[HN Gopher] VCs are scared when they should be greedy ___________________________________________________________________ VCs are scared when they should be greedy Author : mlchild Score : 153 points Date : 2022-07-20 18:35 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.aaronkharris.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.aaronkharris.com) | [deleted] | gumby wrote: | > Most of that advice focuses on how founders need to adjust to | survive the deteriorating conditions--cutting cash burn by firing | underperforming employees, slowing hiring... | | Makes me wonder what kind of "advice" they were giving before: | you should be replacing underperforming employees at any stage of | a business cycle. | ffggvv wrote: | tell that to fang companies. some fire less than 2% of the work | force. | gumby wrote: | Startups can't afford to be like that. Those huge companies | have a lot of fat so can get away with being slack, which is | also why a company like Google can drift around in such an | indifferent and aimless manner for over a decade. | | BTW the "N" has long had a "fire early" philosophy, and so it | will be interesting to see how their current troubles play | out. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | A lot of people became "VC"s during the bull run. They brought | nothing to the table like YC did. Instead some previously | reputable VCs like a16z became crypto grifters. So it's good the | market clears a bunch of them so that the YCs and next generation | of VCs who actually bring something new to the table come to the | forefront. | bsaul wrote: | i've been betting against btc from the beginning, however i | truely believe there's something interesting in this field, | that may end up getting some real applications sometimes. | | Now what's still unknown is whether the funds that invested | heavily on crypto in 2020s will have enough leftovers once this | crisis is over to be a player when the crypto 2.0 era is | coming. | oarsinsync wrote: | > i've been betting against btc from the beginning | | Not literally, I assume? Or you've got a tiny position and | have been (relative to the size if your position) | haemorrhaging money for ~13 years? Or successfully rode some | down waves? (I'm super jelly if you did the latter) | bsaul wrote: | of course not, i would be broke :)) | | I do have a bet with a friend regarding btc price going | under 1k i made in 2019 but it's just for fun.. | danuker wrote: | Bitcoin has seen several 80%+ crashes and bounced back. | | It is all in the demand. | | A lot of that 80% flucuation is made up of short term | speculators. | | But some people are hardcore holders, and others use it | because their national currency is worse (Venezuela, Sri | Lanka). | | Couple that with the network effects (BTC is the largest | still), and that's all it takes for the price not to go | to zero. | [deleted] | jonathanehrlich wrote: | Thanks. Please write more frequently. | thdxr wrote: | while I agree with the general premise (majority of VCs are not | good investors) it's important to remember the money they raised | isn't sitting in a bank account. | | It's likely still in the LPs stock portfolio, doing a capital | call when everyone is down a lot can be tricky. You need to sell | the investment more even though they agreed to give you the money | when you asked | seibelj wrote: | Yeah I was super confused by this. VCs generally don't have all | the money ready to invest. They may have raised a $300 mil fund | but they don't get that money until they call it in. If the LP | says "no deals for 6 months" that's how it is. | ericd wrote: | If the LPs don't meet the capital calls, they're in breach of | their investor agreement, and the penalties are generally | quite harsh, including potentially forfeiting a lot of the | value they currently have in the fund. | jacquesm wrote: | Exactly. You either have the capital ready to roll or you | should not engage in any such commitment. | jacquesm wrote: | As an LP in a large fund: that's definitely not how it is. | | As an LP you pre-commit to a certain level, and when the | capital call comes you perform or you will be found to be in | default when a whole pile of clauses kicks in that you really | do not want to have to deal with. You will have to have an | extremely good reason (such as being already bankrupt) to be | able to avoid a capital call that you have committed to. | Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: | There are LPs and LPs. | | The LPs which the user above refers to are the APGs, the | PFZWs type. | jacquesm wrote: | Show me a contract where an LP gets to renege penalty | free on their obligations to a VC and I'll be happy to | believe you. | | I have been part of 222 VC/PE deals to date (that's not a | typo, just a coincidence) and _not once_ has an LP | reneged on their obligation to honor a capital call | without penalty. That 's not saying it doesn't happen, it | may well happen, or it may have happened and it was kept | so quiet that nobody picked up on it (which is somewhat | believable, because it would reflect very badly on the | fund). | | Just to give you one example: a VC enters into a deal, | signs a non-binding terms sheet conditional on doing DD, | goes through a full DD and then has to back out of the | deal because a large LP does not honor their commitment. | The fall out from that would be massive. | | What is far more likely to happen is that a VC can't find | a good way to spend the funds committed capital. In that | case there might be extensions of the funds run or they | might end up simply not calling up the available capital. | This I've seen a couple of times. But an LP that refuses | a capital call I've yet to see. I've even seen an estate | that was held to perform when an LP ended up with the | very best reason for non-performance of all. | Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: | I understand all the above, but the general rules kinda | supercede it all.The general rules are that when you are | the best/biggest thing around the block, rules just don't | apply to you. | | Also in general when government is involved rules don't | apply to it. 80% or more of the amount of money that LPs | as a whole administer are either Govt. Pension Funds or | SWFs. | | So in the case of big LPs it's one of the rare cases | where both the above rules are at play to give them carte | blanche. | EGreg wrote: | What if the LP says no deals for 50 years? These "fund raised | X" means nothing if they can't enforce capital calls | killjoywashere wrote: | That should be actionable as a breach of contract, with a | notable exception of sovereign wealth funds, which may or | may have immunity: | https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2013/11/capital- | ca... | akharris wrote: | Fwiw - my general premise isn't that the "majority of VCs are | not good investors." My point is that there's a serious | disconnect in the markets right now, and that it is rooted more | in fear than a lack of opportunity. | | On the second point - you're right that the cash isn't | literally sitting around, but VCs (generally) do not have to | ask LPs for approval on a deal by deal basis. Capital calls can | happen either as tranches or in response to a deal, and it is | unusual for an LP to successfully refuse a capital call because | of a specific deal. | fullshark wrote: | If you just view VCs as any other business, it involves | revenue (exits) and costs (investments). The market turmoil | is affecting the volume and size of exits in at least the | short term, which means they are cutting costs. It's not | clear the number of opportunities have grown/shrank but i | guess fewer people trying to invest means the number of | available opportunities to you as a player has grown. | ffggvv wrote: | VCs as a whole are followers, not leaders (with small | exceptions). they all just fly into the latest hype bandwagon | hoping to replicate the last big success. | [deleted] | fdgsdfogijq wrote: | Rather than complain about how VCs arent good investors, people | should rail on the system that selects VCs. Which is mostly | admittance to prestigious MBA programs/colleges. So please write | a post about how those schools arent selecting for good | investors, because these diatribes about a "flawed" industry are | very surface level compared to the underpinning power structures | in america | xthrowawayxx wrote: | How do we distinguish between: "VCs are are selected because | they go to school X", "school X is good at creating VCs", and | "school X receives more potential VCs"? | | My guess is probably more statements 2 and 3 for the usual | suspects eg Stanford | openfuture wrote: | Central planners 2.0, welcome to the soviet union. | kbuchanan wrote: | This post reminded me a little of my real estate agent's | newsletter: | | 2007: There's never been a better time to buy! 2008: There's | never been a better time to buy! 2012: There's never been a | better time to buy! 2020: There's never been a better time to | buy! 2022: There's never been a better time to buy! | pdx6 wrote: | The phrase over the years is more like "buy now or be priced | out forever." | | Recessions are good times to take risks since people are afraid | and while capital isn't cheap this time around, assets are. | xisthesqrtof9 wrote: | Easy to fuel the fire when you have unlimited wood to burn. | shaburn wrote: | [deleted] | rexreed wrote: | Easy to say when it's not your money you're investing, and when | you have a business that depends on the continued flow of VC | money. | shaburn wrote: | acd wrote: | "In contrast with the scenario in 2000, most of today's tech | companies are real businesses." | | I disagree that many startups have viable ideas that will | generate black numbers and organic growth. | | Bold founders have sold startup ideas which are not sustainable. | | Ie investment capital have prefered bold founders that could give | vision of high future returns wework for example. | | A small number of startups will become awesome but the majority | wont. | | Zero interest rates was a money rocket that fueled startups going | to the sky. But what goes up usually comes down eventually with | gravity/interest rates. | | A small fraction of startups will become super sucessfull but the | majority wont. The number of sucessfull probably follows some | kind of statistical distribution of which startups is great vs | bad. | | Higher interest rates will adjust future return calculations that | is brilliant from the article! | kelp wrote: | From the linked article: "Critically, the venture market at the | time was tiny relative to today's ecosystem" | | This isn't quite true. At least for US VC investment in dollars. | It peaked at $66 billion in 2000, and didn't surpass that amount | until 2018, according to these charts: | | https://pitchbook.infogram.com/6-vm-charts-1h8n6m3klxngj4x | | https://www.statista.com/chart/11443/venture-capital-activit... | | And if you adjust for inflation, that year 2000 $66B is $103.86B | in 2021 dollars, and the 2nd chart shows 2021 getting to $128B. | | Now the two different data sources do have somewhat different | numbers for each comparable year. I couldn't find a comparison | that covered enough years to show the difference. But I think | it's pretty clear that the dot com era was a spectacularly fast | increase in VC funding. And the more recent years were slower | growth, but did end up getting to slightly higher numbers, if you | adjust for inflation. | lpolovets wrote: | (Context: I'm a VC) | | Some great points in the post, but I also see a few additional | dynamics at play: | | 1) The last 10 years have been great for VCs and startups, but | now VCs are thinking about how to make their funds last longer. | Two reasons for this: first, time diversification matters. If you | think markets might go down even more, you don't want to deploy | the rest of your fund quickly, you want to spread it out over a | few years and get a good average cost basis. Second, there's a | healthy fear among VCs that LP capital will be much harder to | secure in the next 1-2 years. And you don't want to deploy the | rest of your current fund in the next 6 months if you won't have | a new fund ready to go for 18 months. | | 2) Most VCs (and founders) hate down rounds. So a lot of existing | companies are stuck because they previously raised at $X | valuation, and now the market price is $0.75X, and either the VC | doesn't want to push for a down round or a founder won't accept | it, or both. | | 3) Aaron mentions this in the blog post, but everyone is worried | about downstream investors. Our fund is big enough to lead a seed | round, but it can't put a dent in a Series A, so we depend on | Series A investors eventually backing our seed companies. And | Series A investors often depend on Series B investors to invest a | lot in the next round. And so on. If the entire growth stage | market grinds to a halt -- and it seems like it basically has -- | then early stage investors start worrying about making new | investments because there's way less downstream funding | available. So even if a seed VC believes this is an amazing time | to build a company and there