# Howard Marks Warning: Why He's Getting Out Now

## Метаданные

- **Канал:** Investor Center
- **YouTube:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZBUsjLexjc
- **Дата:** 28.04.2026
- **Длительность:** 15:43
- **Просмотры:** 61,328

## Описание

What if the AI revolution that's changing everything could still leave you broke—just like the internet did to millions of investors in 2000?

This isn't fear-mongering. It's a warning from billionaire Howard Marks, who saw the dot-com crash coming. His take? The AI boom is rhyming with 1999. And it's not just the flashy AI stocks at risk—even the "boring" investments you trust might be overpriced.

## Содержание

### [0:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZBUsjLexjc) Segment 1 (00:00 - 05:00)

What if the AI revolution that is changing everything could still leave you broke? Just like the internet did to millions of investors in 2000. This isn't fear-mongering. It's a warning from billionaire investor Howard Marks, who saw the dot-com crash coming. His take? The AI boom is rhyming with 1999. And it's not just the flashy AI stocks at risk. Even the {quote} boring investments you trust might be overpriced. Marks uses a one-line test to cut through the hype. Listen for it. — In the fall of '99, there was a big bubble. One of the greatest bubbles we've ever seen in the stock market. It was called the TMT bubble, tech media telecom bubble, but nowadays we call it the internet bubble. Uh and you know, everybody assumed that the internet would change the world. They extrapolate that to mean that an internet stock or a stock with the name internet in its name was worth infinity. And uh you know, that fall of '99, I was reading a book by Edward Chancellor, a financial historian, called Devil Take the Hindmost, a history of financial speculation. And I was reading about in particular the South Sea bubble, in which England figured it would get rid of its national debt by creating a company, the South Sea Company, and giving it a monopoly to trade with the South Sea. And people went crazy over that stock, and they took off from their jobs to day trade in that stock and so forth. And as I read about people's behavior, I said, "Holy cow, that's exactly what's going on now in the tech stocks. " And so you know, that was the starting point, and I wrote a memo about the misbehavior that I saw taking place in the market for tech stocks. The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company, and above all, the durability of that advantage. I wonder whether there's a big relevance of that today as well as there was back in '99, 2000, because with this race of investment in the space of AI, there are quite a few players competing out, not hundreds, but it's also not like the last decade where basically Google had a monopoly on search, for example. Is that quote relevant today as it was in '99? Oh, it's always relevant. One of the most important sayings was from Mark Twain, American author, who said, "History does not repeat, but it does rhyme. " There are certain themes that rhyme from cycle to cycle or generation to generation. And what are the characteristics of bubbles? Number one, it's it invariably surrounds something new that triggers the excitement, gets people going, and since there's no history of it, there's no indication of what its limitations might be. And then people get excited about the new thing, and they assume that it will change the world, and then they assume that will result in profitability, which is not always a strong assumption, and that was one of the comments I made in the memo about e-commerce. Then they assume that the incumbents will succeed, whereas they may be replaced. And in the extreme, they assume they'll all succeed, which may be unlikely, but you know, each the opportunity to buy the stock in each one looks like a lottery ticket that could pay off in millions. So, these are some of the threads, and Buffett said 25 years ago about the internet that the internet will certainly increase efficiency, but will it increase profitability? Which is to say, for example, what if all the companies in a given industry get AI, they compete to use it, they all put it to work, it increases efficiency for all of them, but they compete for business by cutting their prices, and that eliminates the unusual profitability of that industry. Marks is saying history is rhyming. In every bubble, a game-changing innovation gets investors euphoric. But here's what nobody wants to hear. Changing the world isn't the same as making money. Think back to the late 1990s. People quit their jobs to day trade dot-com stocks. The Nasdaq surged fivefold, from about 1,000 to over 5,000 between 1995 and 2000. Pets. com became a Super Bowl advertiser with a sock puppet mascot, despite burning through $147 million and never turning a profit. Then reality struck. When that bubble burst, nearly $1 trillion in stock value evaporated within weeks. The Nasdaq plunged almost 80% by late 2002.

### [5:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZBUsjLexjc&t=300s) Segment 2 (05:00 - 10:00)

If you had $1,000 in a Nasdaq index fund at the peak, you watched it shrink to roughly $200 at the bottom. Being right about the technology didn't save your investment. Now look at today's AI boom. We're seeing a similar feeding frenzy. In April 2024, a fashion rental company, Rent the Runway, announced it would use AI, and its stock surged 220% in one day. Did its profits suddenly skyrocket? No. That kind of jump on an AI headline is a classic bubble signal. So the lesson for Marks is clear. A great technology isn't automatically a great investment. You have to ask, "Who will have the moat and pricing power when the dust settles? " If every company adopts AI, it might just level the playing field. Like when every airline added online booking, nobody won. Customers just expected it. Now you might think, "I'll avoid the frothy AI stocks. I'll just stick to a diversified index and play it safe. " But here's the twist. What if the boring stocks are also overvalued right now? Howard Marks has a surprising insight on this. Well, the Mag 7 are highly valued. Again, not the highest I've ever seen. Their PE ratios probably average something in the 30s. The average for the last 80 years for the whole S& P is 16, so they sell at twice the PE ratio of the S& P average. Uh but they're great companies. They have big moats, huge profitability, market share that's hard to cut into. Um — [clears throat] — many many virtues. Um So their PE ratios on average are in the 30s. I think that Nvidia's is in the 50s. Uh Those seem high. They are high, but you know, when I came into this business 56 years ago, September of uh '69, the so-called Nifty 50 stocks were selling in the 60 to 90 range. What then? So Now those were insane, but these are less insane or bargains relative to that insanity. So I don't take terrible issue with the valuations of the Mag 7. Now I don't know enough about them. This is not You started off in the beginning by saying this is not financial advice. This is absolutely not financial advice. I don't know anything about the stock market or about tech stocks. So anybody who takes my advice on this is nuts. But those don't trouble me. Cuz they're some of the greatest companies we've ever seen, the Mag 7. But I think that the other 493 companies in the S& P 500 are selling at a PE ratio, I don't know if it's 19 today or 20 or 21, something like that. Why should the other 493, which are much more mortal, be selling at PE ratios above the historic average for the S& P over the last 80 years. So, this is why I say that I think that the S& P is valued highly, and I think in a memo last year I said lofty, but not nutty. But if you are a conservative person, and if you don't mind that much missing out on some gains, but would really mind participating fully in a decline, then this is a time when you might want to take some chips off the table. Marks just flipped the script. The seven superstar tech giants have high PEs around 30 to 50, but they might actually deserve it. They're amazingly profitable, dominant businesses with solid moats. The real red flag is with the other 493 companies in the S& P 500. Those everyday companies, the banks, retailers, and industrials, are trading at around 19 to 20 times earnings. That's well above their historic average PE of about 16 times. Even the {quote} mortal companies without AI-level growth are priced like premium growth stocks. Here's the catch. High PEs usually mean lower future returns. Marks referenced research showing that if you buy the market at around a 23 times PE, the average annual return over the next decade has been something like plus 2% to minus 2%. Basically, near zero. Right now, the S& P's forward PE is about 24 times, a level seen less than 7% of the time over the last 40 years. And with the 10-year Treasury yielding around 4. 5% risk-free, you're barely

