Bubble or bust? Nobody knows anything
cdixon.posterous.com
cdixon.posterous.com
First off, the incentivize structure for Sequoia is simple. They want to raise money, everything they do is based around raising more and more money.
So in 2008, when there was a chance of a depression, there were only 2 outcomes (the depression hits or no depression). If there was no depression no one cares about what you said in 2008 because everyone is making money so Sequoia can raise more money. If there is a depression Sequoia can refer back to this presentation and say, "Hey! We called it." and then they gain credibility and have an easier time raising money in a downturn.
It's a win-win for them.
Historically, there is a strong correlation between spikes in oil prices and recessions. In 2005 these guys were even wondering why a recession hadn't shown up yet - guess they spoke too soon: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el20...
But if we get the wave of mortgage, debt, and business defaults that the Fed and Treasury are trying to prevent, that angel cash bubble may feel the pinch too. They're still fighting it.
The thing is, every time there has been a bubble, one of the major arguments always presented is that well, this time it's different so the traditional measures don't apply.
In 1999 it was increased worker productivity (due to IT advances) that supposedly supported the outsized P/Es. That turned out to just be a smokescreen, of course.
It might even be argued that an excellent indicator of being in a bubble is the existence of arguments about why it's not a bubble even though it looks like one. That means you're at a stage where even the bullish market forces admit that traditional metrics do not support the increased valuations.
No one knows anything: it's true. The more I claim that I'm sure of what's going to happen, the less you should believe me. That's this guy's point. Sequoia was full of it. Downturn? Sure. Downturn with a slow recovery and soup lines for a generation? Please.