are lots of great seed opportunities | out there, they might still slow down investing a lot if they | know their companies will need more funding and that funding | doesn't seem to be there right now. | | 4) I've been a VC for about a decade, and the gap between VC and | founder valuation expectations is greater than it's ever been | during that time. 3 months ago, a median seed round was at $20m | post, and a lot were at $25m-$30m post. Now I still see a lot of | seed founders looking for $20m-$30m post, but a lot of VCs | believe we should be back to 2020 valuations of $10m-$15m post. | The gap between an expectation of, say, $13m post on one side and | $25m post on the other side is _huge_ , and lots of conversations | never even begin because of that mismatch. | [deleted] | akharris wrote: | Your second point is the dynamic that makes the least sense to | me. In public markets, if a stock is cheaper relative to future | earnings, that makes it a better buy. In our corner of the | world, the opposite often holds true. | | There should be a tipping point where greed beats ego, but have | not yet figured out how to find it. | lpolovets wrote: | I agree. The aversion to down rounds feels mostly | psychological and overblown to me. | twoodfin wrote: | _2) Most VCs (and founders) hate down rounds. So a lot of | existing companies are stuck because they previously raised at | $X valuation, and now the market price is $0.75X, and either | the VC doesn 't want to push for a down round or a founder | won't accept it, or both._ | | They discussed this phenomenon at length on a recent Odd Lots | podcast, and I can't understand it as anything but a market | inefficiency that some smart VC firm will eventually exploit. | Values (and thus prices) go up and down. Putting your head in | the sand about it can't be a winning investment strategy. | lpolovets wrote: | I agree, I think this is an inefficiency. But it's a tough | one to correct because startups are a repeated game, and | everyone's worried about upsetting people they'll have to | keep playing with. | | I think the logic is "I like this company, but if I offer a | down round then will I piss off their existing investors? | Will those investors stop sharing good investment | opportunities with me? ... Ah screw it, I'll just skip this | down round and focus on other prospective investments." | | I think multi-stage investors are probably best-positioned to | address this, since they are both new and existing investors | in the companies they back, so they should be able to offer | market price down rounds for companies that are still | promising but unable to attract external capital. | singron wrote: | Down rounds are bad for employee morale too since it puts | previously issued options below water. It's probably worth | it to re-issue equity, but that's messy and a lot of | companies don't do it. | swyx wrote: | > Values (and thus prices) go up and down. | | you might be underestimate the importance of narrative in a | startup. a startup takes a tremendous amount of belief to | will into existence, and a lot of belief depends on an | unbroken narrative. to most outward folks, a startup | generally wants to appears to be continuously crushing it - | people understand that there are ups and downs, but generally | have no patience for a "well we had a slow 3 years where we | made a lot of mistakes" nuance. | | if you doubt this, consider how you eval a startup when | joining as an employee, much less as an investor. | givemeethekeys wrote: | As much as VCs and founders hate down rounds - if the public | market has dropped in value by 50% for mostly macroeconomic | reasons - isn't it fair to then suggest that properties on the | private market should be similarly worth less? | | We all hate for our homes to be worth 10% less in 2023 compared | to 2022, but it is what it is, no? | xmprt wrote: | When you raise funding at a startup, you're usually creating | new shares which dilute old shares. If a seed round VC is | able to get out with a 20% loss then they might be happy, but | what will actually happen is that the seed round VC's 10% | share turns into a 8% share AND they look like they've taken | a loss because the 8% share is worth less. | | In growing markets, the 10% turning into 8% doesn't matter | because it was 10% of a $1M company vs 8% of a $10M company. | You're still richer (at least on paper) than you used to be. | gumby wrote: | The dilution is what makes it so much worse in the venture | market than in the public markets. | beambot wrote: | On (4), it looks like the median seed valuation is still | hovering around $25M based on AngelList statistics: | https://stack.angellist.com/valuations | | Part of the difficulty in parsing public versus private company | valuations is due to the time constant: It takes a while for | private companies to get desperate, whereas public companies | have a real-time bead on investor sentiment. | gkapur wrote: | Angellists data is flawed here--- you ideally want to look at | seeds that are completely new or coming from sub $2 million | pre-seeds. They include seed extensions, seed extension | extensions, high priced note extension to seed rounds, etc. | and when the market slows down you see a lot of extension | rounds which pushes that number up but those are not really | new seed rounds. | | There are a host of other way their data is flawed as well :) | but that's a much longer topic. | cynusx wrote: | are these US or EU observations? | cam0 wrote: | He works at a US fund (www.susaventures.com/), so most likely | US observations. | lpolovets wrote: | US | [deleted] | MegaButts wrote: | > In contrast with the scenario in 2000, most of today's tech | companies are real businesses. | | How many of today's startups are just servicing each other with | VC money? This isn't meant to be flippant - I'm genuinely curious | (and while I bet it's a lot, I am skeptical it is overwhelming). | | I mean if we really look at some of the business models for these | companies, they're clearly unsustainable. Uber is a prime example | of a company that seems destined to fail. If your unit economics | don't work then you're fucked, and even if you raise literally | tens of billions of dollars you will eventually run out of money. | And yet companies like these are held up as prime examples of | unicorn success stories. It's not just Uber - there are serious | problems with many of the most acclaimed startups. | | Obviously not all startups are terrible, but as someone who isn't | a VC (but once considered becoming one), I think tech investors | are unable to see their