Be careful not to splash!

The sacred word with the letter “P” is today on the lips of many who follow the developments around the services that we all use. So are we in the bubble, or not? Everyone has their own opinion on this.

Let's look at the facts: Facebook’s valuation of about $ 50 billion; Zynga worth $ 10 billion; Twitter is selling off with a bang, with an estimate of $ 4.5 billion with virtually insignificant profits - they all shine brighter than the stars in the night sky.
')
But can these objectively inflated estimates serve as the basis for a real, financial bubble that is inflated on the stock exchange and secondary securities markets?

A couple of weeks ago, Eric Schmidt, responding to questions from a Swiss Magazine correspondent about disputes over technological bubbles in the modern world, said that “very high estimates of the value of various companies in the same sector show signs of an inflating bubble.”

On the other hand, Paul Graham in one of the conversations inside Y Combinator said last week: “In the late nineties, any company even remotely associated with the hot, new and tasty word“ Web ”was rated higher simply because of this association. Today's super-ratings are more localized, and these guys definitely deserve such ratings. ”

Although the main question is still different - is there a bubble in principle? It looks like it was in the past, or does not look like, in fact, it is not so important.

One of the authors of TechCrunch shared his opinion and explained that even despite the fact that recently small angels are being pushed out of deals with super-high scores (leaving no room for small capital), there are no obvious signs that the Web 2.0 market has grown a bubble.

Perhaps so, but it is unlikely that someone will tell you about how a bubble is inflated under your feet. For one simple reason - it is made of money.

If we consider this issue in more detail, it becomes obvious that the technology sector in the United States is so actively merging with the financial sector that very soon all this will begin to resemble one business.

In the late 90s and the beginning of the two thousandth, many companies burst into open markets even if they knew that there would be no income in the next year or two after the release.

Groupon expects to be available soon, Pandora and LinkedIn have recently applied for a public listing. Other companies are also thinking about going "to the masses." Is this not a sign?

It turned out - no. In the case of those who are filling out forms today and looking for brokers, there are healthy profits and a streamlined business model, and capital is needed not for self-indulgence, but for expansion of a well-established business. Even Facebook tried to pressure the securities commission to get “release from the disclosure of internal processes”. This means that the company will remain “private” for some time. It is unlikely that you would do something like that if you are in a hurry to earn money on the explosion of a bubble?

Let it be so, but journalists still cannot deny themselves the pleasure of savoring the details when it comes to Bubbles.

Yesterday at the DEMO conference in American Palm Springs, co-founder and partner of Floodgate Funds, a man named Mike Maples asked the audience what he thinks about this. “Technology bubble? Rounded to the near future - yes. ” Recalling the words of Eric Schmidt, he also added that super-valuations annoy investors, forcing them to accept the conditions of the game and spend more money, as well as companies do not hesitate to take this money, as a result of which irreparable things can happen (read: blood).

Like Paul Graham, Mike thinks that all overvalued companies deserve it. However, clones that do not attempt to solve any problems severely destroy the common space by copying the business model and pasting it into the same space. And they have the whole problem.

How to influence it, while remaining on the cutting edge of progress and finance? Mike is inspired by the words that you need to implement risky, unconventional ideas, even if at first glance they have no practical application: “When I first invested in Twitter, before it became Twitter, people around me thought that I was crazy that fraudulent business. " Not certainly in that way.

Actually, an angel or a venture investor is a person who loses most of his money all the time and there is little that goes. But if it does, then one idea changes a lot.

As for the search for an investor, the majority of colleagues agree that the first investor should always know well when to turn and when not to panic. Such people, as a rule, have been, and feel comfortable, in practically catastrophic conditions, when everything is collapsing. You will definitely get into this situation, simply because you are a “startup”.

-
- In the footsteps of TechCrunch and Guardian