Despite concerns about an AI bubble, today's valuations are more grounded than those of the dot-com era. OpenAI's $500B valuation equates to about $650 per active user, which is below the ~$700 per monthly visitor valuation Yahoo commanded in 1999. This suggests today's metrics, while imperfect, are less speculative than the historical "eyeballs" standard.
Related Insights
While the current AI-driven market feels similar to the late 90s, a key difference is the financial reality. Unlike many dot-com companies with no cash flow, today's tech giants like NVIDIA and Microsoft have massive, undeniable revenues and established customer bases, making valuations more defensible.
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.
Unlike the leverage-fueled dot-com bubble, the current AI build-out is funded by the massive cash reserves of big tech companies. This fundamental difference in financing suggests a more stable, albeit still frenzied, growth cycle with lower P/E ratios.
Michael Burry's comparison of OpenAI to Netscape is apt regarding market share erosion due to intense competition. However, the AI market is expanding exponentially. Unlike the browser market of the 90s, OpenAI can lose market share percentage yet still see massive absolute revenue and usage growth.
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.
Contrary to common belief, the earliest AI startups often command higher relative valuations than established growth-stage AI companies, whose revenue multiples are becoming more rational and comparable to public market comps.
The current AI market resembles the early, productive phase of the dot-com era, not its speculative peak. Key indicators like reasonable big tech valuations and low leverage suggest a foundational technology shift is underway, contrasting with the market frenzy of the late 90s.
A macro strategist recalls dot-com era pitches justifying valuations with absurd scenarios like pets needing cell phones or a company's tech being understood by only three people. This level of extreme mania highlights a key difference from today's market, suggesting current hype levels are not unprecedented.
Despite an impressive $13B ARR, OpenAI is burning roughly $20B annually. To break even, the company must achieve a revenue-per-user rate comparable to Google's mature ad business. This starkly illustrates the immense scale of OpenAI's monetization challenge and the capital-intensive nature of its strategy.
