Remix.run Logo
aurareturn 21 hours ago

Throughout the “AI bubble” talk in 2024 and 2025, I consistently argued that we were nowhere near the peak of the AI bubble. So far, that view has held up, as valuations are significantly higher today than they were in 2024 and 2025.

If you look at the way the dotcom bubble unfolded, dotcom didn't take off until after Netscape IPOed in 1995. The market had 5 more years of growth until the collapse. And even after collapse, the Nasdaq was 2x higher post pop than in 1995.

If history repeats itself, the stock market will take off after OpenAI and/or Anthropic IPOs. Be scared when random AI companies IPO with bad ideas and no revenue.

My posts on AI bubble over the years:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40739829

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43385830

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47035647

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46241944

sph 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> If history repeats itself, the stock market will take off after OpenAI and/or Anthropic IPOs. Be scared when random AI companies IPO with bad ideas and no revenue.

"Be fearful when others are greedy" — Warren Buffett

If this isn't a greedy market, I don't know what is. Also what does it mean for the stock market to 'take off' when it's been doing ATHs for a while despite the geopolitical turmoil? Even /r/wallstreetbets has more sensible takes than this.

nostrademons 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Companies IPO'd at an earlier stage of development in the days before Sarbanes-Oxley. Netscape was a 16-month-old startup when it IPO'd. It had about 250 employees. It had raised a total $27M in venture capital then, and then raised a few hundred million in the IPO itself, which gave it a total valuation of $2.9B. It had $16M in revenue and no earnings.

OpenAI is 10 years old. It has about 4500 employees. It's raised about $180B in capital, and has a valuation of roughly $900B on about $25B in revenue. Anthropic is 5 years old. It also has around 3000-5000 employees. It will have raised about $120-140B in capital, at a $900B valuation, on about $30-45B in revenue.

In the 80s and 90s companies IPO'd to actually raise growth capital - the public markets provided the money they needed to invest and expand, and then public investors reaped the benefits of their success, or paid the price of their failure. In the 2010s and 2020s companies grow with private capital, which has fewer strings attached, and then they unload the shares on the public market when they reach the top of their growth curve, leaving the public holding the bag.

ac29 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> they unload the shares on the public market when they reach the top of their growth curve, leaving the public holding the bag

There are definitely some dogs that IPOd and went straight down, but investing in the broad stock market has absolutely not been a bag holding experience in the past decade+

nostrademons 16 hours ago | parent [-]

At issue here is specifically the AI bubble, though, not the broad market.

rakel_rakel 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Be scared when random AI companies IPO with bad ideas and no revenue.

Shouldn't we at least be a little bit scared already when shoe companies pivot to AI and their stock goes up ~750%?

CodingJeebus 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think we're a lot closer to the peak than when Netscape IPO'd relative to the dotcom bust for a few reasons:

* big banks are trying to get out of their data center loan commitments, even selling that debt at a discount. From the article:

> According to the Financial Times, major lenders are already scrambling to offload pieces of massive data center loans through private transactions, risk transfers and synthetic structures. The reason is simple. AI infrastructure borrowing is reaching sizes that are beginning to choke the arteries of the financial system itself.

* there are real questions about long-term liquidity and capital capacity across the entire VC ecosystem. Ed Zitron estimates that the available capital for all technology VC funds will be fully exhausted within roughly two years if current spending levels hold steady. More money has been spent on AI in the last decade than the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Space Program and the US highway system combined[1]

* short-term success of these new data centers coming online is heavily reliant on steady fuel prices since hooking up to the grid can take years and many burn diesel generators while waiting for grid access. If the war in Iran drags on, high fuel prices will continue to ratchet up the cost of data center operations.

* public sentiment around the economy was largely positive heading into the collapse, whereas we've been in fairly consistent state of economic uncertainty for years now. Affordability was not a topic of conversation back then and a majority of Americans are unhappy with the direction of the economy in 2026.

0: https://www.investing.com/analysis/the-ai-boom-is-starting-t...

1: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/19/visualising-ai-spen...

disgruntledphd2 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> * big banks are trying to get out of their data center loan commitments, even selling that debt at a discount. From the article:

This isn't necessarily a sign that they don't believe in the data centre loans, it's more than banks are basically required to avoid concentrated risk, because of the regulations we (mostly correctly) imposed upon them post GFC.

Now, personally I'm not convinced there's enough demand for AI services that these datacentres make sense, but we'll see I guess.

CodingJeebus 19 hours ago | parent [-]

This just isn't true. Banks never offload commercial debt to non-bank entities at a discount unless they're under financial duress or they believe the loss is worth more than keeping the debt on the books.

disgruntledphd2 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Concentration requirements can apparently cause this.

Let me dig up the FT article I read about this.

Here's the article: https://www.ft.com/content/08aba5e4-5834-4e79-a48d-989a2c5ba...

And this quote:

> Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://help.ft.com/faq/gifting-and-sharing-an-article/what-.... https://www.ft.com/content/08aba5e4-5834-4e79-a48d-989a2c5ba...

> Investors expect more such moves as banks come up against risk limits that restrict their exposure to individual borrowers or sectors, and seek to free up balance sheet for more lending.

yCombLinks 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Eh, at the beginning of 1995 the Nasdaq PE ratio was about 17.5. The current Nasdaq PE bounces around 33. During the dotcom bubble that would be the early 1998 timeframe.

wcvwc 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

protimewaster 20 hours ago | parent [-]

If someone comes in and points out a bunch of valid similarities, are you going to start being nice, or are you just going to call that person's ideas stupid too?