4 ms·
"Uhh, hate to break it to you but startups don't get "special valuations" because someone calls them startups." Is this condescending tone necessary? I was su
by SwellJoe 7y ago
"Uhh, hate to break it to you but startups don't get "special valuations" because someone calls them startups."
Is this condescending tone necessary?
I was suggesting growth plays a large role in why startups are valued differently than established businesses, and I don't see how you can argue that a rapid growth company will be valued according to the same metrics as a company with very low growth.
- mbesto 7y ago> And, it is irrational to compare startup valuations to established companies. They're not the same category. Is it necessary to be so matter-of-fact and imply that people aren't being rational (and thus inferior to your clearly rational point of view ). You're not wrong, the tone isn't necessary but I guess I was just following your lead.
- SwellJoe 7y agoYou're not wrong about that, it was more dismissive than it should have been, though I'm not sure how else to express the idea I had in mind. Perhaps I should have instead said something along the lines of, "I value rapid growth startup companies very differently from established slow-growing companies." without expressing an opinion on whether that's reasonable or not. I'd guess everyone here can make an assessment about how growth is factored into company valuations.
- perl4ever 7y agoI'm not aware of any connotation of "matter-of-fact" meaning "rude".