMV services is amazing. Phenomenally more humanized | and efficient. My favorite example of public private | partnership. | rootusrootus wrote: | I wonder if the DMV is a bit of a special case, not | necessarily a good example of government bureaucracy. The | customers are almost universally resentful, because they | are paying the government money to let them drive. | They're angry because it's slow, and it's slow because | the process requires bringing in third-party paperwork | (e.g. insurance, sales receipt, dealer paperwork, | whatever) and there's a lot of opportunities to get it | wrong. So it often involves more than one trip. | | If I had to deal with customers at the DMV, I think I'd | be grouchy too. | | Another reason to try and get as much of it online as | possible, which I think is most of it nowadays. | abathur wrote: | I think bureaucracies do _tend_ to suck, but I also think | there are often people who stand to gain from making a | bureaucracy suck. | | For that reason, I suspect it's good idea to leave | interpretive space for the possibility that a given | bureaucracy has been intentionally hamstrung, or is | Kafkaesque by design. | | I suspect calling Comcast is miserable because the | process is designed to exhaust and manipulate you out of | quitting, for example. | | I suspect it's possible to build systems that enable you | to ensure an ER visit will cost $500 instead of $10000-- | but our insurance companies may feel like the uncertainty | deters people from seeking care. | joebob42 wrote: | I think by the time you're saying "my system depends on | the people in it being honest and competent" you've kind | of already lost. Some people are competent, most aren't. | Many people are honest, but some aren't. You aren't going | to change that so you have to be resilient to it. | Robotbeat wrote: | Every system works better with honest and competent | people. That's my point! | | Some systems are more resilient to dishonesty and | incompetence than others. I suspect a mixed system is the | most resilient. But we CAN change the behavior by | choosing to reward competence and honesty by who we | elect, who we hire, and who we do business with. | SauciestGNU wrote: | People keep using the DMV as an example of government | inefficiency, but my state has made it run so painlessly | I don't think I've spent more than 15 minutes in an | office over the last 5 years. I think government can be | efficient if you put technocrats in charge of | implementation rather than elected officials who are | subject to the electoral whims of the uninformed masses. | | The problem with the above is it weakens democratic | institutions by removing the exercise of power from the | people the population select to lead. | | Inefficiency to me can not possibly be more clearly | demonstrated than by ape pictures losing hundreds of | thousands of dollars for their purchasers. But we also | have examples like Uber spending cash on hand to drive | competitors under without having a plan to maintain their | own services without heavy subsidy. | JJMcJ wrote: | Almost all DMV problems are due to understaffing, not any | laziness or incompetence on the part of the people who | work there. | | In California the DMV experience was greatly improved by | having appointments, and for walk in, you get a number | and at least have an idea when you'll be called, so you | can sit in a waiting area, not have to stand for hours. | | COVID has reduced staffing so that makes appointments | harder to get. | | Also, imagining that corporate offices are models of | efficiency is an error. | the_only_law wrote: | See I wish. The DMV near me has been merged with other | offices (probably in some lazy attempt to "reduce | spending") and you better make your appointment a month | or two out because there won't be any availability | otherwise. | more_corn wrote: | Which state? DMV is my favorite example of government | because everything they do is required and everything | they do is done terribly. I'll have to revise if I meet a | DMV I like. | [deleted] | dangrossman wrote: | The DMV in my state requires you make an appointment 4-6 | months out right now. Walk-in appointments are | unavailable or only available during a few hours a few | days a week, if they happen to have staff that day. Good | luck if you have your drivers license stolen. | | I sold a car of mine to Carvana in October. I returned | the license plate to the DMV immediately, which is how | they're notified that you no longer own the vehicle, | waited 7 days, then cancelled my insurance policy on that | car. A month later, I got a letter from the DMV that it | is a crime to not carry insurance on my vehicle and I | will have to reinstate the insurance and pay a $70 fine | for letting it lapse. On the car I no longer own, that | was now titled in another state and resold by Carvana | already. | | It took 2 more months and 3 different forms to get the | DMV to accept that I no longer owned the car and to stop | pursuing me for this "crime". | donthellbanme wrote: | bityard wrote: | Please don't still your car to carvana. They are | destroying private party used car sales in many | communities around the country. | dangrossman wrote: | How are they doing that? | api wrote: | California right? | rootusrootus wrote: | That's an awful setup. More states need to get DMV mostly | online. I just go to their website when I sell my car and | tell them I've sold it. No sending back plates (which is | good, I keep my plates when I sell a car, because I like | them). | Thlom wrote: | WTF? This must be because of willful political sabotage? | | The license plate should follow the car and ownership | should be changed online as part of the transaction. It | sounds incredibly wasteful that every time a car changes | ownership the seller must hand over the plates in person | to the DMV. And is there no national registry of cars or | data sharing between states? Strange that a car can be | registered twice. | | If your drivers license is stolen you should be able to | just order a new one online and have it delivered in the | mail. I have been inside the building of our DMV | equivalent two times. One time when I did theoretical | exam to be allowed a practical driving test, and once for | the driving test. I got a temporary license when I passed | and the proper license in the mail the next week. This | was 20 years ago. | xxpor wrote: | >The license plate should follow the car and ownership | should be changed online as part of the transaction. It | sounds incredibly wasteful that every time a car changes | ownership the seller must hand over the plates in person | to the DMV. | | There's too many personalized plates and other exceptions | in the US to make that viable. | Robotbeat wrote: | My point wasn't to say DMV is ALWAYS inefficient but just | that the DMV is a good litmus test for efficiency. Sounds | like in your state, the DMV is efficient and therefore | perhaps fiscal policy would be well-spent! | jokethrowaway wrote: | But we don't have a free market. | | The government has heavy handed regulations distorting | the market and spent the last years creating money out of | thin air and killing small businesses. | | The government propping the market up during the pandemic | kept alive the myth that the market is always growing but | also caused a terrible inflation. | | Now that the market is going back to reality the | government can't just print more money again - or | inflation will kill the entire country. | | The incoming crash will hopefully pop some of the bubbles | the government created in the last 20 years. But it will | be painful. | bogomipz wrote: | >"We could allocate resources to productive assets by | fiscal spending, but that is prevented by politics. Only | when "the market" gets its cut can any infrastructure be | built in the US. That's also true for much of the medical | establishment and pension/retirement systems" | | I'm trying to follow this but not understanding it. What | do you mean by " Only when "the market" gets its cut". A | you referring to public/private partnerships here or pork | barrel politics? Something else entirely? | r3trohack3r wrote: | > We could allocate resources | | When you buy/sell crypto - money changes hands. That | money wasn't really "allocated" to crypto, beyond miner | fees, just redistributed. That cash still exists. | | The resources being allocated are graphics cards, human | time, and electricity AFAICT. | | The power usage of crypto is relatively small compared to | other active human endeavors. It's power usage doesn't | approach other arbitrary value stores like gold and | government backed fiat markets. Could it go somewhere | else? Yeah - but could we reasonably produce enough to | offset it in a positive sum game - definitely. As long as | renewables are cost efficient (read: truly competitive | with non-renewables) and are net-zero on emissions this | misallocation of resources would be allocated to | renewable power production in an efficient market. | | Graphics cards being misallocated... I'm not sure saying | markets are inefficient because a financial market is | outbidding video gamers is a compelling argument. | Scientific use of graphics cards seems like a small part | of the market, but I may be mistaken here.5 | pclmulqdq wrote: | IIRC, the energy use for crypto as a whole is on par with | the energy use of the fiat currency system, if not | higher. I don't know how gold mining ranks, but it may be | well below crypto mining in energy use or well above. | Mining energy use depends a lot on asset price, and gold | prices are comparatively low (compared to other asset | classes). | | Silicon and other electronic parts also get dumped into | this market, when the capacity used to build those | devices could be used for other things. | r3trohack3r wrote: | A good reference to compare bitcoin to gold mining (and | other human endeavors like brewing tea): | https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index | | Gold mining and bitcoin are currently roughly on-par. But | gold's energy usage isn't just mining. It's the entire | supply chain from Cash 4 Gold stores, long term storage, | smelting/recycling, etc. I don't have a good reference | for the total cost of gold. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Oh, that is only for bitcoin mining. Is there a source | for the entire crypto ecosystem since you want to compare | bitcoin mining to the entire gold supply chain? I would | suspect that if you include shipment and storage, you are | still under bitcoin mining for the entire gold supply | chain. | | However, the point still stands. Datacenters in the US | use total energy less than 2 bitcoins. How many of those | datacenters are moving fiat around? Way less than half? | | Things like brewing tea and heating houses take a ton of | energy. Moving money around doesn't! | | Crypto is a huge waste, and that site does not suggest | otherwise. | worik wrote: | > the energy use for crypto as a whole is on par with the | energy use of the fiat currency system | | That is an unbelievable statement just on the face of it. | | But if we say: "What is the energy use per transaction?" | what then? | | The inefficiency of crypto currency is legendary. | kd913 wrote: | Those other endeavors scale significantly more | efficiently and are a necessity. | | Gold is a requirement for industrial purposes, for | jewellry, for chemical processes for medication. | | Visa/Mastercard perform many hundred of thousand | transactions per second. | | BTC is limited to 350k per day, and consumes the | equivalent CO2 impact as Austria. It can't and won't ever | scale, which leaves it open to market manipulation and | centralization as transactions move off-chain. | | It's not a small amount of energy wasted, and there are | significantly more valuable uses for that energy, such as | aluminum production or water desalination. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Always has been. | formerkrogemp wrote: | We don't need solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, water | reclamation, on shore chip foundries, manufacturing, | battery chargers, non-crumbling bridges, manufacturing, | paved raids, public transit, or working airports. We need | more crud apps and adtech! More stock options and stock | buybacks! | sankumsek wrote: | I loved me some paid raids! ;) | | Snark aside, it is bit disheartening to see all this | capital being thrown into handwave-y Web3 verticals. | sidpatil wrote: | What's wrong with CRUD apps? They may be boring to | develop, but they tend to be the most useful. | | Every single one of those industries uses multiple CRUD | apps in the course of their business operations. The | database is one of the most important technologies of our | civilization. | JacobThreeThree wrote: | Central bank intervention herded all investors into | equities which obviously contributed to the post-2008 | bull market, but also distorts price discovery. | | But hey, at least the Fed hasn't started buying equities | too, like the BOJ. | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-06/boj- | becom... | cwkoss wrote: | There would need to be some tight regs to make that work, | or else large companies would buy up all the housing supply | and force everyone to pay them rent. | | I think individual home ownership is important, and thats | not where I'd want to start cutting. | | Credit for second homes being less cheap - totally onboard. | eecc wrote: | Wasn't that the Soviet double ruble system? Whenever the | Politburo wanted to find a mega project the money was | wished into existence and things happened (just as it's | done today) yet it was illiquid and only usable in a sealed | silo, separate from the normal exchange ruble. | | Wonder how a similar mechanism would work today | himlion wrote: | That sounds interesting. Can you link to any reference on | this? I tried googling but didn't turn up much. | mambru wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryozka_(Russian_retail_st | ore... | golergka wrote: | That's not what the parent comment is talking about. | Berezka stores were originally created to earn dollars by | selling Soviet wares to tourists, and later gradually | reoriented towards the few Soviet citizens who earned | dollars and looked for some way to spend them. Not to be | confused with other special stores unavailable to | ordinary citizens that supplied party members. | | What parent comment is talking about was the system of | cash and cashless (beznal) roubles. Cashless roubles were | used for industry purposes and couldn't be converted to | the ordinary roubles available to the population. When | USSR allowed cooperation (primitive private business) in | the late 80s, it was used by many officials as a tool to | convert the cashless roubles from the organization's they | controlled into real currency in their private pockets. | And a lot of oligarchs (including Khodorkovsky) got their | fortunes that way. | | It's ironic that now ordinary Russians blame the chaos | and injustice of the 90s on capitalism and free market, | whereas a lot of that was created by a state economy | system and exploited by corrupt beurocracy of a communist | party. | [deleted] | jeffreyrogers wrote: | > Need to buy a house? bid 20% more than asking, if you don't | - someone else will.. in cash. | | If you expect inflation to stay high for a while this is | actually rational... as long as you still have a job. | colechristensen wrote: | This was driven by extended 0-ish% interest for an entire | recession cycle. Unable to get "safe" returns, money chased | more dangerous classes of assets and inflated prices. | | Inflation and a return to nonzero interest means capital gets | to retreat to safer ground, pulling the rug out of stupid | unprofitable startups that can only make money with head-in- | the-clouds IPO valuation or FAANG acquisition. | MomoXenosaga wrote: | Is it really a bad thing? Unemployment is pretty low. | colechristensen wrote: | Long term, poor allocation of resources into junk work | and business that doesn't make money leads to crashes and | periods of high unemployment. | | In other words you can't keep the party going forever and | how things are now isn't an excuse for irresponsibility. | throw_nbvc1234 wrote: | Labor Force participation is also low. Job openings are | around an all time high. | | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSJOL | | As these two converge, wages are probably going to go | down while inflation may still be high. | thomasahle wrote: | > Need to buy a house? bid 20% more than asking, if you don't | - someone else will.. in cash. | | Who buys a house in cash? You mean literal suitcases of | dollar bills? | | Or do you just mean something like a bank transfer? What | other ways are there to buy something? | [deleted] | noufalibrahim wrote: | In cash as opposed to getting the transaction financed. | afavour wrote: | They mean paying in full themselves, not backed by | mortgage. | Clubber wrote: | Even if you get the mortgage, it's the same as cash to | the seller. The bank just cut's them a check right away. | The mortgage is between the bank and the buyer. | smabie wrote: | I just bought a house in cash, the seller wasn't willing | to accept any non-cash offers. With a cash offer the | seller and buyer can close in a significantly shorter | amount of time than with a mortgage. | ejb999 wrote: | >>Even if you get the mortgage, it's the same as cash to | the seller. | | Not really, pay in 'cash' and you can close in days, pay | with a mortgage and it might take weeks to months. | Sellers always prefer cash buyers if they are in a hurry | to sell. | epc wrote: | In cash meaning you don't make the offer contingent on | financing, and you can document the sources of payment | (balance sheet, statement from bank or accountant, etc). | chucksmash wrote: | > Who buys a house in cash? You mean literal suitcases of | dollar bills? | | Not literal suitcases of dollar bills, no. Buying with cash | here means without taking out a mortgage. | | To answer the first question about who buys a house in | cash, 28% of buyers do so[1]: | | > All-cash sales accounted for 28% of transactions in | March, up from both the 25% recorded in February [2022] and | from 23% in March 2021. | | [1]: https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/existing-home-sales- | slip-2-... | kolbe wrote: | What profit does your company generate? I wouldn't call | anything 'cushy' or stable until there's a reliable way to | cover all expenses and investor expectations--especially given | how badly company have exploited Goodhart's Law with respect to | revenue. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | Same thing happened to me. There's a company in Dallas that had | a website that basically presented users who were searching for | a product type with a list of products along with their | ratings. Apparently they were supposed to make money off of | affiliate links. The website was buggy and slow, and also... | Google does that already. | | So they pivoted, and now they've aimed their engine at CBD | reviews or something. I still don't see the point. | me_me_mu_mu wrote: | I wish people would just build solutions to actual problems | they have that other people also confirm to have. | | Not everyone is a visionary like Steve Jobs or whatever, and | that's okay. Just build something that solves your problem | and helps others who also deal with it. | acuozzo wrote: | The issue is that many people have my problem (click | below), but no scruples. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31217221 | | The desire is there, but the idea(s) aren't and it's not | for lack of trying. I've been reading that "ideas are | cheap" for over a decade now, but I can honestly say that I | haven't once come up with an idea that would make any | money. | NateEag wrote: | > I've been reading that "ideas are cheap" for over a | decade now, but I can honestly say that I haven't once | come up with an idea that would make any money. | | Ideas are cheap. | | Good ideas are darned hard to find and even harder to | recognize. | zeruch wrote: | "But I'm just an average developer what do I know. " | | Usually more than the 'above average' founder or VC. | Animats wrote: | _but things just got awkward as soon as I asked about their | revenue_ | | I've had that conversation. Anyone remember Cuil, the search | startup? No revenue. No revenue model. Then no business. | aoms wrote: | I often wonder how many of these startups even exist. How they | ever get any funds to keep a run rate.. very puzzling but | interesting non the less | MAGZine wrote: | the fact that you stopped to ask those questions makes me think | that you're at minimum, an above average developer. | | caring about the business and its fundamentals is important | beyond just slinging code. | samtheprogram wrote: | If you're going to be paid in equity and not asking those | questions, unless it's a publicly traded company (where you | have these answers ahead of time) or you are getting | compensated well above average in cash equivalents, it would | be just plain irresponsible to not ask those questions. | | Even if you are getting paid an extremely good salary, who | wants to start working for a company that's potentially | months or a year from becoming insolvent? The fact that this | might not be standard due diligence as suggested by your | comment is mind boggling to me. | scarface74 wrote: | It's statistically irresponsible to think your equity is | going to be worth anything in a private company and give up | cash compensation. | worik wrote: | I never ever again am going to count equity promises as | part of my remuneration. My pay is all I count on, once I | have banked it. | | Otherwise I become shark bait. Been there, done that. | matwood wrote: | > an above average developer | | I'm average and have always asked these questions :) When I | got my CS undergrad I almost had a minor in business, so that | side has been an interest from the start. | | How the company is doing, what is their core business, and | how will my position fit in that business have always been | key questions for me when interviewing a company. | diob wrote: | It also comes from feeling financially secure enough to be | comfortable asking those questions. Early in my career I | wouldn't have, but at this point I have enough money that I | can afford to be more discerning. | traskjd wrote: | Ultimate test of a good place though if you ask when young. | | I asked for my first grad role. I asked a lot of probing | questions. 