Tayyab - d/acc pfp
Tayyab - d/acc
@tayyab
We need to find founders who built businesses during the 2001 crash and learn everything from them! Is Ben Horowitz on FC? Lol
5 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
mr.y pfp
mr.y
@yalamanchi.eth
No but @pmarca is! Would love to hear about the times back then? If not can someone recommend a dotcom bubble book?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
What would you like to know?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
(1) Important pattern #1: The 2000 crash was like dominos falling down from sector to sector within tech. Each sector in turn got whacked by the collapse of the one behind it until they were all wrecked, at least temporarily. None were spared.
5 replies
1 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
(2) Important pattern #2: If you look at the NASDAQ chart from 2000 to 2003, you'll see there were ~5 "false dawns" where it looked like recovery was happening, until another stage of the collapse hit.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
(3) Important pattern #3: ~Every tech CEO knew he should do a single deep layoff to prevent ongoing morale damage from subsequent layoffs. He then did an initial ~10% cut, and then ~6 more 10% cuts by the time the carnage was over.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
(4) Important pattern #4: The bottom did not come in until the demoralization was so comprehensive that the tech crash wasn't even generating news headlines anymore, it was just sad and depressing. Also, until the hotshot public stock managers of the era were fired or retired.
1 reply
1 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
(5) Important pattern #5: During the recovery, every single actual good thing that happened was painted as "TECH BUBBLE 2.0" by a histrionic press and commentator class. This continued for a full decade.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
Having said all that:
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
(A) The most important difference between then and now is that the market sizes for tech then were SO much smaller than today. ~50 million people on mainly wired narrowband Internet then, versus ~5 billion people on mainly wireless broadband Internet now.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
(B) A significant number of really important new tech companies grew during the crash, including Google, Amazon, eBay, Salesforce, and VMWare.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
(C) The 2000-2003 tech crash was the junior varsity partner of the 2000-2003 telecom crash, which was much bigger and, significantly, involved both equity and debt. Far more money was lost in telecom than tech. In retrospect, I think this colored people's view of how bad the tech crash actually was.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Warpmaster General pfp
Warpmaster General
@my
Hadn't considered this piece. Reminds me of WWI aftermath hiding the significance of deaths of the Spanish flu. But in this case, you're saying the telecom crash magnified the dotcom crash?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Marc Andreessen pfp
Marc Andreessen
@pmarca
Yes, the telecom and tech crises were intertwined and correlated, but the telecom crash was much larger in dollars.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Warpmaster General pfp
Warpmaster General
@my
Your larger point definitely holds water. I could see tech crashing because it was "telecom adjacent" in 2000. Not the case today.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction