高科技行業投融資火熱 創業估值過高或泡沫隱現
I do not know with certainty if we are in the midst of a tech bubble. It feels like it — particularly with Uber in talks to raise funding at a $17 billion valuation — but I also felt that way when Microsoft invested in Facebook at a $1 billion valuation.
我不確定我們現在是不是處在高科技泡沫當中。打車軟件Uber計劃以170億美元的估值進行新一輪融資，這讓我感覺到了高科技泡沫，而微軟（Microsoft）以10億美元的估值投資Facebook，同樣讓我感覺到了泡沫的存在。But I do know this: Whether or not we are in a tech bubble cannot be discerned by comparing today’s conditions to those of 2000.
但我可以確信的一點是：我們不能通過對比2000年的情況，來確定我們現在到底是不是存在高科技泡沫。In her 2014 State of the Internet report, Mary Meeker acknowledged that there is some tech valuation “excess,” but then tried to allay fears by pointing out
在《2014年互聯網趨勢報告》（2014 State of the Internet）中，瑪麗o米克爾承認，目前存在科技估值“過高”。但爲了減輕人們的恐懼，她隨後又指出：
* Tech IPO volume is 73% below peak 1999 levels.
*科技公司IPO總量比1999年的高峯期少了73%。* NASDAQ is valued 18% lower than its March 2000 peak.
*納斯達克的估值比2000年3月的高峯值低了18%。* Venture capitalists invested 77% less in U.S. tech companies last year than they did in 2000.
*去年，風險投資家投資美國科技公司的規模比2000年減少了77%。Conversely, there have been plenty of bubble believers who have written about the similarities between 2000 and today, in order to lend their argument further credence.
而與之相反，也有許多人相信高科技泡沫的存在，還撰文描述了2000年與今天的類似的地方，來爲自己的觀點提供更多證據。But here’s the thing: Each bubble is unique. Each one has different causes and different magnitudes. Today’s tech market may indeed have crossed from “excess” into “bubble” territory, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will (or won’t) eventually help send the country into a recession (as the dotcom bust did in 2001). After all, sometimes bubbles pop and sometimes they just deflate. Or perhaps the fact that today’s tech landscape is so different than it was in 2000 — deep smartphone penetration, ubiquitous enterprise adoption, etc. — means that we could actually top 2000 in terms of things like IPO and VC volume without being in a bubble.
但有一點需要注意：每一個泡沫都是獨一無二的。不同的泡沫有不同的原因和量級。如今的科技公司可能確實從“過高”進入到“泡沫”，但這並不意味着泡沫最終會（或不會）（像2001年互聯網泡沫破滅那樣）使美國陷入衰退。畢竟，泡沫有時候會膨脹，但有時卻會縮小。或者因爲如今的科技行業狀況與2000年相比已經有很大不同，例如智能手機的深度滲透，以及廣泛的企業採用率等，這些意味着即便IPO和風險投資的規模超過2000年，也不會出現泡沫。There certainly is value in analyzing the past for clues to the future, but I think it’s dangerous to follow those clues into definitive conclusions. We’ll know our present-day condition with certainty once it’s in the rear-view mirror. Until then, let 2000 be its own bubble.
通過分析過去來探尋未來的線索，自然有重要的價值；但我認爲，如果根據這些線索就得出決定性的結論，那是一種危險行爲。只有當現在成爲歷史，我們才能確定無疑地知道當前的狀況。在那之前，就不要拿2000年的泡沫來和現狀對比了。