3 years in I was running teams and setting up | operations for the business in another country for them. I | even told them I'd be leaving to start my own business | after this job (and did). This resonated because I was | speaking to their founder at the time and knew we'd be cut | from the same clothe. | | Holding yourself back at a young age can just stunt your | career development. Asking such questions will appeal to | the right employer. | | Unsurprisingly this one went from 35 to 150 staff, | profitably in the 3 years I worked there. I was 22 when | setting up other parts of their business. I'd started at | 19. | | I wouldn't advise folks to avoid such questions just | because they're young or "need the job". Stand out! You're | even more likely to get the job. | | As noted by others here: if they react poorly to this in | the interview, you already won by dodging a bullet. | cercatrova wrote: | Interestingly, I've heard many instances where interviewees | asked startups about their revenues and the startups just | wouldn't tell them, saying that it's growing, or some other | vague nonsense. Even in the case of inquiring about the | amount of equity one gets, many startups would not tell them | the actual percentage of the company they'd get, instead | opting to tell them the number of shares, without actually | telling them the total number of shares. Well, 1000 shares | out of 10k is very different than 1000 out of 10MM. | | This is a huge red flag in my eyes, of not being open enough | to see the books. It signals that something is quite wrong at | the company, and even if it weren't, that they are not truly | honest with their employees. | matwood wrote: | One time I had a CFO yell at me for asking questions like | you mention. I obviously passed on the job. The hiring | manager called me soon after and said he respected my | professionalism and understood my decline of their offer. | They were out of business < 6 months later. | MAGZine wrote: | It depends on the stage of the startup, but the books | should probably be open to people who have made it to the | offer stage until at least series b. | | if they're not, I'd be worried about the financials, the | culture, or both. | | Refusing to disclose the number of outstanding shares is a | huge red flag. | blagie wrote: | It's a huge red flag, and it's a hugely common red flag. | | A startup was peeved I valued their equity at zero when | they wouldn't share. I got strong hints my equity was | worth at least $100k in extra annual salary, but they | wouldn't budge on disclosing anything I could hold them | accountable to. I think they were being honest, but I | didn't take the job. | | I did take a previous job like that, and when the company | sold, we were all surprised management was honest. | Management gave a used-car-salesman vibe, which was just | wrong. I think with transparency, people would have | worked much harder. | | I don't have insights as to the reason for the extreme | opacity. | ditonal wrote: | The reason for the opacity is obvious, they want you to | think the equity is worth more than it is. | | People constantly assume good faith in these things when | they shouldn't. | | Obviously number of outstanding shares is a bare minimum, | but things like cash reserves and cash flow should also | be shared but they don't want to share that information, | often times because it's not good, they just wasn't | people who believe in the "mission" or that it's a | rocketship or whatever. | | The secondary reason is that there are still too many | naive engineers who assume good faith, drink the startup | koolaid, and take these offers . Sometimes even declining | public RSU grants to do so. One company out of ten | thousand have ISOs that are worth anything but those are | the only company in the headlines so the mystique | continues. | | The only solution is education. ISO (Incentive Stock | Options) are one of the biggest scams of all time and | you're financially illiterate if you value them more than | zero. They are carefully designed by venture capitalists | to screw employees. NFTs of monkey pictures are | infinitely stronger financial assets than startup ISO - I | mean, as least the monkey jpegs have liquidity and | volume, and no liquidation preference coded in to screw | you over. | otterley wrote: | > ISO (Incentive Stock Options) are one of the biggest | scams of all time and you're financially illiterate if | you value them more than zero. They are carefully | designed by venture capitalists to screw employees | | Given the number of millionaires and billionaires who can | credit ISOs for their current wealth, I think that's too | broad a statement. At the end of the day, a well-run | company that can eventually go public because they have a | strong business can be worth joining and the ISOs can be | worth something someday. Admittedly, many will not, but | if you pick the right one, you could do well. | krasicki wrote: | You mean, "there's a chance". | scarface74 wrote: | Survivorship Bias at its finest. You don't hear about the | other 90%+ who got absolutely nothing. | otterley wrote: | > Admittedly, many will not | blagie wrote: | That's the thing, though. It's not always a scam. You | never know whether you're being scammed. I /didn't/ get | scammed, but everyone working at my first company out of | school thought we /would/ get scammed. We've all seen a | lot of people get scammed. | MAGZine wrote: | ISOs worked out well for me. It wasn't a huge windfall, | but the preferential tax treatment is actually quite | nice. | | Really the best strategy is ISOs that convert to NSOs | with 10y exercise windows when you leave. best of both | worlds. | danielvaughn wrote: | I agree. I've had a couple of stints as a manager, now as a | CTO for a small startup, and it's giving me so much insight | into thinking about engineering from a business perspective. | As an IC it's hard to get that birds eye view, but it's | possible. | samstave wrote: | > _As an IC it 's hard to get that birds eye view, but it's | possible. _ | | Unless you actually have a consultancy which is based on | seeing the ways in which you may plug a hole in the dyke... | | And IC should ADD value to the org, not just slurp off of a | need the company needs to fill. | BurningFrog wrote: | Can you mention one or two such insights about thinking | about engineering from a business perspective? | danielvaughn wrote: | 1. A developers job is not to write code. You _happen_ to | write code as part of your job, but your core | responsibility is to implement solutions to business | problems. Sounds simple, but it 's harder to realize in | practice. Case in point was a recent freelance job I took | on. This client had paid some devs for _months_ of work | on a Stripe integration. They had built all this custom | code on the front-end and back-end. I came in, read the | docs since I was new to Stripe, and quickly learned that | a custom solution puts the company on the hook for 300+ | security requirements for PCI compliance. I scrapped all | the code and directed users to Stripe 's own checkout | page. Not as nice of a UX, but that company's customers | are now much more secure, there is less code to maintain, | and the client is happy. | | 2. Your managers aren't perfect people, but their | livelihood is in your hands. It's incredibly stressful to | be a manager, so try to have compassion and empathy for | the position they're in. They have to explain to the | executive team the progress you're making, and if no | progress is being made, they take the blame. | | 3. If you can't connect the dots between what you're | doing on a daily basis, and the overall trajectory of the | company, then something's wrong. There's a broken | connection somewhere, and no one other than you is going | to realize it. Speak up if you don't think what you're | doing is useful. | worik wrote: | > . A developers job is not to write code. You happen to | write code as part of your job, but your core | responsibility is to implement solutions to business | problems. | | My job is to write code. Nobody is interested in my | opinions about business problems. | | I have to be aware, of course. I propose code to write | some times, and I have to have some idea that it is a | vaguely practical thing in business terms. I want to | write code in groovy system A but mundane system B has a | better chance of success then my desire for system A goes | by the wayside. | | But it is my job to write code. That is all. | danielvaughn wrote: | Code is an expression of a business solution. The meat of | any application is in the business rules it enables and | enforces. In a _very_ well oiled machine it might be | possible to just receive some behavioral requirements and | get to it, but in my experience that isn 't the norm. To | be an effective engineer, you need to have a solid | understanding of how the code you're writing solves the | needs of the company. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I really like #3. If you don't know why you are doing | something, it is very unlikely that somebody else knows | better. | ben30 wrote: | I've got this bookmarked: | https://github.com/kuchin/awesome-cto | scarface74 wrote: | Why? I work to exchange labor for money. They hired me | because I generate more value than they are paying me. The | company doesn't "care" about me. It's purely transactional. | | If I got hit by a bus tomorrow, they would send flowers and | "thoughts and prayers" to my wife and have an open req before | my body got cold. | gabrieledarrigo wrote: | Say amen to this, guys! | [deleted] | turtlebits wrote: | I was in the same boat as you. I was about to accept an offer, | then I had a chat with their CTO and I asked some hard | questions about their strategy (compelling product - but their | vision was becoming a "platform" as a lot of startups do). | Think I threw them for a loop and didn't get a great answer. | Ultimately changed my mind on joining. | scarface74 wrote: | There are a lot of companies with "100 million in revenue" and | no profit... | | Mentioning revenue and not profit is not informative. | scruple wrote: | Yes. It's astounding (to me, anyway) how many companies | aren't even close to profitability. | chinchilla2020 wrote: | Management people have built careers and fortunes in tech | running sinking companies. | | Even within FAANG, many people build careers while working on | sinking products (Most products in Google are revenue | negative...) | photochemsyn wrote: | According to the article, FAANG is an obsolete acronym, it's | now MAMAA... | [deleted] | prepend wrote: | It's funny as that was my experience interviewing with | companies between 1998-2000. Just insane business models but | brazen confidence in themselves. | | I remember interviewing with a company in 2000 that had burned | through like $40 in two years. This was New York and they hired | IBM. I don't remember their product but it was stupid. They had | paid IBM to build their own custom app server for Java because | their requirements were too specific for WebSphere that IBM | made. They built their own internal Java app server from | scratch. | | So that was stupid. | | Also the interview was on a Tuesday or something and they said | that they were out of money on Friday but were confident they | would get more money on Monday. | | They wanted me to start immediately and when I turned them down | because of the funding, they asked if I would start on Monday. | | It was such a surreal experience that a whole organization | could be so crazy. | maxlamb wrote: | $40? Did you mean $40 million? | SauciestGNU wrote: | No, it's just IBM for once billing accurately to reflect | the value they delivered. | prepend wrote: | Yes, thanks. I swear autocorrect is going multiple words | back to change things. | | They burned $40M. | | $40 on their own app server in IBM fees would be pretty | cool and interesting in a different way. | kenrik wrote: | > Also the interview was on a Tuesday or something and they | said that they were out of money on Friday but were confident | they would get more money on Monday. | | > They wanted me to start immediately and when I turned them | down because of the funding, they asked if I would start on | Monday. | | Is is straight out of a comedy sketch, I feel like you could | take that to an open mic night and kill with it. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | Yes I am sure a lot of companies are building things that | aren't required. But there are so many things were indeed | better solutions are required, and if they exist would be worth | investing in. | Johnny555 wrote: | Is there any growing startup that's not bleeding money? Isn't | what the seed and Series A and maybe B funding is about? After | series A funding I'd expect some revenue stream, but not enough | to pay expenses, after B series, they should have a plan to | profitability and some proven customers that show that they can | actually get that revenue, and after C I'd expect them to be | executing to that plan. | | If bleeding money scares you, then a startup is probably not | the right fit, a huge number of startups fail. | enra wrote: | There are. It happens when you hit high level of product | market fit with a lean team and don't go on a massive hiring | spree after but keep growing the team at a measured pace. | | I think Github, Notion, Retool, Slack, probably Figma, hit | revenues quite quickly as they launched and became profitable | or at least close to breakeven. | Johnny555 wrote: | You mention Slack, but they had losses of $140M/year prior | to IPO: | | _Slack says it may not turn profitable; IPO filing reveals | $139 million in losses, Microsoft primary competitor_ | | _The Slack IPO filing shows annual revenue of $400.5 | million, up 60% from the prior year, with a net loss of | $138.9 million, for the 12-month period that ended Jan. 31. | Slack 's actual fiscal year-end date has yet to be | determined._ | kenrik wrote: | Slack grew their workforce too quickly. | | Actually the Slack I remember from when it first came out | is more or less the same product they have now. I'm not | really sure what all of those people were doing for all | of those years. | worik wrote: | Why slack? I never understood. | | I never liked IRC. But to not like it and pay for it? I | do not understand. | | Am I a fossil? | Johnny555 wrote: | Most people don't get to choose, in my case, it's our | corporate IM system, so I have to use it whether I want | to or not. | | It's got a lot of enterprise features that companies | like, like SSO integration, message retention policies, | security certifications like HIPAA and FedRAMP, and more. | | There are also a lot of pre-made apps for integrating | with corporate apps like Jira, Gmail, Salesforce, etc. | | It's fine, I haven't looked at a lot of other options, | but it seems more usable than Google Hangouts (or | messenger or whatever they call it now) or Microsoft | Teams. | jokethrowaway wrote: | It's definitely turned into a slow behemoth. I remember | it being snappy in the early days and everyone wanted to | use it. | la6472 wrote: | Bubbles are absolutely necessary in an innovative marketplace. | There has to be thousands of fail fast companies before a titan | emerges. | conductr wrote: | Tangential. But I work in corporate finance. I'm generally | privy to a large amount of information about the companies I | work for. If there's something I don't know, I ask for it and | people share because of my role. If I'm interviewing, we | discuss a lot more than most people would about the health of | the company that I would be joining. It's normal. | | That said. I'm obviously heavily biased but I have realized | MOST non-finance employees know very little about the financial | health of their employer or even how the business model | operates, or even what is the current/future strategy of the | company. | | When something MAJOR is announced, M&A/leadership changes/etc, | the questions the room typically ask are: 1) will we still get | 401k match 2) will we get fired 3) will the office relocate. | People don't really care too much about the company, they care | about how it's volatility impacts them. I don't think it's such | a bad thing, but just pointing it out. In startup land, | volatility is huge and the highs and lows can occur with rapid | frequency. You have to be an assessor of risk when changing any | jobs and this is part of it. | PeterCorless wrote: | I may be unusual but I've always found it prudent to ask my | CEO about things like rate of corporate growth, funding and | customer revenue generation, M&A, etc. | | Because if I am a vesting or fully-vested employee, then | that's my own future at stake. The 401(k) can be dwarfed by | many times by a successful stock worth millions, or, in a | badly run or positioned company, the stock could be worthless | underwater paper shares and I become dependent exclusively on | the 401(k) for my sunset days. | | The financial literacy of many workers is low though. They | don't understand what options are or what it means to really | be a shareholder. | | When I was at Cisco -- I'm talking in the 1990s -- we used to | describe what we called "stockholder angry." This was when a | fully-vested employee heard a VP or above talking about some | idea so stupid it would literally cost the company a penny | per share or more. That's when the old dogs would get | "stockholder angry" and propose alternatives, or ask people | to stop ideas that were retrograde for the sake of the | company's valuation. Because we knew what a penny per share | meant to each of us. | | I believe it is valuable for employees at all levels to be | able to know the state of their company's health, and then, | with an informed mind, be able to voice their opinion on the | fate of their organizations. | conductr wrote: | Definitely agree. In my role it effects my day to day work | (sales cure all, etc). And it's definitely a little | different when folks have stock. I mostly work in an | industry where the average employee has no stock or | options. They may be curious, but they don't really ask | many questions unless there has been a sizable culture of | that. Otherwise, it's like talking money is bad manners. | | Options and the various schemes can be confusing. What's | worse to me is many people in middle manager type roles | that run a department/unit, are responsible for a budget, | they can not read a basic income statement. They don't know | how or what levers move the needle or in which direction. | Some are very good, but many are very, very bad given their | level of responsibility I've seen. I've been in many | meetings even in my days as a junior analyst explaining to | seasoned executives how volume doesn't cure an issue with | unit economics. Separating out variable costs and | explaining that if you can't cover those, you'll never | cover the fixed costs... Those types of things. It's job | security for me, but still shockingly common. | legitster wrote: | This has been a long time coming. | | Back in the day, there was an inherent understanding that a stock | price is supposed to reflect "the fundamentals" - present value | of the company + future earnings. And of course there was some | amount of speculation around future earnings, but for the most | part companies at least _tried_ to be profitable. | | But if you look at the share price of like, Tesla - it's | completely insane. There is no way your slice of the company is | worth that much. The stock market has been behaving like a | pyramid scheme, where everyone assumed there will be more money | entering than leaving any given stock. | | Tech is a pretty egregious sector because of how many business | models basically boil down to "we don't actually need to make | money if we have a desirable stock". In the long run, I don't | think we'll be worse off if the next generation of software | companies actually focuses on making products people want to buy | rather than play games with DAU and user acquisition and etc. | martindbp wrote: | Tesla made more money last quarter than Ford, GM and Toyota. | Toyota made 10x the number of cars as Tesla. Tesla is growing | vehicle production 50% YoY, while growing profit even faster | (having barely hit economies of scale yet). Tesla has a backlog | of orders approaching a year in many regions. Everyone else is | losing money on their EVs and can't make them in volume | production, can't find the batteries for them, because they | started 10 years too late. That's the reason for Tesla's | valuation, it's pretty simple. | | Whether you believe the competition will catch up, or Tesla | will fail for some other reason is besides the point. I'm just | trying to show that the current valuation is not "insane" given | current trends, there's a very real logic to it and not | (completely) FOMO. | | Correction: Toyota's earnings were higher than Tesla, it was | operating income that was higher (remembered it wrong). | bink wrote: | All of those things can be true and Tesla's stock can also be | over-valued. A rapidly growing and popular company doesn't | justify any arbitrary valuation. | freeflight wrote: | Indeed, which also begs the question; How much of that | growth is driven by the over-valuation? | | Particularly as Musk is no stranger to using creative | accounting techniques, and sheer speculation, to make his | companies suddenly look more profitable [0] | | There's also him leveraging his other companies to create | growth among each other. Like Starlink being a major | customer for SpaceX. | | Which could either be really smart, or the making of a | really impressive house of cards. | | [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/teslas-bitcoin- | speculation-h... | BeetleB wrote: | > Tesla made more money last quarter than Ford, GM and | Toyota. | | Net income was higher for Toyota - almost double that of | Tesla. | martindbp wrote: | Yes, my bad, it was operating income that was higher for | Tesla. | legitster wrote: | I'm not sure where you are getting those numbers from. Ford | had $37b in revenue Q4. Tesla had $16b. | | Tesla is an impressive company that's managed to finally be | profitable. But currently their market cap is higher than | _all other auto manufacturers_ combined. | | > Everyone else is losing money on their EVs and can't make | them in volume production, can't find the batteries for them, | you do the math. | | That's the thing, this space is getting incredibly crowded | this year. Kia/Hyundai, Ford, and VW are all putting out very | impressive mass-market EVs that are selling like hotcakes. | dsugarman wrote: | Don't confuse market cap and enterprise value, the amount | of debt on non tesla manufacturers' books is staggering and | strangling the business in other ways | sgc wrote: | Agreed. | | I for one am very happy with the wider EV push, because I | will never need to buy a Tesla. I am sure many other people | have similar sentiments. Obviously they are valued for | their batteries and solar as well, but their business model | and product offerings there are far from a fit for | everybody either. It all does not add up to current value, | although it is hard to see where the mad dash to buy "the | future^TM" runs out of cash to throw at it. | Ekaros wrote: | Solar is race to bottom, very low margin competition with | Chinese manufactures. Batteries will follow as well. And | if that was really going great why did SolarCity get | bailed out by Tesla money? I would have expected it to be | a massive company as well. | | Also, I never really understood robotaxis as something | magical high margin business. It is also race to bottom | operating with very thing margins. And probably only | after huge waste of VC capital. | Closi wrote: | > I'm not sure where you are getting those numbers from. | Ford had $37b in revenue Q4. Tesla had $16b. | | Tesla makes a 27.4% gross margin on that revenue though, | while Ford has a gross margin of 4.8%. | | > Tesla is an impressive company that's managed to finally | be profitable. | | Although technically true, this is a little misleading as | it implies that Tesla is barely profitable - in reality | they have moved from 'finally becoming profitable' to now | being the _most profitable_ automaker (in terms of total | profit). | paulpauper wrote: | tesla does not need to advertise, does not need | dealerships | | this also why Elon wants to buy twitter, besides the | issue of free speech. it means PR for his companies. | thow-58d4e8b wrote: | Tesla pulls all sorts of accounting tricks to make gross | margin appear higher than it actually is. Warranty | repairs are apparently done by pixies for free, so is | R&D, factory amortization, or service centers | | A like-to-like comparison would have Tesla's gross margin | at ~18%, which is decent, bu not all that unusual for a | premium car brand. Ford and GM tend to have much lower | gross margins than VW or Toyota. The latter two are | usually in the mid-to-high-teens, while competing in a | cutthroat mass-market | s1artibartfast wrote: | They still need to 10x their profit to make their current | PE of 130 to make sense. | Closi wrote: | I'm not saying they are worth their valuation, I'm just | saying you can't exactly claim/imply that they aren't | very profitable compared to others in the market they are | operating in. | | Also remember that they almost tripled profit in the last | year, so that PE ratio will be 1/3 if they manage to do | that again. Again, I'm not claiming that it is possible, | or that that would be a sensible P/E ratio, or that they | aren't overvalued, but P/E can change quickly. | wbsss4412 wrote: | I would be shocked if they were able to maintain those | margins. | | They've faced relatively little competition in the EV | space until this point and benefited from a shortage | juicing prices. As demand eases and more entrants come | into the EV space, they will have to lose margin, market | share, or both. | labcomputer wrote: | > I would be shocked if they were able to maintain those | margins. | | I wouldn't be. They have fundamental and very broad | patents on important things like: | | * Pre-heating the battery on the way to a charging stop | (enables the battery to accept faster charging without | damage on road trips) | | * Using motor waste heat for battery heating (increases | range while use the above strategy) | | * Dynamically adjusting charge rates due to real-time | battery conditions (enables charging faster) | | Those patents don't expire until the mid/late 2030's. | That allows Tesla to force competitors to either pay a | licensing fee or use more-expensive workarounds, like | different battery chemistries, to match the battery range | and charging rate. Either way, it means Tesla is likely | to have larger margins than competitors. | wbsss4412 wrote: | I'm not intimately familiar with teslas patent strategy, | but to my knowledge they aren't enforcing any of those | patents at all. Every single one of those features are | present on competitor vehicles already. | mupuff1234 wrote: | https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you | oneoff786 wrote: | I feel like that's not unreasonable over a decently long | period of time? | c3534l wrote: | profit != revenue | martindbp wrote: | Earnings, not revenue | mattwest wrote: | What is your definition of earnings? Because Toyota's net | income far exceeds Tesla's | Closi wrote: | Earnings are profit (i.e. revenue less costs). | | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/earnings.asp | dragontamer wrote: | Net income is profits, also known as earnings. | | Gross income is just an intermediate-step in the way | towards the bottom line (net and/or profits). | | Its strange that the earlier poster wants to talk about | gross instead of net on this point. You can almost always | tell that someone is being a bit shady with their | arguments when they say "income" or "profits" and then | backtrack it to say "Oh, I meant gross income". | | When you say "income" or "profits", everyone rightfully | assumes you mean "net income", the bottom line. The most | important number. | hef19898 wrote: | Back tracking or showing a total lack of understanding of | the difference. | mattwest wrote: | Yes, correct. Aka net income. I was asking because the | original commenter was claiming Tesla earnings were | higher than Toyota which is far from true. | martindbp wrote: | My bad, not earnings, it was operating income: https://tw | itter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1524254013025357824 | mattwest wrote: | No worries, but I'm not sure what notion you're trying to | craft with that stat. Toyota had far more revenue and | profit. Operating income was lower... so what? Tells me | Toyota has been spending money to carve a huge chunk out | of the EV sector. Maybe they are late. Maybe Tesla will | show that it's current valuation holds. I doubt it. | Closi wrote: | > Toyota's net income far exceeds Tesla's | | Far exceeds? It is only 5% higher so that's a bit of a | stretch ($22.4bn vs $21.4bn). | | Plus Toyota had shrunk it's net income from 20/21 to | 21/22, while it was a 116.86% increase for Tesla, so it | would need an optimistic person to think that Tesla | hasn't already overtaken in the last few months since | 21/22 year end. | [deleted] | bradfa wrote: | Looking at a single quarter is not a great way to compare | large companies. Even looking at just a single year is not a | great way, but for comparison, in 2021 Tesla had revenue of | $54 billion and net income of $5.5 billion. In 2021 Ford had | revenue of $136 billion and net income of $17.9 billion. | Toyota had similar net income as Ford in 2021. | | Yes, in the most recently reported quarter Ford lost money. | And in previous years Ford has also lost money. But so has | Tesla. | | Looking at Tesla as a traditional automaker is not fair to | Tesla. They don't want to be a traditional automaker, I get | the impression they want to be more like General Electric was | back 50-100 years ago, making all kinds of things and being | rather innovative. | [deleted] | martindbp wrote: | For Tesla it makes way more sense to use the annualized Q4 | numbers vs Ford total 2021 because Tesla grows like crazy, | that's the whole point. It doesn't matter that Tesla lost | money in the past if they're printing it like there's no | tomorrow now, with nothing stopping them (except lock | downs). Traditional autos ICE sales have been decreasing | and will continue to do so, and they're trying to replace | it with EV sales they lose money on, and can't make fast | enough to replace their lost ICE sales. | | Either way, I get it that you can look at the same data and | come to another conclusion, but clearly, for a lot of | investors they look at the growth, the barrier to entry, | the overall trends and that's why Tesla is valued as it is. | piva00 wrote: | > with nothing stopping them (except lock downs) | | And maybe competition? The market is booming but other | automakers are starting to have competitive lines. | | I want to see what Tesla could have in their sleeve to | ever become as desirable as they were the past years... | I'm not sure if all this hope in eternal growth of Tesla | will hold. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | Tesla has nothing on the market for smaller, cheaper | european markets, and smaller, cheaper cars like Renault | Zoe are getting more and more common sight on the | streets. There is no premium pricing on those, but the | numbers of cars sold is quite huge. | melenaboija wrote: | I don't know about Tesla production forecast and how its | stock value can be interpreted but there is something | interesting that Marques Brownlee said few days ago about pre | ordering cars [1]. Basically, if people that put down the | $250k for a Tesla Roadster founder edition to finance the | company and for a product they still don't have into Tesla | stock the would now have $4.5MM. | | Not complaining about Tesla stock price as it has the price | that people is willing to pay but to me this is definitely a | redefinition on what people care when deciding where to | invest. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vCA79HTry0A?