re: I’m selling everything tomorrow Friday June 12 2026

quote:

---

Those bubbles didn’t have 3 years of guaranteed orders like the chipmakers have.

---

Sure they did. You think companies like Cisco, Oracle, and Sun Micro didn’t have strong booked revenues? …. they got caught up in the downdraft , just like everyone else.

Excesses like Enron weren’t limited to the year 2000 …. forewarned is forarmed ….

quote:

---

Sun Micro didn’t have strong booked revenues? …. they got caught up in the downdraft , just like everyone else. Excesses like Enron weren’t limited to the year 2000 …. forewarned is forarmed ….

---

Don’t be a !!!

MARKET DYNAMICS: 1999 VS. 2026

The comparison between technology sector valuations in the first quarter of 1999 and the first quarter of 2026 reveals a fundamental shift in how markets value growth. In 1999, the technology sector was defined by speculative fervor, where future potential often outpaced current financial reality. In 2026, the sector is characterized by massive, self-funded capital deployment driven by artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure.

I. THE 1999 LANDSCAPE: SPECULATION AND CAPITAL DEPLETION
At the end of the first quarter of 1999, the market was in the midst of the dot-com bubble. Tech companies were valued on revenue growth and "eyeballs" rather than profitability or cash generation.

TOP PLAYERS: The dominant tech companies included Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Intel, Oracle, and Dell.

VALUATION METRICS: Investors prioritized price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios, which were often stretched to extreme levels. Free cash flow (FCF) was frequently negative or secondary to top-line growth.

FUNDING STRUCTURE: Many companies relied heavily on external capital markets. Tech sector capital expenditure (capex) was largely underwritten through debt and equity issuance, as these companies lacked the internal cash reserves to fund their aggressive growth and infrastructure buildouts.

PRICE TO FCF: Because many high-growth companies in 1999 were burning cash, a Price-to-FCF ratio was often effectively infinite, negative, or irrelevant for many of the period's market leaders. Where it did exist for profitable giants like Microsoft, it commanded a significant premium, but for the broader "tech" index, valuations were not grounded in cash generation.

II. THE 2026 LANDSCAPE: CASH FLOW AND FUNDAMENTAL GROWTH
By the first quarter of 2026, the technology landscape has matured into a profit-generating engine. While market valuations remain high, they are increasingly scrutinized against tangible cash flow.

TOP PLAYERS: The sector is led by Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Broadcom.

VALUATION METRICS: The market is increasingly focused on Price-to-FCF as a key indicator of sustainability. Unlike the 1999 era, where growth was fueled by external capital, today’s leaders are "cash-flow-funded."

FUNDING STRUCTURE: The tech sector’s aggregate capex spending is significantly lower as a percentage of FCF (often under 40%) compared to the mid-1990s peak (which reached approximately 67%). Companies like Microsoft and Apple utilize their massive, internally generated FCF to fund the massive AI infrastructure buildout without excessive reliance on debt.

PRICE TO FCF: Current multiples for the top tech companies, while high by historical standards, are tethered to consistent, massive, and recurring cash flows. Analysts argue that these companies are "growing into the multiple" through EPS growth and operational efficiency rather than purely speculative expansion.

III. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
The core difference in the Price-to-FCF comparison between these two eras is the source of value.

1999: Valuation was forward-looking and speculative. The Price-to-FCF metric was often ignored because cash flow was either non-existent or insufficient to support the companies' expansion plans. The market was paying for the *promise* of a digital future.

2026: Valuation is grounded in operational performance. The Price-to-FCF metric serves as a critical valuation tool because the companies are actually generating the cash they require to expand. The market is paying for the *dominance* of an existing infrastructure.
The primary takeaway for investors today is that while tech valuations may look high, the fundamental engine driving them is markedly different from the dot-com era.

In 1999, high multiples were a reflection of hope; in 2026, they are a reflection of high-margin, cash-generative scale.

quote:

---

How about capex investment (real assets)? Dot com was primarily opex / software engineering. AI processor, data centers, connectivity assets are very different, no?

Enron was booking PV of future and long term cash flow from contracts as current year revenue. It was BS.

---

Tell me about it. I was in the data center /infrastructure business in DC during the late 90's and into 2000. We had a run rate of $600M when we were bought by Worldcom.

Cisco and Sun Microsystems drove server sales back then, and we managed a butload of servers for Fortune 50 companies. Big, highly-secure, DoD compliant data centers.

Typical lead time for servers then was 12 months out, not counting the build.time ... and we were one of Cisco's largest partners at the time.

But not even during the dot.com was the market as overvalued is it is right now ... and the current Schiller CAPE Ratio paints a pretty clear picture, IMO.

Just my dos centavo$

quote:

---

Micron is a good stock to own at $60. It’s an unbelievable stock to sell at $1,000. Semis will never stop being cyclical. Chips are a commodity. Supply/Demand. There’s no marginal value here. And when you understand it’s been the SOXX driving up the entire market- a cyclical commodity - you’d have to be insane to not sell. Go look at a chart of Moderna to see how when one product is scarce and in great demand, earnings/price of the company making that product go sky high. When more supply comes on and demand weakens, it crashes. The Covid vaccine stocks were the same euphoric bubble that Semis are in now. It never lasts. It can’t. Look at the margin compression of SMCI too. Same thing is gonna happen to MU, WDC. Sandisk. Keeping you money invested in these tells me you are only looking 1 day in advance,not 2 years. I look 2 years

---

Hat tip on this call. Time it near perfection.

quote:

---

Lot of dumb money on here. Chasing absolute nonsense.

---

Yet here you are...

quote:

---

You spam this board nonstop finding stocks that have already went up 400%, and when you find them then trying to push more in instead of taking profits.

---

That’s total bull shite.

I typically don’t post anything that I don’t think has a quality set up.

There’s also a difference in merely starting a topic on a stock vs. saying “I have NBIS level conviction in this name.

But the real question is, why are you so mad?

quote:

---

JoeyP239

---