The Doctrine of the Mean

I decided to use this as the end of my series of blogs. Because this, from my point of view, is the attitude we should have to deal with the problems in investing, policy making and life. It is a way to solve most of the problems in any kind of conflicts.

 

And it is the Doctrine of the Mean. “The Master [Confucius] said: The virtue embodied in the doctrine of the Mean is of the highest order. But it has long been rare among people.” The Doctrine of the Mean is a text rich with symbolism and guidance to perfecting oneself. The mean is also described as the 'unwobbling pivot' or 'chung yung'. Chung means bent neither one way or another, and yung represents unchanging. In James Legge's translation of the text, the goal of the mean is to maintain balance and harmony from directing the mind to a state of constant equilibrium. The person who follows the mean is on a path of duty and must never leave it. A superior person is cautious, a gentle teacher and shows no contempt for their inferiors. They always do what is natural according to their status in the world. The Doctrine of the Mean represents moderation, rectitude, objectivity, sincerity, honesty and propriety. The guiding principle is that one should never act in excess.

 

And here are two stories to help to interpret it:

Once there was a person who lives off on planting the trees. His trees are of very good quality and can be used as rooftree. And thus he was very wealthy by selling the wood. His neighbourhood mimic it and also plant a lot of trees. But what he did is just cut the tree before it is fully mature. And the product of him can only be used as firewood. As a result, he never became rich.

A black horse was walking along the river and he saw a bout flowing on it. The horse laughed at it because the boat was flowing very slowly. He began to run very fast as a kind of flaunting. But after a long time the horse was so tired and died. The boat, on the other hand, travelling peacefully, passing by the corpse of the horse and walked away.

 

From the dot Com Bubble, we can see the traces of many crises during the past. And without any doubt, it will repeat again and again in different forms. And that is because of something unchanged deep into the humanity. The current financial system, from this point of view, is fragile. It is inherently unstable. Although the Doctrine of the Mean cannot provide a practical solution to solve the many paradoxes in our financial system. But it should be an idea that we need to keep in mind when rethinking the economic policy to ensure long term growth in the future.

 

 

Buffett at Sun Valley, 1999

Every time I read this speech it makes me blood boiling. It was delivered by Buffett in 1999 during the Sun Valley. Usually, for Buffett, this is a good time to have a family gathering. Of course golf, bridge and social activities. In 1999, when the Dow-Jones is at more than 10000 point, tripled in half a year, Buffett, who is known as an investor not interested in high tech companies at that time was thought as outdated.

 

In fact, Buffett had prepared for weeks on this speech. He took this speech quite serious. And this is the first time for him in the 30 years to predict the market. Buffett nearly bought no shares of internet companies at that time. Before reading the intelligent investor, I thought his attitude about internet companies must be a story full of conspiracies. But after having read the book, I have changed my opinion. Not to buy the shares of Dot Com companies should be a natural behaviour that is consistent with Graham’s thought. I listed the speech separately because these are the insights of investors rather than a more academic one.

 

And here is the speech

 

Finally, at the end of the speech, with several jokes made the silence was broken. But after a while, resentment has been spread in the house. Unlike most of the people in the hall, some body thought they were benefited from the speech. “Basic knowledge about stock market in one lesson.” Gates said.

 

As an investor, Buffett is very sensitive to bubbles. He used to divide asset into three types: fixed income asset (the risk is mainly caused by the inflation); asset that is not productive like gold; asset that can produce fortune and the best example is a farm (asset with less threaten of inflation is preferred. Companies like Coca Cola is preferred than the utilities in that they will not be greatly influenced during high inflation). In the general meeting of shareholders of 2011, Buffett expressed his concern about the bubble of gold. During the meeting, he was queried by some shareholders about why he didn’t buy some gold to hedge the risk during that time when it was of relatively high inflation. From his point of view, gold is not productive. And it is expensive. Asset with reasonable cause to hold at the first can became bubble if having been hyped excessively. Buying gold is like gambling, he said you can only hope somebody else to buy it rather than it manifests itself with producing value and wealth. Nearly rigid.

 

 

What Caused the Dot Com Bubble: 3: Changing of the Conventional Wisdom of the US Society

In this chapter we’ll talk about more subtle things, which lead to some irrational behaviours of the investors during the Dot Com Bubble. Irrationalities of the investors is a very important reason for the formation of the dot com bubble. And several kinds of typical psychological failings like overconfidence, herding, mania and new paradigm mentality did turned up in the dot com bubble.