&ab_channel=Ro | ast... | randcraw wrote: | Tesla's net income in 2021 was $5.5B, GM $8.8B, Ford $11.5B, | Toyota $28B. | | Tesla's PE ratio is 99.6, GM 5.6, Ford 10.4, Toyota 8.25. | | Tesla's market cap is $1,061B, GM $85B, Ford's $83B, Toyota | $254B. | | The state of Tesla's stock is simply unreal, _not_ based on | fundamentals but on inertia and hype. | gitfan86 wrote: | Take this logic and compare AAPL and RIMM in 2009. This is | why people are buying TSLA. | | If you think that GM is going to successfully pivot to EVs | and that Tesla will not continue to grow 50% a year, that | is a fine opinion to have, but if you look at CNBC clips | from 2009 you will see very similar comparisons being made | around AAPL and RIMM, to what you are saying today. | kenchan wrote: | "Experts" have been telling us to sell $TSLA for over a | decade.. | martindbp wrote: | That's just an extremely simplistic analysis, as if there | is absolutely no change in the future. Tesla's forward P/E | is currently 51. In a years time it might be 30-35. A year | after that, well you can see where this is going. There are | definitely a few years worth of growth baked in. But when | you compare the valuation to the likes of GM, also consider | the possibility that they will simply not survive the | transition to EVs. They already went bankrupt once, and | sales have declined every year since 2016, please have a | look at this graph: | https://www.statista.com/statistics/225326/amount-of-cars- | so... For a great number of reasons, many traditional OEMs | will find the next decade very difficult, and that's | reflected in their current P/E. | justapassenger wrote: | Tesla's source of profit is mainly from 2 things: - they're | selling cars that have quality of $25k cars for $60k - | they're basically a first manufacturer that sells Chinese | made cars to western world at scale (all their other | operations are either not ramped up or unprofitable) | | Power of their brand is insane. But they seem to be mainly | raiding it and diminishing it. Music will likely stop one | day. | TheDarkestSoul wrote: | Even if that all were true (it's not), Tesla could be the | most important and revolutionary car company since Model-T | era Ford and _still_ be insanely overvalued. Before their | recent stock slide they were worth as much as every other | major manufacturer _combined_. Their P/E ratio hovers around | 300. Mercedes-Benz hovers around 5. | martindbp wrote: | Teslas forward P/E, which is way more indicative of the | future of the company, is 51: https://finbox.com/NASDAQGS:T | SLA/explorer/pe_fwd#:~:text=Tes.... | | I admit Q2 will be lower than Q1, but Q4 this year will | likely see an even lower forward P/E if price remains the | same. | | Sure, they could be overvalued, I'm just trying to explain | why it's valued as it is for those that think it's | "insane". | | Mercedes hovers around 5 because many investors believe | they could go bankrupt if they can't successfully | transition to EVs. GM, for example, will very likely go | bankrupt (again). Many others as well. | mattwest wrote: | Can you link a source for the Toyota vs Tesla claim? From | what I saw on the reports it looks like Toyota had way more | revenue and net income. Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly | adam_arthur wrote: | It's not about revenue, it's about valuation. The revenue can | be whatever you want, the valuation determines long run | returns. | | Tesla could be priced at 20x PE or 100x PE and be the same | company. Your returns will be vastly different between the | two scenarios. | | OPs point, which is pretty obviously objectively true, is | that valuations far exceeded future yields by any fundamental | valuation metric. Tech has been valued as if every company | will be a pseudo Monopoly like the FAANG companies, which is | very unlikely to be true | 01100011 wrote: | Talk to a Tesla zealot and this is the story: Tesla masters | self-driving and their robotaxis take over global | transportation leading to complete and unending dominance. | | It's almost as if none of them has ever run a business or | even studied history. It's best not to try to reason with | them at this point. Just smile and walk away. Over time | they'll figure it out. | BobbyJo wrote: | I mostly agree, I just feel the need that valuation metrics | rely on past values, which aren't as useful depending on | the company you're talking about. If a company has net | income X, but a new high margin product launching next | month that could easily double or triple that, their P/E | will look ridiculous but , in fact, be quite reasonable. | [deleted] | JoshCole wrote: | > __completely__ insane. | | It isn't completely insane. | | First off, it isn't irrational to allocate an excessive amount | of capital to sustainability. The meme that this level of | provision is short-sighted is myopic to the extreme, because | obviously over the long term it is failure to be sustainable, | not being sustainable, which is myopic. Perhaps it is | overvalued, but calling it completely insane goes a bit too | far. | | Second, you are obviously right that the present value of their | assets doesn't justify their current price, but it is hubris to | try and claim that their is no future in which their revenues | can justify their increased valuation. Think ahead to the | future while skipping the steps to get there and we are | obviously incredibly likely to exist in a world in which AI and | automated labor is commonplace, in which energy is provided | through renewable means, and in which transport from point to | point is handled by electric vehicles. It is not __completely | insane__ to think Tesla might play a large role in this future. | It is quite reasonable to expect they would. Their present | course has them explicitly targeting playing a very large role | in that sort of future. They have been making progress and | inroads in playing that role. They are on track to play that | role and can play it if they execute successfully. Whether they | do, that is another question, but whether the potential exists? | It certainly seems to exist. | | A lot of times people point at automakers when they try to | justify calling Tesla overvalued. The idea that Tesla wouldn't | be larger than that industry is silly. That industry spent | billions on building out manufacturing capabilities. They took | on debt in order to create products which the market doesn't | believe will be viable in the future. The projected value of | those companies has to account for that and obviously they | aren't going to be valued as highly as they might be if they | weren't burdened with those liabilities. Perhaps you don't know | this, but a few years back legacy automakers were struggling | with dealers who would intentionally sabotage the ability to | sell electric vehicles by giving test drives in vehicles which | were intentionally left without charge. Perhaps you don't know | this, but dealers have laws in place to protect them from car | companies which force legacy car companies to use them despite | the way the perverse incentives could spell the death of the | ICE auto industry. There are real structural reasons to value | these companies as being less able than Tesla to flourish. | Thinking this is the case isn't completely insane. | dgb23 wrote: | I don't understand finance. But with tech I can often see from | a mile if something might happen, I don't have ideas, but I | understand ,,this solves a problem" or ,,this is high quality" | versus ,,this is made up" or ,,someone else will do this | better". | | In my opinion the issue with the stock market is that it is | often finance driven and too drawn away from the actual work | that is being done and the actual needs and problems potential | buyers have. And this problem is specifically worse in tech. | me_me_mu_mu wrote: | It's mostly based on feelings and perception imo. | izzydata wrote: | Over a long enough time frame the stock market and even the | whole economy behaves like a pyramid scheme as it is dependent | on new generations to be more people than the previous one. | david927 wrote: | I think you're right but I don't think it has to be that way. | | Like others, up until a few years ago, I was a Keynesian. But | then I realized that if you allow inflation you're not just | "rewarding investment", but you're taking non-participation | off the table -- and that's a big problem. Because then | people participate in markets not based on value but because | they have no choice. That means that you go from value | investing to "growth investing" -- which is another name for | pyramid scheme and people _unironically_ saying that "the | market always goes up." | smabie wrote: | Growth investing doesn't mean the market always goes up? It | means that you buy stuff that you think will significantly | grow in revenue in the future. | rapfaria wrote: | What about life becoming more efficient? | shimmy568 wrote: | There is a limit, growth can't continue forever (especially | the exponential growth we've been seeing). We've got to | level off at some point | maigret wrote: | Why not? Do you think the society will soon stop | inventing new things? They are clear indicators that | evolved societies are disconnecting their growth from the | energy usage, and especially carbon emissions. With that | new heights are possible. | | But besides this, yes, slow growth back like for most of | humanity is also an option and probably not a bad one in | the longer term. It's a very bad option until we are | depending on fossil fuels, because we need the money for | the transition. | scollet wrote: | There is still an element of optimization which involves | compressing the problem space. This might be why we see | thin vertical segments, but they are way over-valued for | the optimization they provide. | | I think VCs' expectations misalign with reality. They are | the ones incentivising infinite growth. | maigret wrote: | This is not true. The stock market is usually valued after | the dividends it can pay over a certain number of years, | somewhat between 10 and 20. It's not infinite. If no further | grow comes that's it and the stock keeps it value and will | keep paying dividends for the foreseeable time, and has for | already 100 years. Sure investors ask for growth in their | communication, but the actual thing they are asking for is a | better performance than the rest of the market. You could say | this bottoms out at 0 but recent event have shown that low | negative interests are possible, because stashing cash has a | physical cost. | | Many economies can still work well without population growth, | other fail despite population growth. If that was the case | that population dictates GDP, then investment choices would | be very easy. | legitster wrote: | This isn't really true for the same reason that GDP per | capita isn't a constant number. | Seattle3503 wrote: | Only if there is no productivity growth. | akira2501 wrote: | That really only seems to be true when you allow unchecked | mergers and acquisitions, because once you've eliminated | competition continuing to grow the market through innovation | is almost impossible. | | I'm not convinced this is some natural "tech" bubble. This | feels like an M&A bubble to me. | [deleted] | stjohnswarts wrote: | That isn't true. Otherwise when the wheels come off | (recession/depression) then the market would never recover as | it's "just a Ponzi scheme". there is real value in the market | and until some communist or anarchist can provide a | reasonable solution that doesn't depend on the general human | being altruistic 100% of the time I'll just keep going with | the market and count on avarice. I'll trust in the general | sense of fairness that most humans seem to have even if they | aren't altruistic. | jp42 wrote: | just want to add point that Tesla is not just the car company, | they are into energy (battery, panels