bias for just how awful most tech | companies today are. | echelon wrote: | > How many of today's startups are just servicing each other | with VC money? | | The B2B SaaS ones. | time_to_smile wrote: | > I think tech investors are unable to see their bias for just | how awful most tech companies today are. | | I think investors are more greedy than stupid. When money was | essentially free, weirder and weirder investments make sense. | If the world was crazy and throwing money around, why _not_ | fund a bunch of ridiculous companies with the knowledge that | you can very likely unload that risk on the public when the | company ipos. | | And we're seeing that that logic is correct. Just look at the | record numbers of IPOs that were happening _right before_ the | market started to collapse [0]. | | Investors know they are playing musical chairs, but they're | playing with the public and the know they song quite well and | can tell when the music is winding down. | | Now IPO'd companies that don't know how to make a profit are | the public shareholders problem, not private VCs. | | 0. https://stockanalysis.com/ipos/statistics/ | turns0ut wrote: | How many times has Detroit, housing, and finance been bailed | out? | | They're all operating on magical money because money is a | shared hallucination. They legalize bailouts and complain about | the debt but never mention the future can just say, eh, fuck | those dead peoples bullshit. | | The bias you seem to not realize you're hung up on is society | looks nothing like it did 100 years ago. In another 100 they | won't give a fuck about any of this. | | If we take away the money, people still need to do shit if they | want to survive. Fuck their money, do weird shit. Let the olds | take it to the grave. | fairity wrote: | > Uber is a prime example of a company that seems destined to | fail. If your unit economics don't work then you're fucked | | Have you actually studied Uber's recent earnings? I'm pretty | sure rideshate contribution margin is positive in all their | tenured markets. | lmeyerov wrote: | My bigger uneasy feeling here is the advertising/marketing | world where ROI basics like attribution are highly questionable | and bohemeths like Apple & Google are using their $T war chests | & monopoly positions to cripple the sales/marketing ecosystems | of their competitors. So risks a repeat of the dotcom bubble | collapse when cpm/cpc collapsed. So much of saas is directly | serving these questionable areas, and in turn, more neutral b2b | (data, ...) is in turn powering those and thus also fragile. | | Variable sales+marketing spend is easy to scale back on during | a recession. We've seen preeemptive layoffs due to valuation | drops, but not this stuff yet. It's hard to handle. Our team | largely focused on helping enterprise/gov/etc customers (think | visibility/ai for core fraud, cyber, supply chain operations) | and prioritized more self-serve etc for the crypto markets: | they came to us with similar questions, but had way more risk, | and so luckily we're seeing only a bit of churn right now. But | if/when the sales/marketing/etc. collapses hit, that'll be much | harder to avoid for many people. | Supermancho wrote: | > Apple & Google are using their $T war chests & monopoly | positions to cripple the sales/marketing ecosystems of their | competitors. | | To be fair, they are doing so by forcing competitors to in- | house their advertising efforts. Largely, AdTech in large | companies is outsourced to 3rd parties and those existing | workflows calcify into positive signal. There hasn't been | much incentive to change. Recently, the belts are starting to | tighten and network (public market) adtech companies, even | with big accounts, are always in danger of disappearing | overnight. | | Many companies rather continue with the few winners in the | network adtech space, than engage in the lengthy and risky | in-house development. It's slow to see all of the parallel | development efforts coming to fruition, when no company wants | to make PR announcements that it's no longer sending customer | data to a 3rd party, but still collecting it all the same for | an internal platform. This migration is happening | nonetheless. Amazon built out their platform in under 2 years | and the ripple has pushed many others forward toward | dogfooding their own adtech stacks. | gumby wrote: | > How many of today's startups are just servicing each other | with VC money? | | IMHO this is mostly the a phenomenon of the SAAS/platform | space. Those practices don't really apply to more traditional | businesses (including high tech ones). | | But you made me think of something else: this phenomenon was | definitely booming in the 2000 crash, when net-related hardware | companies were underwriting their own sales, which ended quite | poorly. Not only is the subsidization you point out happening | elsewhere, but hardly anyone buys much "networking gear" any | more. From crucial, enabling tech to boring infrastructure in | what, 15 years? | lurkervizzle wrote: | Specific anecdote - SaaS companies selling to other SaaS | companies is going to cause a mini-winter in that sector. My | company (which we thankfully sold last year :praise) had | several (though not exclusively) high-growth tech companies | as customers. | | Now, when I look at layoff announcements, I see a lot of our | former customers. Additionally, with budget freezes (driven | by VC RIP decks), these same companies aren't buying new | software for a while, even if they would benefit from it. And | many tools now are priced based on headcount. So it's sort of | the perfect storm - valuation resets so you have to go a lot | farther with your current funding, reduced retention revenue | because your customers are paying for fewer seats and harder | sales because of budget freezes. Ick. | gumby wrote: | > And many tools now are priced based on headcount. | | Ah, live by the ARPU, die by the ARPU: you lack of control | over the "U" means your company performance is coupled to | the broad market! | | Thanks for this example. It's obvious in retrospect but | apparently not prospectively. | upupandup wrote: | Isn't this what YC does essentially? YC backed SaaS companies | buy each others products, write favorable case studies and | use that to convince other enterprises to buy in, and to IPO | quickly they raise lot of money to have the market share that | commands the multi billion valuations with insane revenue | multiples? | | Seems like this model is beginning to fail, most YC backed | IPOs are now trading in deep red. ex) coinbase | | edit: lurkervizzle I can't respond to you since im throttled | but this is what I wrote in response to add on to what you | wrote in the other comment | | this is far more serious than I thought I seemingly just made | the connection that YC backed SaaS (or any other accelerator | schemes) were essentially just writing cheques to each other | and playing whack a mole: You direct your cohort members to | send cheques to one SaaS, raise series B & C, push for IPO | after making splashes on media outlets (also owned and | controlled by stakeholders), which in turn generates more | fervor from retail investors eager to get in on the "next" | Facebook. | | Then you would naturally use these beacons to essentially | send more cheques, this time across many tiny bets that they | can cycle through one after the other. Some make it to IPO, | many don't so they get "acquired". | | The more I look at the YC business model and silicon valley | in general is that very small group of people are actually in | it to build sustainable businesses, since the Uber secondary | market successes of VCs that successfully dumped their shares | on Masayoshi, the SaaS have become the new "social media | opex", where losing $2 to make $1 _is_ preferred over slower | growing but consistent net profit generating ones. | | By next year I anticipate ton of pain and anger. I took a | look at some TC figures and they are roughly 30/70 mix of | cash and RSUs. Many of those people are also in debt through | real estate using HELOCs too. | | What I think we are headed for is something unprecedented | because there are 3 major bubbles imploding: crypto, real | estate, dot com | | Even more crazy is that we had the exact setup going into the | new millenia: e-gold, real estate, dot com but the difference | back then was that monetary supply was nowhere near as low as | they have been in the past 3 years (take a look at the M2 | supply/velocity chart). | | https://www.pennmutualam.com/market-insights- | news/blogs/char... | gumby wrote: | Yes, at least in the startup SaaS space. As lurkervizzle | put it, it's a kind of ponzi scheme, though in that case I | think the "victims" are investors. And mostly the seed | investors, less the LPs and GPs of the VC firms. | [deleted] | lurkervizzle wrote: | 100% this - a good chunk of initial traction for YC | companies is other YC companies - which is great in some | ways to bootstrap initial growth/credibility, but the | uncharitable view is that it's a Ponzi scheme in a way. | oldsecondhand wrote: | One way to look at it is ponzi scheme, but a more | charitable interpretation is just eating your own | dogfood. | potatolicious wrote: | I think Ponzi is an overstatement, though I agree with | the general sentiment. | | There's in principle nothing wrong with clusters of | companies that are inter-dependent on selling stuff to | each other. Car parts manufacturers live and die by the | big car companies - and to some degree vice versa - but | we would hesitate to call that a Ponzi scheme. | | The key is whether or not this clustered ecosystem is | bringing in money from the outside. _Somebody_ in the | ecosystem has to be making money from the "outside" | world. It's the sustainability of this outside connection | that really matters. | | For a lot of SaaS companies I think the rude wakeup is | that the "outside" source of money was never an actual | business but instead was just endless rounds of VC cash. | Likewise (and IMO more offensively) with crypto the | "outside" money source was hyped-up retail investors (and | hyped-up VCs) and not any actual useful business. | | I do agree though - the VC sphere has spent the last 10+ | years building up an entire web of companies that inter- | depend on each other but where the "outside money" was | always highly dubious. This is distinctly unlike the | older crop of BigTech companies where the outside money | is (relatively) stable: actual advertising, actual | hardware in people's hands... | elforce002 wrote: | Uber is the prime example of get out while you're ahead. The | founders cashed in and let the the $@#& pile to the rest. | | The camel concept is gaining traction since they focus on | profitability from the get go, healthy runway and steadily | grow. | ceejayoz wrote: | Uber's a VC success story because the VCs managed to realize | their profits before it can collapse when it went IPO. | upupandup wrote: | They were lucky to find a whale like Masayoshi to dump their | shares but seems the equivalent of bragging about how you got | rich in the early phases of a ponzi scheme with the losers | holding bags. | dubswithus wrote: | Very good points MegaButts. Crypto is VC funded too. Hence the | crazy market caps because most of the VC owned supply is locked | up. | blakesterz wrote: | I was there in 2000, and we all thought those tech companies | were real businesses! Most of today's tech companies don't | really look all that much different. | bshipp wrote: | I read this line and wondered what really has changed in the | past 20 years? | | "In 2000, the Nasdaq superheated due to the large number of | companies that skyrocketed into the public markets fueled by | fanciful metrics disengaged from revenue." | | Interest rates have been held around zero since almost the | dot com crash and certainly since 2008. No wonder VCs were | given gobs of cash to try and eek out a better market return. | The injection of cash on Wall Street resulted in huge amounts | ending up in the stock market, perpetuating those returns | once they went public and encouraging more VC activity. Is | there any realistic forecasted revenue stream that justifies | the valuations of some of these companies? | | Some good companies and good prospects are going to get lost | when this monetary bubble bursts. It's a shame, but | inevitable considering how long the Fed has been holding | their finger on the scale. | upupandup wrote: | it's also interesting to see the impact of cheap capital on | software development trends. for instance to reproduce the | same SEO server-rendered site we had pre-2008, we have | increase in complexity and costs. | | Applications and websites that should be more than fine to | be rendered on MVC frameworks are now sending several | megabytes of javascript down the wire, as a result our | devices have more memories, more computing power, thereby | consuming more energy than ever before contributing to the | growing global warming crisis that we are only beginning to | witness now. | | Coupled with lobbying for not regulating personal data in | databases connected to the internet thereby allowing a | select