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.
Related Insights
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.
Similar to the dot-com era, the current AI investment cycle is expected to produce a high number of company failures alongside a few generational winners that create more value than ever before in venture capital history.
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.
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.
The dot-com era was not fueled by pure naivete. Many investors and professionals were fully aware that valuations were disconnected from reality. The prevailing strategy was to participate in the mania with the belief that they could sell to a "greater fool" before the inevitable bubble popped.
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.
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.
Marks argues that speculative bubbles form around 'something new' where imagination is untethered from reality. The AI boom, like the dot-com era, is based on a novel, transformative technology. This differs from past manias centered on established companies (Nifty 50) or financial engineering (subprime mortgages), making it prone to similar flights of fancy.
