Historical bubbles, like the dot-com era, occur only when everyone capitulates and believes prices can only go up. According to Ben Horowitz, the constant debate and anxiety about a potential AI bubble is paradoxically the strongest evidence that the market has not yet reached the required state of collective delusion.
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.
A true bubble, like the dot-com crash, involves stock prices falling over 50% and staying depressed for years, with capital infusion dropping similarly. Short-term market corrections don't meet this historical definition. The current AI boom, despite frothiness, doesn't exhibit these signs yet.
Despite a massive tech stock run-up, key sentiment indicators and surveys of major asset allocators show caution, not the extreme bullishness seen in bubbles like the dot-com era. This suggests the market may not be at its absolute peak yet.
A true market bubble is a psychological phenomenon requiring near-universal belief that it isn't a bubble. The fact that so many people are actively questioning whether AI is in a bubble indicates the market has not reached the necessary state of widespread 'capitulation' from skeptics.
Widespread public debate about whether a market is in a bubble is evidence that it is not. A true financial bubble requires capitulation, where nearly everyone believes the high valuations are justified and the skepticism disappears. As long as there are many vocal doubters, the market has not reached the euphoric peak that precedes a crash.
During the dot-com era, savvy investors recognized they were in a bubble but termed it an "iron bubble," believing it would persist. Bailing out too early was a greater risk than riding it to the end, as it meant missing out on significant late-stage gains. This mindset is relevant for navigating today's AI boom.
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.
Despite AI hype, market valuations haven't reached dot-com era levels. This restraint is largely due to negative macroeconomic factors like trade wars, high interest rates, and a weak labor market, which are acting as a brake on otherwise rampant investor enthusiasm.
The AI narrative has evolved beyond tech circles to family Thanksgiving discussions. The focus is no longer on the technology's capabilities but on its financial implications, such as its impact on 401(k)s. This signals a maturation of the hype cycle where public consciousness is now dominated by market speculation.
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.