### [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZBUsjLexjc&t=600s) Segment 3 (10:00 - 15:00)

getting paid extra to hold risky stocks. If anything goes wrong, investors might decide they'd rather take 4. 5% in bonds than gamble on stocks for the same return. And we've seen this before. In the early 1970s, the Nifty 50 blue-chip stocks were viewed as so invincible that their PEs soared to 50, 60, even 90. Then the 1973 to '74 bear market hammered those darlings. Even great companies can be terrible investments at the wrong price. So, if even your diversified index fund might be richly valued, what's a prudent investor to do? This is where Marks's final point comes in. It's all about investor behavior. Markets cycle between fear and greed. Right now, we've had years of greed and optimism dominating. That's exactly when you should be cautious. This is why I believe that it is the behavior of the participants who determine the level of risk in the markets. And, you know, today, I mean, we look, we've had 16 positive years. There hasn't been a bad year in the last 16. Uh there were two down years, but not too bad and easily recovered. There has not been a prolonged uh stretch of decline. So, risk-taking has been rewarded, caution has been penalized. I would say that uh you know, it has made people feel that it's more dangerous to be out of the market than in, to turn down a loan is could be dangerous than making a loan. Uh that these are all bad lessons. And it's not the worst I've ever seen. It's not as bad as February '07, for example, but it's certainly on the incautious side. You quote Buffett to me, I'll quote Buffett to you. Buffett says, "The less prudence with which others conduct their affairs, the greater the prudence with which we must conduct our own affairs. " And uh I would say that prudence is not in the ascendancy at the moment. Risk-taking is. Not grievously, but it is. And so, we should be careful. And when I say careful, you know, I try to always be careful. So, when I say careful, I mean more careful than usual. — Buffett's rule, via Marks, hits the nail on the head. When others are being reckless, you should be extra careful. And today, prudence is definitely not in fashion. Marks describes exactly what many of us feel. After years of market gains, caution has felt like a handicap. Remember early 2021? Reddit traders were posting gain screenshots. Everyone had a can't-lose stock pick, and anyone who saw, "This looks bubbly," got laughed off Twitter. A few months later in 2022, the Nasdaq fell over 30%. Many hot stocks got cut in half or worse, and suddenly, caution didn't look so dumb. So, how do we apply this? Marks isn't saying run for the hills or try to time a crash. He suggests dialing back risk thoughtfully. If you're fully invested in stocks, maybe trim a bit, especially from the frothier areas. If you've been riding momentum trades, maybe rotate into more stable, quality businesses or hold a little more cash. Today, cash isn't dead money. It's a strategic asset yielding over 4 to 5% while you wait for better opportunities. Being prudent could also mean diversifying smarter, not just owning an index blindly, but being aware of valuations. Maybe look at international stocks or small caps that haven't been bid up as much. It means doing your homework rather than assuming the index will bail you out regardless of price. Now, being more careful than usual does carry short-term risk. You might lag behind during the final stages of a boom. But ask yourself, would you regret more missing the last 10% of a rally or being fully exposed in a 30% drop? If you answer the latter, lean into prudence. So, to wrap this up, here's the road map. Howard Marks is telling us that AI might indeed change the world, just like the internet did. But that doesn't exempt it from the laws of investing. The dot-com bubble taught us that being right about the technology and making money from it are two different things. Today, we have added the twist that even non-tech stocks are priced for perfection, thanks to years of easy money and optimism. But as Marks reminded us via Buffett, the crazier everyone else is behaving, the more sane you need to be. Making money is great, but keeping it is just as important. Marks's message is simple. You don't have to partake in

### [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZBUsjLexjc&t=900s) Segment 4 (15:00 - 15:00)

others' folly. If valuations are lofty but not nutty, you can still invest, just with your eyes open. It means prioritizing quality, not chasing hype, and being okay with holding cash when nothing is a bargain. In the end, prudence might not win you bragging rights at a dinner party during a bull market. But when the tide ebbs, you'll be the one picking up opportunities instead of picking up the pieces. And if you enjoyed this video, check out Peter Lynch coming out of retirement to help us understand how to prepare for the next market crash. I will see you over there.

---
*Источник: https://ekstraktznaniy.ru/video/51324*