????現(xiàn)在有人想談?wù)勁菽膯栴}嗎？

????在Facebook上市前的幾周里，關(guān)于硅谷是否進(jìn)入了另一個(gè)科技泡沫的辯論正在發(fā)酵。有些人引述了一些“怪異行為”來(lái)支持“泡沫說(shuō)”，比如有人向根本沒有收入的公司投了大價(jià)錢。另一些人則認(rèn)為“泡沫說(shuō)”是杞人憂天。當(dāng)然，這兩種觀點(diǎn)都是老調(diào)重彈了。去年關(guān)于硅谷泡沫問題曾有過一些清醒的討論。而且還有人說(shuō)2006年也發(fā)生過科技泡沫。

????Facebook的上市也是一場(chǎng)測(cè)試，它考驗(yàn)的是投資者們是否又掉入了非理性亢奮的泥淖里。同時(shí)它又不僅僅是一次測(cè)試，它可能是一個(gè)火藥桶，會(huì)占燃市場(chǎng)對(duì)科技股的熱情，誘發(fā)投資者對(duì)科技股進(jìn)行瘋狂投機(jī)，進(jìn)而催生出新一波渴望一夜暴富的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司。

????不過等他們看過了Facebook的上市招股書，也許就不會(huì)這樣瘋狂了。當(dāng)然，如果你仔細(xì)觀察Facebook的財(cái)務(wù)狀況，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這是一家無(wú)可爭(zhēng)辯的成功企業(yè)，但是它最好的日子可能已經(jīng)過去了。Facebook最近一個(gè)季度的財(cái)務(wù)狀況可謂毫無(wú)亮點(diǎn)。而且最近它斥資10億美元收購(gòu)了照片分享應(yīng)用Instagram，很多人認(rèn)為這起收購(gòu)并不是為了彌補(bǔ)它在移動(dòng)方面的弱點(diǎn)，而是孤注一擲的一個(gè)標(biāo)志。

????幾年以來(lái)，F(xiàn)acebook的股票在二級(jí)市場(chǎng)上一直深受追捧，直到上周五Facebook正式上市，普通股民們才有了買入的機(jī)會(huì)。不過上周五他們并沒有在交易所前排起長(zhǎng)隊(duì)。承銷商們對(duì)Facebook股票的定價(jià)也很公平，不過他們可沒有幫上自己什么忙。影響了硅谷最近幾樁交易的非理性思維并不會(huì)影響到公開市場(chǎng)，市場(chǎng)上也不會(huì)有泡末——至少現(xiàn)在不會(huì)有。

????但科技界中并不缺乏非理性的投資。而且有趣的是，許多風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家一邊否認(rèn)“泡沫說(shuō)”，一邊卻不愿意譴責(zé)那些如果算不上猖獗、起碼也是越來(lái)越常見的奇怪行為。

????首先從Facebook的估值說(shuō)起。許多投資者之所以迅速賣掉了上市時(shí)分派的股份，一定是因?yàn)樗麄円灿X得Facebook的估值太荒唐了——Facebook的上市估值是過去12個(gè)月收入的26倍，凈收入的107倍。如果你覺得這不算高，那就問問那些前幾年還哭著喊著要買Facebook股票的投資者吧，比如高盛（Goldman Sachs）和數(shù)碼天空科技（Digital Sky Technologies），現(xiàn)在他們正爭(zhēng)先恐后地拋售Facebook的股票。Faceook的上市收入有57%進(jìn)了內(nèi)幕人士的口袋，只有43%到了公司手里。

????在企業(yè)并購(gòu)方面，事情變得更沒有邏輯。有的時(shí)候，一個(gè)買主就能創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)讓人發(fā)狂的估值。拿最近流行一種趨勢(shì)來(lái)說(shuō)，許多廣受歡迎的應(yīng)用和網(wǎng)站哪怕只有很少的收入，或者壓根沒有收入，都能賣出十億美元的高價(jià)——比如上個(gè)月Facebook斥資10億美元收購(gòu)了Instagram。也就是說(shuō)，一個(gè)有著荒唐估值的公司，利用它的股票買下了另一個(gè)估值更瘋狂的公司?？磥?lái)Facebook不僅在社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)方面是個(gè)大膽的創(chuàng)新者，在基本面分析上也是一樣。

????Does anyone want to talk about a bubble now?

????In the weeks leading up to Facebook's (FB) much-trumpeted IPO, a debate simmered over whether Silicon Valley was entering another bubble. Some cited "bizarre activity" like spending big on companies with no revenue. Others dismissed fears of a new bubble as overblown. And of course, none of this was new. Last year, there were sober discussions of a Silicon Valley bubble. And you can find people wondering about one all the way back in 2006.

????Facebook's IPO was supposed to be an acid test to show whether investors were falling back into irrational exuberance. And it could have been more than a test, it could be the powder keg that ignited a mania for tech stocks, enticing investors to speculate in web stocks and bringing a flood of new startups into the queue looking for easy capital.

????Or that's how it seemed before Facebook filed its IPO prospectus. Once it did, any close look at Facebook's financials revealed an indisputably successful company, but one whose best years may already be behind it. Facebook's most recent quarter was lackluster. And its last-minute, $1 billion purchase of Instagram wasn't received as a way to strengthen its weakness in mobile, but as a sign of desperation.

????So small investors weren't lining up Friday when Facebook finally became – after years of availability for high-net-worth investors on secondary market exchanges – theirs for the buying. Underwriters priced Facebook fairly for the company, but they didn't do themselves any favors. The irrational thinking that has influenced some recent deals in Silicon Valley wouldn't infect the public markets. There would be no bubble – at least not for now.

????But neither is there an absence of irrational investing in the tech world. And it's interesting how many of the venture investors who are so quick to dismiss talk of a bubble are also reluctant, unless pressed, to decry the strange behavior that is, if not rampant, growing increasingly common.

????Start with the valuation of Facebook. One reason many investors were quick to sell their IPO-alloted shares must be its absurd valuation: 26 times its trailing 12 month revenue and 107 times its net income. If that doesn't seem high to you, just ask the same investors (like Goldman Sachs and Digital Sky Technologies) who were clamoring to buy a piece of Facebook a few years back. Now they couldn't wait to sell: 57% of Facebook's IPO proceeds went to insiders. Only 43% went to the company.

????Things are even less logical in the area of M&A, where it only takes one buyer to create a valuation worthy of a mania. Take the emerging trend ten-figure valuations to wildly popular apps and sites with little or no revenue. A new watermark was set last month when Instagram was bought by – that's right – Facebook. So you have a company with an absurd valuation using its stock to buy companies at even crazier valuations. Facebook seems to be a daring innovator not just in social media but in creative fundamental analysis as well.