There may be some reason to be concerned otherwise -- pensions and endowments are often customers for this sort of thing -- but they have risk managers that hopefully know what they're doing. Which may not give you warm fuzzies, given recent history, but in general these are not the people losing their shirts and affecting the economy as a whole.
But you could say that the huge growth we're seeing in investment in tech now is different to 15 years ago because:
- most VCs are funding significant amounts of their capital in later-stage startups and companies that have shown a lot of promise ("private IPOs"), rather than the other way around
- there are more startups now than 15 years ago but the same (or lower) amount of total capital invested, whereas before a smaller number of startups were funded from a huge pot
- generally tech companies nowadays, even those unicorns a few years old, have solid financials and managed to turn a profit. This wasn't entirely the case 15 years ago.
There was a Andreessen Horowitz presentation on this very topic going around a few weeks back - it's worth a read if I can dig it up (or you could be relentlessly resourceful ;)).
I was just reading in another thread about how a new hypothetical tech crash wouldn't be as bad as the dot com crash for precisely the reason that all these new, 'over-valued' companies are private rather than public. In this context, isn't this kind of investment vehicle dangerous?
(I don't pretend to understand this kind of thing and would be glad to be made a little wiser.)