 

Buffett ever said that he was told by Graham that a good idea will always bring you with more troubles than a bad one, because people always forget about the limiting condition of applying the good idea.

 

Brennan (2004) suggested that before the Dot Com Bubble, there are several changes in the conventional wisdom. And here are the three main changes:

 

The first one is caused by the mean variance portfolio theory suggested by Markowitz. This made people more willing to buy diversified market portfolios rather to pick some ‘good’ stocks and made people more likely to buy stocks that are not very familiar with. And he said this principle gradually became a part of the new conventional wisdom before the Dot Com Bubble.

 

Secondly, he thought that the first comprehensive study of rates of return on common stocks which was completed in 1964 made an impact in the following change of the conventional wisdom of the public. The report showed that an equally weighted stock portfolio have an annual compound return of 9% during 1926 to 1960. Thus people will naturally think the return of the stock exceeds the return of bond over long period. Some of the people at that time even thought the risk in the long run of stock is lower that the bond.

 

The third element is derived from the efficient market hypothesis. This made the investors less likely to notice the fact that the price of the Dot Com companies was probably not right compared to its fundamental. What is interesting is that Richard Thaler, leader of behavioural finance, recriminated to Fama “The only one on the planet reluctant to admit the bubble of NASDAQ stock market in 2000.

 

These three factors, as long as an increasing number of people began to own stocks, made an impact on the stock market. Between 1989 and 1998 the number of individuals in the US who owned stock, either directly, or through mutual funds, or in a self-directed retirement accounts, rose from 42.1 million to 75.8 million, while the number owning stock directly or through mutual funds (but excluding retirement accounts) rose by more than 50% from 31.5 million to 48.5 million. In spite of the changing of the conventional wisdom, according to Brennan, the demise of the defined benefit pension plan also account for it.

 

These further confirmed the idea I have suggested in the former blog that: thought trend of the society changed before bubbles, which is usually an incentive of the formation of the bubble. More insights can be drawn from the book irrational exuberance. Another example is the bubble of Japan which happened at the end of the last century. The Yamato is known for its cautiousness. But what happened to them during the bubble? Because this is not the mainly point of my blog and the reason is very complicated (and still a controversy), I may not talk about it here. In my next blog, I will introduce a speech of Buffett during the Dot Com Bubble and try to give some suggestions to investors.

 

Reference:

Brennan, Michael J. "How did it happen?" Economic Notes 33.1 (2004): 3-22.

 

 

What Caused the Dot Com Bubble: 2: Bubble and Technology Revolution

Technology can be an incentive to the formation of the bubbles. Many of the bubbles were accompanied with the development of the technology revolution. The South Sea Bubble was accompanied with the invention of insurance. And here is the railway mania and the 1929 crash which was accompanied with the invention of cars, radios and airlines. Even the recent crisis and housing bubble was a result of the invention of the new financial technologies.

 

But what makes the development of new technology to be an incentive of the formation of Bubbles? Pástor and Veronesi (2009) thought firms with mainly idiosyncratic risk will initially have high market values, but as the probability of adoption increases, the systematic risk will rise and after the new technology was more widely adapted, it would push up the discount rates and depresses stock prices. But Campbell and Turner (2012) tested whether or not the adoption of railway technology affected the discount rate by comparing the risk and volatility of railway shares with other equity securities. And their results suggested that the direction and timing of changes in these variables are inconsistent with a discount-rate explanation for the Railway Mania.

 

Brennan (2004) also investigated the discount rate in another angle. His research is mainly about the change of the risk premium in the 1990s in US. He found that there is evidence showing the risk premium in capital markets that might have been assessed by sophisticated investors were declining through the 1990’s. And he quoted that Both Claus-Thomas and Ilmanen estimates show a decline in the equity premium in the second half of the 1990’s. And he suggested that it contributed to the movement of the stock price during that time.

 

 

There is a clue to relate the monetary theory with the development of technology during that time. Many policy makers were very optimism about the influence of the development of the technology to the economy. They trust that the growing productivity accompanied with the development of the technology can offset the negative effect of the over eased credit. And thus the prosperity can be prolonged. In fact, Greenspan often quote the work of Paul David that it should take several years for the economy to absorb the benefit produced by the development of the technology. May be he thought that during that time, new technology can manifest itself with the effect of pumping the economy. And what he should do is to ease the credit to fulfill the prosperity.

 

 

 

Reference:

 

Pastor, Lubos, and Pietro Veronesi. Learning in financial markets. No. w14646. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009.

 

Campbell, G. and Turner, J. D. (2012) “Technological Revolutions, Cash Flows, and Asset Price Reversals: The British Railway Mania”, Queen’s University mimeo.

 

Brennan, Michael J. "How did it happen?" Economic Notes 33.1 (2004): 3-22.

 

What Caused the Dot Com Bubble: 1: Bubble and Deregulation

In 2010, the financial-regulation reform bill has been passed. This made us to rethink the role that financial regulation has played in the formation of dot com bubble.

 

After the great depression, the US economy has developed very well for over 40 years. At that time, the financial regulation was quite strict.

(The Great Depression)

 

After 1970s, the US economy experienced two times of oil crisis, which lead to the high inflation for years. For the purpose of promoting the economy, Reagan-administration gradually deregulated the financial market and therefore it helped the economy to fast develop. Objectively speaking, the financial innovation of the US more or less benefited from the deregulation of that time. But this made people more likely to speculate in the stock market and housing market.

 

In the 1990s, the deregulation has been deepening. And thus from some point of view contributed to the dot com bubble. At that time, investment bank market the shares that they think are of no future. The analysts boast of their outstanding achievement. Many of the stocks they thought to be quite promising are turned out to be not worth a cent. They are duplicity and deceive the investors driven by their private interest. And therefore, the bubble formed. To say the least, the deregulation of the financial market account for the dot com bubble.

 (Greenspan and Ayn Rand)

The financial crisis is also a painful hangover of lacking necessary regulation. The US economy should learn more from an introspection of the dot com bubble but they didn’t. That is partly because the pain from the dot com bubble has been concealed by the stimulation of the aggressive monetary policy.

 

 

 

(The change of the attitude of regulation can also provide a clue about the change of the capital mobility and incidence of banking crisis.)

From next blog, I will talk about the second reason for the dot com bubble-------The technology revolution.

 

What Caused the Dot Com Bubble: 1: US Monetary Policy in 1990's

After the 1970s, the inflation in US had been controlled. Since then, the FED adapted a steady interest rate policy and that seems to be very successful. At the beginning of the 1990s, the US economy slide into depression.  From July 1990 to September 1992, the interest rate of US had been cut for 17 times, from 8% to 3%. This led to the increase of the consumption and investment. And therefore it promoted the development of the economy. From 1994 to 1995, the US economy was overheated. The federal fund rate has been increased for 7 times (ever been regarded as mad) and the economy has softly landed. From 1994, interest policy seems no longer played as an important role as it was used to be.

 

The US economy developed very fast during the late 1990s. The inflation has also been controlled. With the development of the venture capital, high tech corporations developed very fast. From 1998, with the emerging of the overheating of economy, the interest rate has been cut for several times. From June 1999, interest rate has been cut for three times in half a year to prevent the economy from overheating. But it seems that it is not enough. And therefore, interest rate has been increased in February 2, 2000, March 21, 2000, and May 16, 2000. At the end of May, it seems that the economy has been slowed done.  From 2000, to prevent economy from sliding into depression as well as the happening of 9.11, the interest rate has been cut for 11 times. From 6.5% to 1.75%.

 

In September 1996, Greenspan persuaded his colleagues to give up increasing the interest rate. This is partly based on his understanding about productivity and rates of technology progress. In December 5, 1996, he suggested the concept of “irrational exuberance”. The stock market fell and rebounded. In September 29, 1998, three times of interest rate increasing successfully resisted the influence of Asian financial crisis.

 

Evaluation toward the relationship between monetary policy in the 10 years and the dot com bubble should be cautious. But the emerging of the dot com bubble do accompanied with an easy monetary policy and before the burst of it, monetary policy had been tightened.

 

From March 2001, the US economy slide into depression. This is the end of the longest expansion of US economy. Although the bubble was shorter and smaller than we have thought(JB DeLong and K Magin 2006). The depression seems very brief compared with long time of prosperity. So brief was the depression that the way to eliminate it was just like a magic. But after that, the housing bubble follows. And more, the financial crisis follows. Does this explain where the money goes? From John Law’s story, we can get some insights into it.

 

DeLong, J. Bradford, and Konstantin Magin. A short note on the size of the dot-com bubble. No. w12011. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006.

What Caused the Dot Com Bubble: 1: Money and Economy - Enlightenment From Mississippi Bubble

John Law is “the pleasant character mixture of swindler and prophet.”

------------------Karl Marx

 

 

Yet his swindle has some similarities with contemporary monetary theory?

 

There is much more to talk about the Mississippi Bubble than I have space to explain here. But basically, Law’s idea is that

1: get the right to issue the bank note.

2: Issue the share of his company with the government debt as collateral.

3: The government use the bank note to pay back to the public.

4: The public use the bank note to pay for the share of Law’s company.

 

From the prospective of history, Law is a pioneer. From the strategy above, we can see something similar with the theory of Keynes and Schumpeter. It also reminds me of Krugman’s advice for Japan of 90^th last century which was mainly to say that just print money to pump the economy. The causes of the burst of bubble had been concluded by many researchers. But it is a problem that whether to ask why the bubble burst or to ask why Law’s theory didn’t sustain.

 

Law values paper money. Law’s theory is that in order to make the country rich, money should be utilized. As long as the monetary policy can be flexibility used, prosperity can be achieved. As long as credit can be appropriately adjusted, the economy can be more efficient. Put aside the Mississippi bubble, Law’s theory can win a place in the history of monetary theory. Schumpeter ever praised him as one of the most important monetary theorists. Advanced theory is like the rabbit tied to the tree, run a circle and back to the origin.

 

Law ever controlled all of the financial market, tax and trade of France. Few economists can be as lucky as him in that he can apply his own theory into practice in such large-scale. Although the Mississippi Bubble seems simple and crude in today’s view, but is reveals the essence of bubble: under the stimulation of optimistic expectation, the excessive expansion of credit is likely to stimulate the price of the stock to offset its fundamental. The essential relationship is concealed in modern economy by all kinds of complicated tools and the system itself. But it hasn’t changed too much.

 

What if Law’s theory had been carried out in a more conservative way? What if the state apparatus is more powerful at that time in France? What if Law succeeded in transforming the bubble into a new bubble? What if the incidental incentives that leads to the burst of Mississippi bubble at that time had been put off?

 

All of these give us a new angle in prospecting the dot com bubble (And the financial crisis?).

What Caused the Dot Com Bubble: 1: Bubble, Credit and Monetary Policy

From this sector, we are going to talk about the main causes of the dot com bubble. In my bog, three factors are going to be talked about. First of all, the relationship between the bubble and the credit will be talked about.

 

There are a wide variety of reasons that can result in a bubble, both inevitable reasons and accidental reasons. Early researches have been focused on the irrationality of the investors and this will be mentioned later. But along with the development and the liberalization of the financial market, it became very important to analyse its role in the bubbles.  Monetary policy toward the asset bubbles has always been a controversy of the economist.  Some of the economist proposed that the reaction of the financial market should be taken into consideration when making the monetary policy. But some others cannot agree with the idea.  There is also controversy among the people who think it is necessary to take the financial market into consideration when making the monetary policy. Some of them think the policy should be an ex-ant action while the others think it should be an ex-post one.

 

“Standard theories of asset pricing assume that investors purchase asset with their own wealth. In most financial systems, this is not the whole story .Intermediation is important. Many of the agents buying real estate, stock and other assets do so with other people’s money (Allen and Gale).” This is really the case during the dot com bubble. During that time, investors borrowed large amount of money buying new shares. The dot com corporations borrowed money to expand. And they did these in an extreme way. This really led to the formation of the bubble.

 

Allen and Gale (1999) suggested that the relationship between credit and asset prices becomes even more complex in a dynamic context. And they suggested that the uncertainty about the level of credit can further aggravate the bubble “the more uncertainty that is with the future credit, the more uncertainty the future price will be. Because of the risk-shifting problem, uncertainty makes the asset price more attractive to the debt-financed investors.” The process of the formation of the dot com bubble is also the process of the increase of the uncertainty. This also implies that a signal of tighten the credit can be very likely to lead to the burst of the bubble.

 

But the story is not that easy. It’s not like that: ease credit and bubble form while tighten credit and bubble burst. In fact, bubble and prosperity is like the two sides of a coin. In the next bog, I’ll talk something about the Mississippi bubble and John Law. Compared with dot com bubble it is relatively innocent. Only then, it can help us to clearly observe the role which money played in the bubble, and more important, in the economy.

 

Allen, F. and Gale, D. (1999) “Bubbles, Crises, and Policy”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15, 9-19.

Allen, F. and Gale, D. (2000) “Asset Price Bubbles and Stock Market Interlinkages”, mimeo.

The Burst of the Dot Com Bubble

In March 10, 2000, the NASDAQ index dropped from 5132 to 5048.62.  The market analyst thinks it is only a small correction of the market. But it turned out to be the beginning of the disaster.  From that day, the index began to decrease at an average speed of 11.3%. After 18 months, the investors were done in the dump.

 

 

It was like a dream of investors of NASDAQ index, from October 8, 1998 to September 21, 2011. They dreamed that the index reached 5130 point. But after waking up, it found that the index was still at 1420 point.

There are several incentives for the whole collapse like:

Large sells of leader enterprises appeared in March 10, 2000. This not only led to a chain reaction, but also raised panic.

Microsoft was accused of monopoly in 1997 and Gates resigned in January, 2000. In April 2000, the court declared that they have found evidence of the behaviour of monopoly of Microsoft. Microsoft was faced with being split off at that time. This further increased the panic.

Top analyst of Goldman Sach suggested to underweight the stock of internet corporations, which was the first time in 10 years.

Wrong incentives at wrong time as long as the underlying problems that did exist led to the eruption of the crisis. The stock price that used to be quite unreasonable began to fall. Companies that made their living by being financed can no longer find the money. Many companies were shuttered and many IT engineers lost their jobs.


When the dot com companies run out of money, most of them were being merged or wind up. Big financial institutes like Citi and Merrill Lynch were fined for mislead the investors (we will talk about it later).  More than $5000B fund were evaporated from the stock market between March 2000 and October 2002. According to the recent research, there were only 50% companies survived after 2004, like Amazon and EBay.

Since then, IT industry seems no longer be the focus of the society. An interesting phenomenon is that after the dot com bubble, fewer students want to gain a degree of computer engineering. In the 1990s, enrollments grew rapidly in information systems and computer science. Then, beginning in 2000 and 2001, enrollments declined precipitously (Panko 2008).

But after that, where do moneys go? The housing market?

So far, we have talked about the three stages of the dot com bubble. We’ll talk about what caused the dot com bubble in the following days. In the next blog, I’ll work into details about the relationship between the dot com bubble and condition of the credit market at that time.

Reference:

 

Panko, Raymond R. "IT employment prospects: beyond the dotcom bubble." European Journal of Information Systems 17.3 (2008): 182-197.

Crazy Things in the Crazy Year

Silicon Valley life in the dot com bubble

Driving from San Francisco to San Jose takes 90mins, and that’s not during the rush hour!

No matter it is breakfast, lunch or supper, eating in the restaurant became a torment. It is common to wait for more than 45mins.

Finding a house here during the dot com bubble? That’s almost impossible. Even before 1997 when the bubble hasn’t totally formed yet, different kinds of people came to the Silicon Valley to rent house. At that time, you can ask them to do anything if you can provide them with a house.

Want to buy a car? You’d better go to Oregon. Car dealers in the Silicon Valley were having a very long waiting list.

Absurd Business Ideas

The business ideas of many online pet suppliers are to instigate the consumers to buy lots of dog food or cat litter online, and deliver them for free. The high freight as long as the large expense spent on advertising made some of them close done. Among them, Pets.com is the most famous one. It had its IPO in 1999 and closed done in 2000.

Another website, Kozmo.com. Firstly they promised to deliver the good in one hour in New York, for free. Deliverymen usually ride a bike to do this. That seems to be quite successful. But after they have expanded their market, they wanted to continue with the idea of delivery free in one hour in the whole country! That led to great transportation cost and the company closed done in 2001.

Tragedy of profligacy

During the peak of dot com bubble. A founder of a Com company who was very wealthy after the IPO of his company bought a lot of real estates. In the year when he was 39, he lost his life and the lives of his two other friends with his world class sports car. At that time, he was being accused of drug taking and raping.

An online video venture, spent $12M to celebrate its start business. In fact, the founder of company is an escaped criminal. He made lots of money during the dot com bubble. But after the burst of the bubble, his company went bankrupt. And he had to surrender himself to the law.

