The Dot Com Bubble 💾 💿

Micro Lesson of the Week: The Dot Com Bubble

I still remember when the clock struck midnight on December 31, 1999. 

Everyone around me was caught up in the hysteria of the Y2K bug, fearing that the world's computer systems would collapse, plunging us into chaos. 

As a kid, I was more interested in the fireworks than in the tech fears of the grown-ups. Little did I know that beyond the panic of the Y2K bug, another storm was brewing, one that would come to be known as the dot-com bubble.

The dot-com bubble was, in many ways, a product of the exuberant 1990s. As the decade progressed, the internet began to move from a niche technology into the mainstream. Companies rushed to stake their claim on the World Wide Web, and investors were eager to throw money at anything with a “.com” at the end of its name. 

It was a time of boundless optimism, where it seemed like every new tech startup was on the verge of changing the world—and making everyone involved obscenely rich in the process.

The prelude to the dot-com bubble was characterized by low interest rates and easy access to capital. The Federal Reserve, led by Alan Greenspan, kept interest rates low throughout much of the 1990s, which encouraged borrowing and investment.

The stock market, particularly the NASDAQ, which was heavily weighted toward technology stocks, began to surge. From 1995 to 2000, the NASDAQ Composite index rose from around 750 points to a peak of over 5,000 in March 2000—a staggering increase of more than 500%.

It wasn’t just the established tech giants like Microsoft and Cisco driving this rally; hundreds of smaller, often unprofitable, internet companies were going public and seeing their stock prices soar.

But here’s the thing—many of these companies had little to no revenue, let alone profits. 

Their valuations were driven by hype, speculation, and the belief that the internet would soon replace traditional businesses in every industry. A company didn’t need a solid business plan or a path to profitability to attract investment; it just needed a catchy name, a website, and a promise to “disrupt” an industry. Investors were willing to overlook the lack of fundamentals because everyone else was making money. 

And if you didn’t jump in, you risked missing out on the next big thing.

The hype was palpable. I remember hearing stories of people quitting their jobs to trade stocks full-time, convinced they had discovered the secret to instant wealth. The media fueled the frenzy, with financial news outlets touting the incredible gains being made in the stock market and portraying the internet as the new gold rush. IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) became a spectacle, with companies like Pets.com, Webvan, and eToys seeing their stock prices skyrocket on the day they went public. Investors weren’t asking whether these companies could turn a profit; they were only concerned with getting in before the price went higher.

But bubbles are inherently unsustainable. The dot-com bubble began to show signs of strain in 2000. The Federal Reserve, concerned about overheating in the economy and the stock market, started raising interest rates. Higher interest rates made borrowing more expensive, which in turn started to put pressure on overleveraged companies. As reality set in, investors began to scrutinize the lofty valuations of these tech companies more critically. The realization that many of these companies would never turn a profit led to a massive sell-off.

The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000, at 5,048 points and then began a steep decline. Over the next two years, the NASDAQ lost nearly 80% of its value, wiping out trillions of dollars in market capitalization. Companies that had been worth billions on paper vanished almost overnight. Pets.com, one of the most famous casualties, went from a high-flying startup to bankruptcy within a year. The bubble had burst, leaving a trail of financial ruin in its wake.

So, what lessons can we draw from the dot-com bubble? 

First, it’s essential to remember that valuations should be grounded in fundamentals. No matter how exciting a new technology or industry may seem, if a company isn’t making money or doesn’t have a clear path to profitability, it’s a risky bet. 

Second, investor sentiment can drive markets to irrational levels—both on the way up and the way down. The fear of missing out (FOMO) can lead to poor decision-making and overexposure to risky assets.

As we look at the current market, particularly the hype surrounding AI and other emerging technologies, there are certainly parallels to the dot-com era. While AI has the potential to transform industries and generate significant economic value, not every company claiming to be an AI leader will succeed. I think we should approach this space with caution, focusing on companies with strong fundamentals, proven business models, and the ability to generate real profits.

In the end, the dot-com bubble serves as a reminder that while innovation can create tremendous opportunities, it’s important to keep our feet on the ground and not get swept away by the hype. 

The markets can be a powerful wealth-building tool, but only if we remember to invest wisely.

Practice Problem

The Dot-com Bubble was a period of excessive speculation in internet-related companies during the late 1990s. As investors poured money into tech stocks, valuations soared far beyond reasonable levels. However, when the bubble burst in 2000, many companies saw their stock prices plummet.

Cisco Systems, a key player in the networking technology industry, was one of the most prominent companies during this era. They provided the critical infrastructure that supported the growth of the internet, making them a favorite among investors. But how did their stock fare during this volatile period?

Your Task:
Analyze Cisco's stock price before, during, and after the bubble burst. Look at the trends, identify key factors that influenced the price movements, and consider what lessons can be learned for today's investors. 

Practice Questions:

1. Describe the trend in Cisco's stock price leading up to the peak of the Dot-com Bubble in 2000. What factors might have contributed to this trend?
   

2. Analyze the reaction of Cisco's stock price when the Dot-com Bubble burst. What external and internal factors could have influenced this reaction?
   

3. Discuss the long-term impact on Cisco’s stock price in the years following the bubble burst. How did the company's fundamentals and market conditions play a role?
   

4. Reflecting on Cisco’s experience during the Dot-com Bubble, what lessons can investors learn about the risks and rewards of investing in rapidly growing sectors?
   

5. How can the historical behavior of stocks during the Dot-com Bubble inform an investor's approach to analyzing and understanding current market trends?

Learner Hint: Cisco trades under the ticker CSCO and is listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. Head to Google or Yahoo Finance, look up CSCO and attempt the practice questions above using your unique blend of independent research, critical thinking and analytical skills. 

Sharpen your finance knowledge and skills by tackling the challenge!

Mythbuster

Myth: Past performance guarantees future returns. 

Reality: Just because a stock has soared before doesn’t mean it will again. Always analyze current fundamentals rather than relying solely on history.

Coming Up on the Unlock Investing Podcast

Don’t Miss Monday’s New Podcast Episode: Patience: The Single Skill That Builds Six-Figure Stock Portfolios

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or iHeartRadio!

See you next week 👋

Important Disclaimer: The content in this newsletter is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. All information provided is based on my personal opinions and experiences and should not be taken as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any financial instruments. Investing involves risks, including the potential loss of capital, and you should always conduct your own research or consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results.