few giants to essentially act both as cartels to | monopolize the arbitrage of the data of everyone on earth. | The labor market are also controlled as a result of this | monopoly, it feels like the best version of state | sanctioned businesses: self-sufficient on its own while | gathering data on everyone as the price of privacy is | artifically suppressed. | powerhour wrote: | I was there too and I remember a distinct malaise about | pointless tech companies that would make up for per customer | losses with scale. There were a lot of companies whose only | product was eyeballs for advertisers. (Ok, that part is the | same.) | excitom wrote: | pets.com, webvan, drkoop, kozmo, garden.com ... ah, the | memories. | chromaton wrote: | A lot of them were just early. | | pets.com => Chewy. Also PetSmart operates the pets.com | domain now apparently. | | webvan => Amazon Fresh, Instacart | | kozmo => DoorDash, Uber Eats, etc. | geoffjentry wrote: | Not only that, but it wasn't even the largest issue. | | People point at pimentoloaf.com or whatever and laugh. But | when those companies went under, they took away real dollars | from "real" B2B companies. And then when those companies went | under, "real" companies who depended on them went under. And | so on. | thr0wawayf00 wrote: | The problem is that sustainability was never the goal to begin | with. The goal was to generate enough hype around a product in | order to go public or get acquired by someone else. | | It's the rich people's version of "hodling". Just like crypto- | holders that created lots of hype around various coins and | whatnot, VCs just bought stakes in lots of different companies | hoping that one of them would go to the moon. | skippyboxedhero wrote: | > I think tech investors are unable to see their bias for just | how awful most tech companies today are | | I agree. Ecomm broke first in other markets, and I am seeing | profitable ecomm companies still having to raise capital. Uber | is one of the worst ones (they took a business that is very | profitable, and lost absolutely staggering amounts of money, | they probably need to cut 50% of the workforce to start with, | and then keep doing 50% until the business finds a level) but | there are many others that have no business model or route to | profit...and these are the best of the best that managed to | actually list. | | The public ones have a route to survival, some will raise, a | lot of expense will go away with the stock price collapsing | (employees getting bailed in). But most private ones won't | survive. Too many staff, too little cash generation, and too | reliant on the kindness of strangers (who remembers a few years | ago, IPOs were so unfashionable, very old money...lol). | | It is probably worse than 2000, the sector is much larger, | private markets are far larger, there is so much hot money in | the hands of brainless investors, it is a recipe for disaster. | It is also worth saying, there will be a reprieve for a few | months, then a story will break about one of the largest | companies filing for bankruptcy overnight, then the private | marks will come in. The losses sustained already have been some | of the largest in the history of capital markets, it is the | first inning. | vcfundedmylife wrote: | I agree, crypto and fintech will be the first dominos to fall | - they're in free fall already. | | There's a lot of copycat B2B startups that extremely | dependent on crypto and fintech for their revenue. They will | be the next domino to fall. | | After that, it would be infrastructure, security, and | analytics vendors that will face a revenue crunch and will be | unable to raise another round of funding. And then, all the | startups for startups vendors like Rippling and Brex. | | And the final domino would be currently well funded private | companies such as Airtable, Notion, Loom, and possibly even | Figma. We'll learn that none of these products had any | significant traction outside of VC-land. | | This would be even worse for the Bay Area than 2000. Remote | work is still the norm here (I'm typing this on my lunch | break in my nearly empty SF office). An economic downturn | coupled with destigmatized remote work is an environment ripe | for outsourcing. | jcmontx wrote: | > the final domino would be currently well funded private | companies such as Airtable, Notion, Loom, and possibly even | Figma | | How can you make such claims? These are great products | vcfundedmylife wrote: | I don't deny that they are great products with incredibly | talented engineering teams. | | All of that doesn't matter when 90% of your revenue comes | from series C startups that will go bust in a year, or | switch to cheaper and marginally worse alternatives. | greedo wrote: | The world is littered with dead companies that had great | products. | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | That matters in a growth market, only revenue and | positive margins matter now. | moneywoes wrote: | What can we do to insulate ourselves from this? As a | software engineer at a startup | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | Hit profitability on a unit cost basis yesterday. Try to | hit overall profitability before the VC cash burns out. | djbusby wrote: | Ask management about the numbers, evaluate their answer. | If you don't get an answer: run. | vcfundedmylife wrote: | If you work in crypto or fintech, run. | | Otherwise, I don't think there's much you can do to | insulate yourself. It's never obvious how resilient your | employer is relative to the rest of the industry. | | Just reset your expectations on what working in tech will | be like for the next few years. And prioritize learning | and building your network - whether at work or outside - | over trying to climb the career ladder. It will pay off | in the long run and you'll be happier. | | Also, articles like this show that we're nowhere near | capitulation. When we actually get there, stay passionate | about tech. There will be another boom. | drchopchop wrote: | I'd disagree re: Figma and Notion. These are very sticky, | best-in-class tools which have a lot of use outside of "VC- | land". Figma is becoming the de-facto way to share designs | across the internet. Notion has a good shot at becoming the | internet's default business wiki, killing Confluence. | btown wrote: | Figma's incredibly hard to replace because its tools are | highly customized for specific design workflows. Notion, | I'm not nearly as sure about. | | With Google Workplace having pageless Google Docs now, | and other shops having content centralized on Office 365, | a lot of cost-cutting companies will ask "we just use | Notion for a wiki anyways, can we migrate over to the | system we're already paying for?" And sure, Notion is | making the right move here, to move rapidly on becoming a | hub for project planning and other structured content, | which is harder to move into a plain collaborative | document. But is enough of Notion's userbase using those | table features to such a level that it would cause pain? | I'm truly not sure. | blueboo wrote: | This is a 2000s mindset as well. Designers are a few | YouTube tutorials away from jumping from Figma to Dingus | or whatever will come next. Notion's moat erodes with | every iteration of Google Docs and Office -- it'll be the | WordPerfect of 2025. | | Maybe, anyway | ProfessorLayton wrote: | I won't disagree here. Before Figma it was Sketch, and | before Sketch it was Photoshop etc. | skippyboxedhero wrote: | But the problem isn't the product. That is the mistake | that people make when they say it is nothing like 2000. | | The problem is: way too many staff, not enough revenue, | no route to profit. It doesn't matter if you have a | "best-in-class" tool...where is the money coming from, | how are you making payroll next month with no VCs. | | The main problem with tech companies isn't the products, | the products are fine. The issue is that they have taken | a profitable product and built an economic model around | that product that incinerates money. | TfyD3eYNen4XhbN wrote: | It seems to me the VCs probably made quite a bit of money from | Uber's IPO, no? Especially before their stock price halved | itself (LOL). | throwk8s wrote: | > If your unit economics don't work then you're fucked... | | From the company's perspective that's certainly true. | | As a regular person I'm more worried about the companies whose | unit economics work _too_ well. Companies like Amazon have so | much momentum that it seems like they could go on indefinitely, | instead of eventually failing and making room for new entrants. | | Companies whose unit economics don't work transfer wealth from | investors to customers, then get out of the way. Companies that | work too well can become an inescapable force. | ruined wrote: | eventually, their business becomes politics. see: | unionization, windfall tax, the nascent antisurveillance | backlash, ftc action... | | once your business becomes everyone's business, they'll just | go ahead and make decisions about it without you | gumby wrote: | > Companies whose unit economics don't work transfer wealth | from investors to customers, then get out of the way. | | Not always. Consider the rash of subsidized "we'll pick up | your dry cleaning and then save by doing the work at a | centralized facility elsewhere). These parasites wiped out | the network of local dry cleaners, in particular in SF. | | You could say, well, they wiped out the buggy whip makers. | But actually they wiped out the infrastructure and _then_ | went bust, leaving a desert (in dry cleaning terms) behind. | | Parasite is too kind a word. | christophilus wrote: | It's never happened, though. Buffett likes to say something | along the lines of, "I like to invest in businesses that | could be successfully run by a monkey, because eventually | they will be." | | My prediction is that every behemoth of today will be | tomorrow's Sears Roebuck, GE, West India Trading Company, | etc. At some point, they'll become mired in bureaucracy. | Enough incompetence will eventually rise to the top to allow | competitors to pounce. | | I'd bet on that, if I had to. | | That said, I may easily be wrong, and I honestly share your | concern about Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. | | In particular, I want a successful OSS phone competitor to | Apple and Google. I don't think something as important as our | telecommunication devices should be run by a duopoly. There's | no freedom in the phone market the way there is in the PC | market, and I'd really like to see that change. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | I agree with the premise. Success is never immortal. The | gap, however, is in societies being intended to be | immortal. If you let companies run amok, so the thinking | goes, when goes the company so goes the country. Limiting | companies' power let's them creatively destroy one another | without threatening the culture at large. | marcosdumay wrote: | > If your unit economics don't work then you're fucked, and | even if you raise literally tens of billions of dollars you | will eventually run out of money. | | Hum... VCs exist exactly because this is not a general truth. | | It's true for Uber, but there are many sectors where unit | economics change with scale. | dahdum wrote: | > I mean if we really look at some of the business models for | these companies, they're clearly unsustainable. Uber is a prime | example of a company that seems destined to fail. | | Lyft and Uber are both very near profitability and things are | looking pretty good for them over the next couple years. | | Why do you believe they are destined to fail? Established | markets have been profitable for a while. | christkv wrote: | In a recession they provide a luxury good that might be down | prioritized by customers to save money. | PeterisP wrote: | In a recession some people suddenly are eager for any job, | no matter how bad, driving down Uber's "cost of goods sold" | i.e. driver fees.. | | But in general economic downturns are tricky, as they | affect different groups differently - are the people who | would suffer in a recession the same people who are | currently using Uber? | juve1996 wrote: | That's not true, really, in this case with inflation. | | There will be no point in taking such low paying jobs. | We're already seeing massive shortages at the low end of | employment - working for that cheap simply doesn't make | economic sense. | vkou wrote: | Driver fees are already so low that between depreciation, | gas, and your time, you're barely making ends meet | driving. They can't squeeze the drivers any further, | unless they only want people to be driving 15-year-old | beaters. | missedthecue wrote: | Boy, this is an evergreen narrative on HN, but I don't | really think it's true. The total all-in cost of a Prius | (depreciation, maintenance, gasoline, etc...) is about 30 | cents per mile. Uber drivers make about $1-$2 per mile | which is a pretty big margin. | | Uber has been around for over 10 years now. Sure, not | everyone is an accountant, but if Uber drained every | driver's wallet, they'd have noticed by now. Interesting | that it's usually only people who