 

The Development of the Dot Com Bubble

There is a natural defect of the Com model. Loads of companies in the same field have the same business plan, which is mainly to seize the market by utilizing the network effect. It is obvious that usually there are few winners in the same field. And most of them will not succeed.

 

During that period, many companies used all sort of means to expand their customer base at great cost. Some companies just named themselves with a meaningless onomatopoeia (like Yahoo!), which aims to distinguish itself from the others. The 34^th super bowl was held in 2000, which was sponsored by 17 internet corporations. Each spent more than $2M put their ads only in 30 seconds. At the other extreme, in 2001, it was only sponsored by 3 internet corporations.

 

It is no surprise that because of the market mania at the time, many companies began to spend money like water. They bought luxurious facilities, provide their stuff with gorgeous holidays and give their stuff options rather than cash. Many of them became very wealthy when having launched their IPOs. And they invest on the other internet corporations with their new wealth.

 

Almost all the cities in the US are building themselves with more networked workspace. They want to become the next Silicon Valley. Communication providers believe there will be a great demand for their product in the future and they tend to maintain a high leverage. As a result, companies that produce these facilities gained a lot, like Cisco. These all together formed a cycle. So on and so forth.

 

This is quite similar with what is happening in China now. In the spirit of ShanZhai (cheap copy?). Many internet companies are trying to become the next Facebook, Twitter or YouTube. They think there is a large potential market and they have accumulated much experience during the last decade. They think they have learnt enough from the lesson of dot com bubble. They think “this time, this situation, it is different”. They think …… All of this created a similar flavour of the past. We’ll look into details about it later. In my next blog, we will see the third stage: How the dot com bubbles burst.

 

 

The Formation of the Bubble

From the prospective of economics, we can usually divide the bubble into three stages. In this sector, we mainly talks about the formation of the bubble.

 

First of all, as we can see the same thing from the history, that it is not only the development of internet industry but also the mania of financial industry contributed to the formation of the dot com bubble. At that time, some of the high tech companies, like Microsoft and IBM, are both profitable and promising. They brought considerable returns to their shareholders and made people excited about the high tech companies. This motivated some internet corporations to mimic the model of the successful companies. They elaborately packaged themselves and attracted many investors with blind optimism. But the thing is that these companies cannot change the fact that they are not capable in gaining profit. Instead, they are very aggressive and use money extravagantly. Most of them do not have a feasible plan and are poor at managing. But with the new concept of “dot com”, they can still attract investors. Despite the fact that many of these companies are very unhealthy, financial institutes were trying to sell their stocks. According to Brennan (2004), agency problems in the production and sale of information played an important role in the mania of investors. And this sowed the seed of the crisis.

Having witnessed the high growth of the internet corporations, venture capitalists are no longer that cautious (Valliere 2004). IPO initial returns reached astronomical levels during 1999-2000(A Ljungqvist and WJ Wilhelm 2003). The low interest rate between 1998 - 1999 also contributed to the madness of the investors. In 1999, the total venture capital in the market made a record of $48.3B. 2/3 of it are absorbed by the internet corporate. In 1999, the market value of internet corporations is $1320B. In July 1999, the new concept stock china.com made its IPO and the same day, its price increased by 235%.

At that time, many of the internet corporation adapted a quite aggressive strategy. They maintained great deficit to capture the market shares. These companies rely much on the venture capital (same thing is happening in China now! And I will talk about it later). As it is hard to value the new internet corporations, their stock prices are made unbelievable and their initial shareholders are quite wealthy.

 

In October 11, the market value of Cisco exceeded Intel (Buffett ever purchased the shares of Intel and this can make some sense of the characteristic of this company), which made them the highest value company in Silicon Valley. In the next blog, I’ll go on with the story and to talk about the second stage: How it developed into a bubble.

 

Reference:
 

Ljungqvist, Alexander, and William J. Wilhelm Jr. "IPO pricing in the dot‐com bubble." The Journal of Finance 58.2 (2003): 723-752.

 

Brennan, Michael J. "How did it happen?" Economic Notes 33.1 (2004): 3-22.

Valliere, Dave, and Rein Peterson. "Inflating the bubble: examining dot-com investor behaviour." Venture Capital 6.1 (2004): 1-22.