Hacker News Reader

Comment by flyGuyOnTheSly | Hacker News Reader

33% of that $150B came to him in 2018 alone (he started the year around $100B) and some people still claim that "we're not in a bubble".

View on HN

I don't see how the wealth of one person, who's wealth is mainly shares in probably the most successful company in the US right now, indicates that we are in a bubble.

The guy made 100k$ off of each of his workers while abusing them this year alone, it is fucking outrageous.

He didn't "make" it off them. This isn't from profit that he just didn't share with his workers, it's just the current market value of his stock holdings.

Which means it's paper wealth. Which means there's no way he could turn any significant fraction of that into USD or any other form of value without obliterating the value.

This is a really important point I think many people are missing: >96% of his wealth is tied up in AMZN stock.

https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/jeffrey-p-be...

I've moved many of my tech investments into Amazon b/c of the steady track record and stable trajectory of good decision making and execution.

If the economy tanks, it makes Amazon's review data and free shipping even more valuable. If I'm strapped for cash I'm less likely to walk into a retailer and pay top dollar for something with no reviews.

A bubble in what though? Amazon stock?

Every single risk asset. Bonds (lowest yields in recorded history including negative sovereigns in europe), stocks (price-to-sales, price-to-ebidta, & countless other measures), art, housing prices back at nominal pre bubble highs, leverage in margin accounts, public debt, central bank balance sheets, etc. That was just from the back of my mouth. Not only is it a bubble but it's quite possibly the largest & most systemic one ever since so much risk has been shifted to the sovereign & central banking balance sheets.

Don't forget higher education.

I agree that based on historical prices, a large number of assets appear to be at the high end of valuation, but I don't know if it is already correct to call that a "bubble".

I prefer the Cliff Asness bubble definition, "the term bubble should indicate a price that no reasonable future outcome can justify."

Looking at a lot of those markets, it is definitely possible to see future outcomes that make the current prices justified.

The stock market? After the tax cuts, Shiller P/E is on the low side of the 20s now. With another few years of solid earnings growth, there's definitely a possibility of justifying these prices.

The bond market? Look at 90s Japan. That could easily justify those possibilities.

Art and real estate? We have more rich people who want to have their capital flee countries like Russia/China than ever. That is a trend likely to continue.

So I'd refrain from using "bubble". Valuations are stretched, but not absurdly so.

they don't ring a bell at the top. i reiterate this is the largest & most systemic of all bubbles of all time.

Everything doesn't "pop" though. I agree that we should expect lower longterm returns over the next few years. However, the difference between the NASDAQ in 2000 and "we expect the average annual return on the S&P 500 to be 4% for the next ten years"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com