Investor Warns of "Trouble" for Startups, Possibly Not a Bubble Burst

A disagreement of at least modest proportions about whether we are in yet another Internet bubble has popped up now and again over the last couple of years. Facebook's initial public offering and the valuations of social software firms with zero revenues are contributing to the questions. 


Paul Graham, cofounder of Silicon Valley's most important startup incubator, Y Combinator, has sent an email to portfolio companies warning them "bad times" may be ahead, according to Business Insider.


"The bad performance of the Facebook IPO will hurt the funding market for earlier stage startups," he says. To be sure, that does not mean we have been in a bubble, only that Graham thinks valuations are overdone.


The problem is that "no one knows yet how much" valuations are too high. "Possibly only a little," he says. But  also "possibly a lot, if it becomes a vicious circle." 


That "everyone" does not agree, and given that valuations have not yet demonstrably collapsed, across the board, means we still can't say whether the recent Internet investment climate is a bubble or not. One never knows until afterwards. 


That we still aren't sure means any potential bubble has not yet burst. The other issue is whether the effects of any possible bubble can be confined only to the software and application business, or whether the impact will be economy wide. As destructive as the popping of the Internet bubble was in 2001, it did not have equally destructive force outside of telecom and Internet circles. 


Excess liquidity, which most observers would say characterizes the global economy, generally is part of the problem. Investors cannot find attractive places to invest startup capital, so lots of companies that shouldn't be funded, get funded. 


Remember the Internet bubble? In retrospect, there was a reason competitive local exchange carrier startup executives virtually universally were told to get big, fast, leading to what you might call over-funding of the firms that got backing. 


The reason firms that might have succeeded with their original, smaller business plans were "forced" to come up with bigger plans had nothing to do with the opportunity as such. The problem was mechanical. 


Investment firms were awash with cash, and had to deploy it. Faced with a relative dearth of "good" places to put all that cash, they preferred to place a smaller number of bigger bets, rather than many small bets, because that was a better way to deploy available investment funds.


"Use it or lose it," in other words, became a reason for firms to make funding decisions that ultimately destroyed what many estimate was a trillion dollars worth of investment. For surviving telecom firms, you can see what happened to valuations.