etc), AI, robotaxi etc | areas as well, that could be one of the factor in higher | valuation. | lamontcg wrote: | I find it funny that crypto supporters will cite the fact that | the stock market is acting like a pyramid scheme these days to | justify the fact that crypto is no different. | | Yeah, that's not the defense of crypto that you think it is... | paulpauper wrote: | yeah, crypto has much more volatility and worse returns | compared to large cap stocks. | Muanh wrote: | Tell me you know nothing about investing without telling me you | know nothing about investing. Tesla is very undervalued ATM. | Just look at their P/E, growth rate and PEG. Trailing is | already below 100 and they are growing profits close to 100% | annually. | chmod600 wrote: | "the fundamentals... But if you look at the share price of | like, Tesla - it's completely insane." | | What are the fundamentals of a dollar? Or a bitcoin? Or the | Mona Lisa? | | Part of being an investor means accepting a certain social | value to your investments. | | A lot of people want to be a part of the Tesla story. Maybe | they buy a car, or maybe a share of stock. | | When that story stops being interesting, the PDV of cashflows | will start to matter more. | | (By the way, PDV starts to be harder to pin down when people | can't agree on what inflation even means, let alone what it | will be in the future.) | eftychis wrote: | They never showed the fundamentals. There are famous money | losses throughout the 20th century. [You can google the charts, | or check Graham's book or the biography of Buffett, where he | went around avoiding such traps or buying failing companies on | the cheap and turning them around by cash infusion.] And of | course the infamous example of the Tulip Bulb in 17th century. | | Companies need to take risk to innovate. A lot as you indicate, | and I totally agree, take it too much and doom themselves by | never figuring out how to be profitable. | | These days simply everything that innovates is "Tech." (Now | it's turning similarly to sustainability.) How is Tesla "Tech?" | It brands itself as that. By that thinking a lot of other | automakers should -- and the autopilot doesn't cut it -- just | people don't want to see Toyota stock as "Tech." | | The other thing with "Tech" is that if you don't keep pouring | your revenue to take more risks until you dominate over others | you will die. So fundamentally, all "Tech" stocks strive | towards domination via innovation and growth. Amazon (book | seller I know) spend the first part of this century with a | pretty bad stock and getting tax credits by investing | everything in itself and being cheap extremely aggressively. A | lot of "Amazons" did not make it. | | P.S. If they gave me a 10 year put on Tesla on a sane price I | would take it. Alas nobody is taking that bet on the cheap. | | P.S.2. The funny thing is it is a self full-filled prophesy. | Tesla has the market capital to control debt to try a bunch of | stuff until it makes it. | | P.S.3. Fundamentals can be used to increase dividends or do | buybacks s.t. the stock price will stay/go up. That is the | correlation. | | P.S.4/tl;dr: The stock market and any commodity market _are_ | pyramid schemes -- people get in to make money. | shrimpx wrote: | The standard explanation is that the market tends to price in | future gains, and Tesla is seen as having far greater growth | and market domination potential than the other brands with | small P/E. | qiskit wrote: | > But if you look at the share price of like, Tesla - it's | completely insane. | | So was the stock prices of amazon, google, etc. You don't | expect companies that are opening new industries/businesses to | trade like AT&T. You don't expect these companies to pay | dividends. | | > Tech is a pretty egregious sector because of how many | business models basically boil down to "we don't actually need | to make money if we have a desirable stock". | | Tech companies are some of the most profitable companies in the | world. Apple, google, amazon, facebook, etc print money. These | companies make more cash profit that your companies with | "fundamentals" make in revenue in a decade. | | > I don't think we'll be worse off if the next generation of | software companies actually focuses on making products people | want to buy rather than play games with DAU and user | acquisition and etc. | | That happens in all industries. From finance to hospital | equipment to real estate. | | If the bubble is popping, it isn't a tech bubble that's | popping, it's an asset bubble that's popping. | anm89 wrote: | I wouldn't even call it an `understanding` more just a | `reality`. Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay | solvent and the last 10 years have been an amazing case in | point, but they can't stay irrational literally forever. | | There's a gravity to it. At some point whatever is inflating | the values artificially is going to hit some kind of force | against it and people are going to want the underlying cash | flow. It would be the equivalent of a sort of financial | perpetual motion machine if this never happened. I'd argue | that's not an probability but something more like a law of | physics and is actually literally constrained by the laws of | physics (it requires continual population growth, consumption | growth, and growth of energy use to keep some of these | valuations rising) | abzolv wrote: | If average Jane, who is not a raving Tesla fan, wants to spend | circa $140K on an EV, and she has to choose between the | Mercedes EQS 580 and the Tesla Model X, which one would you say | is the no-brainer (better value for money)? | | https://www.mbusa.com/en/vehicles/class/eqs/sedan | https://www.tesla.com/modelx | | That is the future of Tesla. Increasing competition by better | products offered by manufacturers with far more experience in | manufacturing vehicles, and far superior dealership, service, | and parts networks. | JoshCole wrote: | Current price on your link is ~$100k not $140k. It was much | more confusing to use the first site, but click through I | found something that was also about $100k when you chose the | budget options. Meanwhile, for all numbers that both Tesla | and Mercedes list publicly the Model X has better numbers. | For example, in horsepower and 0-60 the Tesla does better. | For some numbers, the Tesla lists the number - like range - | but the Mercedes doesn't. | | Declaring my bias: I think this is because they are much | worse in range. Now looking up the numbers: 340 mile range | for Mercedes. 350 for the Tesla. I was wrong. Tesla was only | better, not much better. | | Clicking through to order takes several clicks for Mercedes. | Along the way of the happy path toward immediate purchase an | interstitial pops up and warns me that the price will be | changed if I try to order because they don't have the | supplies to service the order. Tesla by contrast just lets me | order the car with a delivery date in January of next year. | | To say your post is deeply misleading as to who is obviously | the no-brainer in value for money is an understatement. | JoshCole wrote: | Opened the Mercedes site again to check some more. Tesla | allows escalation to ordering in two clicks. After more | like seven clicks Mercedes was ready to let me 'save my | build' rather than letting me order. They also still | continually warn me: | | > Due to a worldwide shortage, semiconductor chips that are | typically present in our vehicles are limited in supply. | This has changed the availability of certain features. | Vehicle pricing will vary and depends on the availability | of certain features. Please verify with your dealer whether | any feature is available in a particular vehicle. To learn | more, please see your dealer. | | Whereas Tesla just lets me put in the order with delivery | in January. | JoshCole wrote: | Lets move away from the ordering experience. My | experience with Tesla service is that I notice an issue, | then with my phone, I put in a service request. They come | to my house while I'm sleeping and fix the issue. Super | easy. Painless. By contrast car dealership salesmen and | auto mechanics have an infamous reputation. | | I find Tesla to be superior. Maybe others won't, but | personally - I find them extremely superior. Driving to a | dealership sounds pretty lame to me. Especially if I'm | having car trouble. Tends to be the kind of thing that | makes driving to the dealership a bit annoying, you know? | duped wrote: | Average Jane doesn't have $140k to spend on a vehicle | JoshCole wrote: | At both price points on the link the Tesla vehicle metrics | are dominant over the Mercedes vehicle metrics. In fact, the | $110k cost Tesla has better metrics than the $130k cost | Mercedes: it is faster, accelerates faster, has higher | horsepower, and has higher range. If the average Jane has | $140k and wants the best value for money it is really hard to | see why they would choose the objectively inferior car | according to most metrics. They could save $30k and still | have a better car. | | I really don't understand, at all, how you can conclude that | it is a no brainier to get a Mercedes? It seems like a really | ridiculous conclusion? | | Just clicking around on the site and trying to do the order | shows you are wrong that Mercedes is far superior on non-car | related things. The dealership model is famous for its | failings. Car salesmen have a notorious reputation. The | website for Tesla lets you put in a purchase order within | three clicks, no interaction with a dealership. The Mercedes | purchase workflow had more like seven clicks and it resulted | in getting an interstitial telling me to talk to a dealer | about how the car wasn't going to have all the features | because of chip shortages, that the price would change as a | consequence of that, and directed me to talk with a | dealership. | | How is that better? How is not giving me the listed price but | making me go through a high pressure sales channel superior | to just letting me buy car the now? I don't understand at all | how you can say that dealership model is far superior. Is it | right in your eyes that someone poor at negotiating should | have to pay more than someone who is better at it? I don't | get it. I don't understand at all how you can think Mercedes | is providing the better experience. | bonaldi wrote: | "Range" is likely the only one of those metrics Jane will | care about. This sounds like one of those rants we used to | hear about "why would anyone buy a Mac when PCs have higher | specs??" | | Mercedes does cabin UX like Apple does software (and BMW is | better still). Maybe Jane wants a button for her wing | mirrors. And door handles that work. Actually comfortable | suspension. An instrument cluster. A dealer to look after | her from decision to delivery. | andy_ppp wrote: | Great time to build a startup then, as by the time you have | product market fit you'll either be living in a bunker eating | canned food or things will have come around. | | http://www.paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html | | I'm actually moving to Mallorca to bootstrap a startup for two | months and quitting my job, only time will tell if I'm right! | gopher_space wrote: | Our tools are getting pretty decent, too. If rent was cheaper I | think you'd see startups all over. | andy_ppp wrote: | Yes, I've moved from London to lower my burn rate, rent in | Bristol is pretty cheap. | [deleted] | three_seagrass wrote: | https://archive.ph/qziMw | cardsofinhuman wrote: | Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: | Despite my handle I'd wager that it all comes down to a very risk | averse society as shown by pretty much every metric ranging from | low birth rate to drinking to smoking to drug usage etc. | | Back in the days when interest rates went down, people started | new businesses or expanded those they already owned at a huge | pace. I mean the population as a whole not the businesses in the | S&P500. | | When the Fed rolled rates to zero and did QE post 2008 and super | QE in 2020-2021 the population just invested in the stock and | housing market. No initiative just buying "proven assets" . | | Investing in the stock market with a financial advisor | essentially buying the S&P or some other mutual fund..that's way | less risky than starting your own business. | | Now the Fed is raising rates and people (and financial advisors) | aren't even sure about stocks anymore, they are selling in droves | and go straight to US bonds which are even more risk averse (it's | essentially the stuff that Insurance companies are required to | hold by law to secure their premiums because the risk of default | of US Federal govt is essentially zero) | | Of course there is crypto that is a casino, still it could be | argued that investing in an asset with a marketcap of 1T dollar | however new and unproven is still more risk averse than starting | your own business. | Apocryphon wrote: | > Back in the days when interest rates went down, people | started new businesses or expanded those they already owned at | a huge pace. I mean the population as a whole not the | businesses in the S&P500. | | Did you miss the startup boom + bubble of the past decade or | something | | > Investing in the stock market with a financial advisor | essentially buying the S&P or some other mutual fund..that's | way less risky than starting your own business. | | Increases in the cost of healthcare, housing, education, etc. | probably has something to do with the growing precariousness of | the population and less willingness to engage in risky ventures | like starting businesses. Can't blame people for wanting to | mitigating risk when the stakes are so high these days. | Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: | nkabbara wrote: | Is this a good time to start buying as everyone is | selling/panicking? | bombcar wrote: | It's always a good time to buy if you're doing dollar cost | averaging into index funds. | | Trying to time the market is probably a fools game, much better | spent trying to avoid total ruin. | nkabbara wrote: | Yup, I DCA regularly, but thinking about whether this is a | good opportunity to throw extra into an index fund like VTSAX | or maybe solid individual stocks. | | Extra would be coming from an account that I keep cash in for | unforeseen opportunities. | shrimpx wrote: | As a rule of thumb, it's better to buy when the market's in | the red than when it's doing well. As Warren Buffet said, | "keep buying it through thick and thin, and especially | through thin." (He was referring to an S&P 500 index fund.) | 1270018080 wrote: | You should be buying index funds with a portion of every | paycheck | scollet wrote: | Shouldn't you do this in a bull? | vineyardmike wrote: | You always do it so you don't have to question the timing. | If you do it during a bill, you're waiting until the price | is going up. Doing it during a bear gets you when the price | is going down. Buy low sell high and all that jazz. | scollet wrote: | I should have included "also". | WalterGR wrote: | In a bull market you get things for cheap, with the | expectation that the bull market will end long enough | before your retirement that those assets will increase in | value. You basically bought those assets at a discount. | Bonus! | | Closer to retirement, you wouldn't want to take on that | much risk, so you'd move (over time, as you get closer to | retirement) to more stable investments. Target-date mutual | funds[0] do this automatically. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_date_fund | olivermarks wrote: | The problem I have with the Economist these days - they've | changed a lot recently as has the Financial Times - is that they | are one of the big cheerleaders for creating bubbles out of tech | they clearly don't understand. This starves the startups that | have compelling and reachable business models and goals because | the funding goes to (quite possibly financially scammy) moonshots | with vague goals somewhere over the horizon. | | Uber is a good example of this: | | https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/famous-compani.... | | But because the scam worked and they managed to get publicly | listed (how did that happen?! Publications like the Economist | should have provided more cautions...) the gravy train rolls on. | | The sooner we get back to a 'Web 2.0' era like 2008> on the | sooner genuine innovation will be funded again. | burkaman wrote: | Searching for "uber" in the Economist archive, I would not | classify their coverage as "cheerleading" or even positive. | Most articles seem either neutral or negative, including | headlines like "Can Uber ever make money?" | | I would also be interested to see examples of the problem | you're describing. | bdcravens wrote: | I don't think Uber qualifies as "tech they clearly don't | understand". Uber is certainly a company with issues, but | it's a clear problem they are solving, adding automation to | an industry that's very old. | photochemsyn wrote: | Uber only still exists because the Saudis dumped $5 billion | into them. | bdcravens wrote: | Sure. I'm not arguing that it's a good business, but it's | a simple business, no matter what tech they have backing | them. Today's bubble is marked by a lot of Defi/Web 3.0 | silliness. | Ekaros wrote: | Yeah problem is pretty clear. And they did provide | something. | | Real question just like with food delivery is that is there | margin there for an big player to exist? Or an expensive | player? Paying people to offer singular service is not | cheap. And then you have cost of vehicles as well... | biorach wrote: | I'm a regular Economist reader and I really don't recall them | cheerleading any tech bubbles. Got some examples? | maigret wrote: | The Economist was of the few publications to investigate "what | if" before Brexit while almost all others dismissed that | scenario. They might not be perfect but they try and they | investigate. | lamontcg wrote: | > The sooner we get back to a 'Web 2.0' era like 2008> on the | sooner genuine innovation will be funded again. | | I'd argue it broke in the 90s and we need to go back much | further. | olivermarks wrote: | 90's was complete green fields, it's all been very | overcrowded since the dot com recovery but I still agree | gowld wrote: | > they are one of the big cheerleaders for creating bubbles | | Can you share an example? | olivermarks wrote: | https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/08/20/the-ipo-is- | bein... | | The E runs plenty of cautionary articles and they are good at | hindsight | | https://www.economist.com/business/uber-doordash-and- | similar... | | But aren't exactly leading the charge against financial | corruption imo | bobro wrote: | So do you have examples of cheerleading or what? | YuukiRey wrote: | The second article has the following subtitle: | | > The mania over ride-sharing and delivery companies has at | times been absurd | | and closes with these words | | > In the flywheel economy hope and hype spring eternal, at | least as long as interest rates remain low and capital is | essentially free. | | Hardly an example of what you accused the newspaper of. | nouveaux wrote: | Can you explain to me why these two articles represent | Economists being the big cheerleaders for creating bubbles? | I read both articles and I'm not sure what I am missing. | [deleted] | greyhair wrote: | Oddly enough, the best time to bootstrap a brand new startup is | just at the tail end of a crunch. I see a bunch of early startups | popping up by the end of October. | biohax2015 wrote: | It's been fun y'all. Time to apply to medical school I guess. | raphar wrote: | https://archive.is/qziMw | mmaunder wrote: | Posted a few comments here re fundamentals. Wanted to add this | excellent recent interview with Jamie Dimon discussing the | realities of our current environment to help you get a sense of | our current environment. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-5US4J03Wo | | Edit: There are incredible little nuggets of fundamental | financial wisdom in this conversation. Responding to whether | crypto is a hedge against inflation: "The higher inflation goes, | the higher the cost of holding an asset that doesn't produce | anything." | [deleted] | hiram112 wrote: | I've grown anxious the past few years watching salaries skyrocket | while I've played it safe, remaining at my company with years of | seniority, but average pay that has been eaten away by COL and | inflation increases, though in a very stable industry related to | defense. | | Every time I got the urge to hit Leetcode and start interviewing | for a new gig with a 50% pay increase, I remember 2007-2009 and | getting laid off from 3 different companies as the economy | imploded. And it's hard to remember now, but things never really | felt truly safe, even with in-demand tech skills, until 2016 or | so, when suddenly recruiter email started really exploding with | competitive offers. | | Watching the market cool down leads me to believe we're going | into another downturn, and I'm becoming more confident I made a | good bet by not jumping ship in the last year or two. | askafriend wrote: | > Watching the market cool down leads me to believe we're going | into another downturn, and I'm becoming more confident I made a | good bet by not jumping ship in the last year or two. | | It just seems like you're afraid of making a change, and now | you've found a new justification to keep avoiding discomfort. | | The reality is, there are tons of good companies out there and | they will pay $350-400k for senior engineers even in this | current market. But go ahead and tell yourself that you made | the right decision to do nothing. | gigantosaurus1 wrote: | There are companies that are arguably what I'd consider | recession proof, offering 400-600k for fully remote senior / | staff roles with very reasonable WLB. Including GOOG / MSFT / | AMZN. They're not laying people off / nor are they going | anywhere for the foreseeable future. | shrimpx wrote: | It's probably a good time to get a job, because the stock | package will be in terms of today's depressed stock prices. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-13 23:00 UTC)