Connect with us

Published

on

The once high flying tech sector has endured a heavy selloff this year amid concerns that the sector’s growth could be curtailed by rising interest rates. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite is down more than 14%.

Chris Hondros | Newsmakers | Getty Images

A lot has changed in technology since the dot-com boom and bust.

The internet went mobile. The data center went to the cloud. Cars are now driving themselves. Chatbots have gotten pretty smart.

related investing news

Tech is 'down but by no means out' — watch these stocks next year, fund manager says

CNBC Pro
A long-overdue reality check for tech stocks has reset the bar for 2023

CNBC Pro

But one thing has remained. When the economy turns, investors rush for the exits. Despite a furious rally on Thursday, the tech-laden Nasdaq finished in the red for a fourth straight quarter, marking the longest such streak since the dot-bomb period of 2000 to 2001. The only other negative four-quarter stretch in the Nasdaq’s five-decade history was in 1983-84, when the video game market crashed.

This year marks the first time the Nasdaq has ever fallen all four quarters. It dropped 9.1% in the first three months of the year, followed by a second-quarter plunge of 22% and a third-quarter decline of 4.1%. It fell 1% in the fourth quarter because of an 8.7% drop in December.

For the full year, the Nasdaq slid 33%, its steepest decline since 2008 and the third-worst year on record. The drop 14 years ago came during the financial meltdown caused by the housing crisis.

“It’s really hard to be positive on tech right now,” Gene Munster, managing partner of Loup Ventures, told CNBC’s Brian Sullivan on Wednesday. “You feel like you’re missing something. You feel like you’re not getting the joke.”

Tech has been like a horror show this year, says Wedbush's Dan Ives

Other than 2008, the only other year worse for the Nasdaq was 2000, when the dot-com bubble burst and the index sank 39%. Early dreams of the internet taking over the world were vaporized. Pets.com, infamous for the sock puppet, went public in February of that year and shut down nine months later. EToys, which held its IPO in 1999 and saw its market cap grow to almost $8 billion, sank in 2000, losing almost all its value before going bankrupt early the next year. Delivery company Kozmo.com never got its IPO off the ground, filing in March 2000 and withdrawing its offering in August.

Amazon had its worst year ever in 2000, dropping 80%. Cisco fell 29% and then another 53% the next year. Microsoft plummeted by more than 60% and Apple by over 70%.

The parallels to today are quite stark.

In 2022, the company formerly known as Facebook lost roughly two-thirds of its value as investors balked at a future in the metaverse. Tesla fell by a similar amount, as the carmaker long valued like a tech company crashed into reality. Amazon dropped by half.

The IPO market this year was non-existent, but many of the companies that went public last year at astronomical valuations lost 80% or more of their value.

Perhaps the closest analogy to 2000 was the crypto market this year. Digital currencies Bitcoin and ether plunged by more than 60%. Over $2 trillion in value was wiped out as speculators fled crypto. Numerous companies went bankrupt, most notably crypto exchange FTX, which collapsed after reaching a $32 billion valuation earlier in the year. Founder Sam Bankman-Fried now faces criminal fraud charges.

The only major crypto company traded on the Nasdaq is Coinbase, which went public last year. In 2022, its shares fell 86%, eliminating more than $45 billion in market cap. In total, Nasdaq companies have shed close to $9 trillion in value this year, according to FactSet.

At its peak in 2000, Nasdaq companies were worth about $6.6 trillion in total, and proceeded to lose about $5 trillion of that by the time the market bottomed in October 2002.

Don’t fight the fed

Despite the similarities, things are different today.

For the most part, the collapse of 2022 was less about businesses vanishing overnight and had more to do with investors and executives waking up to reality.

Companies are downsizing and getting revalued after a decade of growth fueled by cheap money. With the Fed raising rates to try and get inflation under control, investors have stopped putting a premium on rapid unprofitable growth and started demanding cash generation.

“If you’re looking solely at future cash flows without profitability, those are the companies that did really well in 2020, and those are not as defensible today,” Shannon Saccocia, chief investment officer of SVB Private, told CNBC’s “Closing Bell: Overtime” on Tuesday. “The tech is dead narrative is probably in place for the next couple of quarters,” Saccocia said, adding that some parts of the sector “will have light at the end of this tunnel.”

The 'tech is dead' narrative will only last short term into 2023, says SVB's Shannon Saccocia

The tunnel she’s describing is the continuing rate increases by the Fed, which may only end if the economy enters a recession. Either scenario is troubling for much of technology, which tends to thrive when the economy is in growth mode.

In mid-December, the Fed raised its benchmark interest rate to the highest in 15 years, lifting it to a target range of 4.25% to 4.5%. The rate was anchored near zero through the pandemic as well as in the years that followed the financial crisis.

Tech investor Chamath Palihapitiya told CNBC in late October that more than a decade of zero interest rates “perverted the market” and “allowed manias and asset bubbles to build in every single part of the economy.”

Palihapitiya took as much advantage as anyone of the cheap money available, pioneering investments in special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), blank-check entities that hunt for companies to take public through a reverse merger.

With no yield available in fixed income and with tech attracting stratospheric valuations, SPACs took off, raising more than $160 billion on U.S. exchanges in 2021, nearly double the prior year, according to data from SPAC Research. That number sank to $13.4 billion this year. CNBC’s Post-SPAC index, comprised of the largest companies that have debuted via SPACs in the last two years, lost two-thirds of its value in 2022.

SPACs slumped in 2022

CNBC

‘Bargain basement’ shopping

The IPO market is as bad as it was in 2001, and quick improvement is unlikely, says Bullpen's Davidson

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending