Is Silicon Valley in a new bubble? (poll)

The New York Times ran a page one story today about how Silicon Valley appears to be in the midst of a new bubble, driven by the enthusiasm that venture capitalists and angels have for social networking and mobile apps businesses.

It cited the recent reports about how Twitter’s value has been pegged at $4 billion in its rumored round of investment. The story also pointed to the more than $5 billion valuation of Zynga, the creator of social games such as FarmVille on Facebook. And it pointed to Google’s willingness to pay $6 billion for Groupon, which was valued at $1.35 billion only eight months ago. Groupon evidently rejected the offer on Friday because it believes it is worth more.

Other signs, the newspaper said: A new pack of startups are coming in behind: Yammer raised $25 million; Tumblr raised $30 million; GroupMe raised $9 million; and Path raised $2.5 million. Those deals are causing some bearish investors to shake their heads.

The topic of a reinflating bubble has become a popular one at recent events such as the Web 2.0 Summit before Thanksgiving. There, John Doerr, managing director at VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said he believes we are in the midst of another tech boom driven by the vast changes in society caused by social networking and mobile technology. Bing Gordon, a partner at Kleiner Perkins, said that the firm hired Wall Street analyst Mary Meeker as part of an attempt to stay on top of the coming internet boom.

Fred Wilson, who was quoted in the New York Times story, wants to throw cold water on the froth. A partner at Union Square Ventures, Wilson had the foresight to invest in Twitter when Kleiner Perkins made the mistake of failing to do so (forcing Kleiner to try to invest now at a much higher valuation). He said in a debate with Doerr at the Web 2.0 Summit that we’re in the midst of a bubble. Angel investor Chris Sacca was also quoted in the Times as saying he has put a freeze on investments until startup valuations come down.

But the paper notes this is not a stock market bubble, since none of the companies mentioned have gone public. They’re raising big rounds from venture capitalists. Then they raise even larger secondary rounds from big private equity investors such as DST. Those investments allow them to keep growing their businesses without going public. And the outcome for many of these companies is to be acquired by the likes of Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Google, or Apple. Those companies are sitting on mountains of cash. If the stock market crashes, those acquirers will be hurt as will the valuations of startups, but the acquisitions will probably continue.

Another difference is that in the age of Web 2.0, web-based companies are able to amass audiences very quickly — Zynga has more than 215 million monthly active users for its games even though it is just shy of four years old — and become profitable early on. By contrast, startups such as Pets.com in the frothy days of the dotcom bubble had no chance of making money. Angel investors are feeling the heat because they are getting priced out of a lot of early-stage deals as venture capitalists try harder to find “the next Facebook” earlier.

Which side of the fence are you on? The bears may eventually be right. But they may also miss out on a lot of money-making in the meantime if they sit on the sidelines of this latest gold rush. Please take our poll and comment on why you voted the way you did.

Online Surveys – Zoomerang.com

Topics:

, ,
  • Matt Marshall

    Got to be kidding. No bubble. All of these companies have real business models, revenues and many of them have profits.

  • http://venturebeat.com deantak

    Well, that's the opinion of Matt Marshall, who is so far deep inside the reality-distortion field of Silicon Valley that he can't tell if he's in a bubble or a boom. Doesn't anyone else have an opinion?

  • pendolino

    so a handful of companies get bought out for billions but where are the stats on the thousands of others starting small and growing? just because there's an Apple and an IBM doesn't mean all other public tech companies are comparable.

  • http://ucentric.org ϋCentric

    Definitely a bubble with all the classic signs.Arrington and TechCrunch are irresponsibly hyping the bubble as hard as they can and are now blocking commentors who voiced opinions of concern.Serious financial circle are laughing at these 'valuations' and back-dooring of Facebook.We call for full disclosure from Facebook for another share is traded in this unlisted company. Were are the regulators?

  • http://twitter.com/SuperAffiliate David Wilkinson

    I assume you mean 5 BILLION price for Zynga, not 5 million? Google invested $100mil in them a few months back, so unless I'm missing something… O_o

  • http://x.co/EGXP NEW DomainersGate.com from $29

    no, because (e.g.) Facebook has a very large user base while the 2000-bubble's sites was just some domain names, or a bit more

  • http://twitter.com/rodolfor Rodolfo Rosini

    “Another difference is that in the age of Web 2.0, web-based companies are able to LOSE audiences very quickly — Zynga used to have over 300 million monthly active users and now the number is less than 200 – and shrinking every day”Fixed.Assuming that the number of web 2.0 services one uses can only marginally increase, then every new widget user must have come from somewhere else. Especially true for services who target early tech adopters in the Bay Area. Mors tua vita mea.

  • rshair

    Hey Dean, Regardless of whether you're a tech company, a retail outfit or a fruit stand, the bottom line is always this: what is your product , who are your customers, and what price are they willing to pay for it (and why)?. Basic ABC's of business.Looking at Twitter under this microscope…Just recently the Telegraph interviewed Costolo and asked him about the long term vision for Twitter and he was quoted as saying “I am working on clarity around that at the moment. I am currently trying to define what Twitter’s purpose is in the long term. We will be able to be more specific on that answer in the near future.” Later in the article Dorsey is quoted saying this: “It is hard to speak about Twitter’s vision without factoring in how much of its purpose has been defined by it's users.”Twitter doesn't really know what it's products are (because users, not Twitter, have actually developed many of their products), doesn't really have a firm handle on who their customer is and don't know what customers are willing to pay (if anything at all) for what Twitter provides. This doesn't sound like a solid business structure is really in place. It's propped up by investors not marketplace demands that are actually PAYING for what Twitter provides. How many other tech companies are like this?Answer that question and that will determine if there is a bubble or not.

  • http://twitter.com/conceptlen Len Bland (Business)

    How can we be in a bubble when fewer investments are made from VC and Angels? Perhaps a few high profile properties are overbid, but there is still a shortage of capital for earlier stage opportunities with good value propositions.

  • http://www.dwayneflinchum.com Dwayne Flinchum

    @DwayneFlinchum Bubble 2.0: Can you say I.P.O.? ttp://bit.ly/iehKnF

blog comments powered by Disqus