Current AI-driven equity valuations are not a repeat of the 1990s dot-com bubble because of fundamentally stronger companies. Today's major index components have net margins around 14%, compared to just 8% during the 90s bubble. This superior profitability and cash flow, along with a favorable policy backdrop, supports higher multiples.
Related Insights
Today's massive AI company valuations are based on market sentiment ("vibes") and debt-fueled speculation, not fundamentals, just like the 1999 internet bubble. The market will likely crash when confidence breaks, long before AI's full potential is realized, wiping out many companies but creating immense wealth for those holding the survivors.
Despite bubble fears, Nvidia’s record earnings signal a virtuous cycle. The real long-term growth is not just from model training but from the coming explosion in inference demand required for AI agents, robotics, and multimodal AI integrated into every device and application.
Current AI investment patterns mirror the "round-tripping" seen in the late '90s tech bubble. For example, NVIDIA invests billions in a startup like OpenAI, which then uses that capital to purchase NVIDIA chips. This creates an illusion of demand and inflated valuations, masking the lack of real, external customer revenue.
Vincap International's CIO argues the AI market isn't a classic bubble. Unlike previous tech cycles, the installation phase (building infrastructure) is happening concurrently with the deployment phase (mass user adoption). This unique paradigm shift is driving real revenue and growth that supports high valuations.
Current market multiples appear rich compared to history, but this view may be shortsighted. The long-term earnings potential unleashed by AI, combined with a higher-quality market composition, could make today's valuations seem artificially high ahead of a major earnings inflection.
This AI cycle is distinct from the dot-com bubble because its leaders generate massive free cash flow, buy back stock, and pay dividends. This financial strength contrasts sharply with the pre-revenue, unprofitable companies that fueled the 1999 market, suggesting a more stable, if exuberant, foundation.
The risk of an AI bubble bursting is a long-term, multi-year concern, not an imminent threat. The current phase is about massive infrastructure buildout by cash-rich giants, similar to the early 1990s fiber optic boom. The “moment of truth” regarding profitability and a potential bust is likely years away.
Current AI spending appears bubble-like, but it's not propping up unprofitable operations. Inference is already profitable. The immense cash burn is a deliberate, forward-looking investment in developing future, more powerful models, not a sign of a failing business model. This re-frames the financial risk.
Unlike the dot-com era funded by high-risk venture capital, the current AI boom is financed by deep-pocketed, profitable hyperscalers. Their low cost of capital and ability to absorb missteps make this cycle more tolerant of setbacks, potentially prolonging the investment phase before a shakeout.
Traditional SaaS metrics like 80%+ gross margins are misleading for AI companies. High inference costs lower margins, but if the absolute gross profit per customer is multiples higher than a SaaS equivalent, it's a superior business. The focus should shift from margin percentages to absolute gross profit dollars and multiples.