have never driven for | Uber that claim it's completely unprofitable. | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | Back when I used to work for a FAANG in advertising I | looked at how much money Uber was spending on driver | advertising. At that point, I became convinced that Uber | were doomed. | vkou wrote: | How many uber drivers are in Priuses? I haven't ridden in | a single one... | | How many people do you personally know that make their | living as an Uber driver? I don't mean pensioners making | beer money, or people doing it as a side job, here. | | I know one. He's been doing it for a year and half, or | so. He doesn't own his car. he has to lease it on a | weekly basis, and he's paying through the nose for the | privilege. He's doing it because his credit is shit, and | he has no savings to buy a car outright. | | He's getting ahead, but if driver rates get cut, he'll be | going right back to being a line cook. | missedthecue wrote: | Almost every Uber I've ever taken has been a Prius, save | for the few occasions I've been in an Uber black. | | Still, the math isn't much different for a Corolla or | Civic. And the more you drive, the cheaper the cost per | mile is. | | Personally, I don't know anyone driving full time, but | still know several driving 10 or so hours per week and | they make about $300 for it. | Jommi wrote: | the first sentence is a terrible take unfortunately, | prius one of the most popular taxi and ridehailing cars | ever, it's sully arund >50% of car supply in most western | cities. | | As usual, you are conflsting your singular consumer | experience of Uber with the global business giant Uber. | vkou wrote: | Oh, I don't disagree about taxis. Priuses are everywhere | in that space, and for good reason. If you are going to | make a living driving, you should probably drive one. | | I do disagree on Ubers. I see very few Priuses, but | there's a different explanation to that, that I missed. | Casual drivers, people doing it as a side thing, or for | beer money didn't optimize their car purchase for the | purpose of driving a taxi. I suppose full-time drivers | are more likely to drive one. | mdorazio wrote: | PSA: Data on these kinds of questions is available. | Here's the data for Chicago on Uber/Lyft vehicle type: | https://data.cityofchicago.org/d/bc6b-sq4u/visualization | | It will vary by year and city, but generally speaking | Toyotas tend to dominate ride share with Camry usually | #1, then Prius, Corolla, and RAV4. However, the long tail | is _very_ long and you 're about as likely to get a ride | in a less cost effective vehicle. | roughly wrote: | > The total all-in cost of a Prius (depreciation, | maintenance, gasoline, etc...) is about 30 cents per mile | | One thing to note about Uber drivers is they're typically | putting 50-75k+ miles per year on their cars. I'm curious | what that does to those depreciation/etc figures. | ceeplusplus wrote: | If you assume 25k MSRP on a base model Prius, and that | the car will sell for $5k after 150k miles (absolute | garbage offer - an actual number would be something like | $10k-12k in today's market), then you get a worst case | depreciation of 13 cents/mile. Let's say a Prius gets 45 | mpg, gas costs $5/gal which gives you 11 cents/mile. | Factor in tires and oil/brake fluid changes and maybe you | get another $2k all in costs over the 150k miles, which | is 1.3 cents/mile. | | All in costs around 30 cents seems right. That assumes | absolute worst case depreciation too. And don't forget, | the government lets you deduct 58 cents/mile off your | taxes, so you actually make a profit off every mile | driven. | rileymat2 wrote: | You need to do the math on a deduction v credit. | | If you are spending .30 and deducting .58, you need to | multiply the .58 by your tax rate. | | You can't simply say .58 - .30 is .28 and that is a | profit of .28. Deductions don't work that way. | rileymat2 wrote: | From the Uber fare estimator for a trip in East Lansing | Michigan. Per-minute $0.17 Per-mile $1.20 | | ---- | | What is the catch? Drivers do not make any money while | driving to pick someone up or after dropping someone off. | Often, when I tried out driving, about half the miles | driven were without a fare. | | Subtract the service fees from those numbers and it gets | less lucrative. | rileymat2 wrote: | Often pickup traffic was very "directional" people going | to the bar at one time, people leaving at another, so | often you would have to drive back to where you started | the last fare for the next one. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Yeah - Uber both eats and taxi part was extremely cheap | during any restrictions. Now it's easily 100-150% more | expensive here. | georgeecollins wrote: | >> Lyft and Uber are both very near profitability | | As they have been for over a decade. Just not actually GAAP | profitable, except maybe a one off sale to DiDi. | | >> Established markets have been profitable for a while. | | So what market is Uber not established in? Are they pouring | their oceans of profit from New York, Los Angeles and London | into building a business in La Paz? I am sure they are trying | to grow in places but they are way past the point where their | profitable markets could fund growth. But they don't seem to. | | I am sure there is a profitable and enduring business in Uber | in some markets and at some prices. I just think they know | that the economic realities of that business would not | support their public stock valuation. So they work on self | driving and buy postmates rather than focus on those | profitable established markets. | ceeplusplus wrote: | Uber's net GAAP loss, excluding losses from investments in | DiDi and other companies, is around 300m last quarter [1] | which is a ~1% loss on their gross bookings. Most of that | is stock based comp. Their FCF loss was only 47m last | quarter. | | I know HN likes to hate on Uber and other gig apps but a 1% | margin is something they can easily make up given their | stated take rate on mobility and delivery is around 20%. | | > So what market is Uber not established in | | If you follow their earnings calls (or that of DoorDash as | well), advertising is a huge growing market for these | companies. My guess is they take on an airline business | model: zero to slim margins on the core offerings, but huge | money on advertising and ancillary sources of revenue (for | airlines, this is credit card points). | | [1] https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press- | release-det... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-20 23:00 UTC)