Subscribe

Resources

« No Gambling Online! Just Everywhere Else | Main | GooTube Signs More Deals; Viacom NBC Get Lonelier »

February 28, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451656f69e200d834e82cd953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Market Crash = End of Web 2.0?:

» Vicodin. from Vicodin es.
Vicodin hp. Vicodin abuse. Vicodin user message board. Vicodin. Vicodin without prescription. Detox vicodin. Abuse of vicodin. Effects of vicodin. [Read More]

Comments

King Troll


Henry how do I take a company public bro? How big should my company be? You know I have the retail stores. I have 5 now with $2mill in sales. Net income is about 8-10%. Can I go public if I had 15-20 stores? $5 mill + /year in revenue, zero debt. I know that's not much but I could use the money for acquisitions like those fuckers from American Apparel. There was an article in Fortune about something called a PAC or some shit.

Victor

Boohoo, there was a market "crash" of a few percent. Relative to the unremitting bull market we've seen over the last 3-4 years, this is nothing but a blip. The S&P hadn't had such a long run without a 2% correction in its entire history. So let's just keep things in perspective, shall we? We're still in a secular bull market and as much as the bears would like to find baleful signs in the financial runes, there really isn't too much too fear right now.

Things will get scary if the Democrats are able to take full control of government and ratchet taxes back up and impose universal health care on the country.

C. Fischer

Victor,

Not to turn this into a political debate, but that fear of the Democrats ratcheting taxes back up (where they rightly need to be to balance the current account) probably would be less of an issue if the current administration hadn't raised the debt by 3 Trillion or so by giving huge tax breaks to the upper 1% and startimh an unnecessary war that we won't be done paying for for a long time. Buying tons of foreign oil to fuel SUV's for soccer moms with a devalued dollar I don't think is helping the situation either, and I think that one is hard to pin on the Democrats as well.

PS, I'm a Republican.

Victor

C.Fischer, deficits are not a problem per se. They are only a problem to the extent that growth isn't sufficient to match payments. There's absolutely nothing wrong with running a deficit. Running a massive deficit is a bad idea, I agree, but the right way to solve that problem is to pare spending, not to raise taxes.

ps Saying you're Republican means nothing these days. Republicans were even more profligate than Democrats in the last few Congresses. Saying you're a small-government conservative, as opposed to a social conservative would be a bit more encouraging.

sigma

Henry, Henry, Henry, you're making a really big mistake, perhaps understandable for parts of Wall Street but wildly wrong for venture capital and Web 2.0 entrepreneurs.

Sure, if on Wall Street believe the W. Sharpe Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and believe the 'efficient market hypothesis' (EMH) that everyone has all the information and that it is used appropriately in the market instantaneously or some such, then a 'sector' such as Web 2.0 can be meaningful. That is, there really can be some reason for the market to regard all the Web 2.0 companies as related.

But, for venture capital and Web 2.0 entrepreneurs, the context and assumptions of the CAPM and the EMH clearly are wildly wrong! Instead, there is a very 'illiquid' market with a lot of information known only to the entrepreneurs and their venture backers. Then, GIVEN that information, that in addition the company is in Web 2.0 is next to useless (recall Radon-Nikodym and Markov).

So, the Web 2.0 entrepreneurs and their (informed and wise) venture backers will charge forward one business plan at a time. In brief, good plans should get funded and bad ones shouldn't, and either way Web 2.0 will be nearly irrelevant.

If the companies reach Wall Street, then, sure, apply the CAPM and EMH and pay attention to the Web 2.0 'sector'.

Yes, it may be that some venture general and limited partners do not understand this point, either, but YOU should!

Henry Blodget

The theory that a public market crash will have a dampening impact on VC investments has nothing to do with the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It's just an observation that when it gets harder to make 100x your money, VCs tend to be more careful about how much they invest and what they invest it in. We saw this in spades back in 2000-2003. I doubt it will be as harsh this time, but there will certainly be some correlation.

Rick

It feels JUST like March of 2000.

sigma

"The theory that a public market crash will have a dampening impact on VC investments has nothing to do with the Efficient Market Hypothesis."

Of course.

The EMH is meaningful on Wall Street.

But you concentrated on the 'venture sector' of Web 2.0, and, given what venture investing is doing, e.g., from a "public market crash", that Web 2.0 is a 'sector' has nothing to do with venture investing in Web 2.0 companies. That is, in venture investing, given the details of a business plan, 'sector' doesn't mean much.

Again, 'sector' means much less in ventures than in public equities.

sohbet

thanks admin good post

sohbet-askalemi
-knuddels

Chat

masal mirc sohbet siteleri Sohbet chat Chat

jimb12345

I agree with you so much. The market was overvalued for a long time. This was the downfall.
orlando accident lawyers

Network

Thanks for sharing.
Egitim exsohbet Chat Chat

Sohbetizm.wordpress.com

Mynet Sohbet | Mynet Sohbet | Mynet Sohbet | hayat sana güzel admin ne yapalim işte takılıyok kendi çapımızda :D

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsored by

Sponsors