3 ms·

> taxes give linear returns which is why they can be ignored for years This isn't true at all. The effect of taxes compound just like anything else. E.g. if W

> taxes give linear returns which is why they can be ignored for years This isn't true at all. The effect of taxes compound just like anything else. E.g. if Warren Buffet had originally incorporated Berkshire as a Bermuda-based reinsurer, he'd be worth over $400 billion today. If he didn't structure it as an insurer at all he'd only be worth $20 billion. Tax savings compound at whatever the long-term ROE of the corporate entity. Therefore tax arbitrage is most important for hyper growth companies.

Retric 6y ago
When you’re growing at even 10% per month the difference between 50Billion and 400 billion in 50 years is a rounding error on a rounding error. Further, diminishing returns means your stuck investing in ever less profitable operations as you grow. These will often lose money, just look at say Microsoft or Google to see how little an extra 100 billion 10 years ago would give them now. Nobody is saying they don’t have any upside, but as always it’s the opportunity cost that kills you.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Corporate entities have to make quarterly payments. Let's assume you're a $10 million company with 10% monthly ROE/growth. Paying an additional 9% in California corporate tax rates will result in the loss of a billion in market cap within five years. Literally a third of the terminal value of the startup. Point taken about diminishing marginal returns. But you can see that even taking that into account, the impact of lax tax planning for shareholders is humongous. (Plus many startups are in winner-take-all markets, and effectively have increasing returns to scale.) The opportunity cost is real. Tax arbitrage will take some amount of bandwidth. But it often takes much less effort to raise cash by minimizing taxes than it does to raise additional equity funding. The former can mostly be done by the CFO in the background, whereas the latter requires the attention of the founders.
  - Retric 6y ago
    That a 9% income tax in California corporate tax rates are on profit. A profitable startup has unlimited runway so the classic X month of runway company is facing ~0 income taxes. Further it assumes your capital constrained, which might apply to some fast growing business but if your the magical unicorn of a profitable fast growing growing company then capital is the easiest problem to solve. Worst case you might trade a little extra equity, but again that’s linear dilution often based on growth at the current rate. PS: If your growing 10% per month it takes 6 years to go from 1 million per year in revenue to 1 billion per year in revenue. It’s very fast, but hardly instantaneous. Keeping that up for 12 years means 1 trillion in revenue per year which is extremely rare. Growth will slow eventually, and when it does there are a huge number of things to optimize.

Retric 6y ago

When you’re growing at even 10% per month the difference between 50Billion and 400 billion in 50 years is a rounding error on a rounding error. Further, diminishing returns means your stuck investing in ever less profitable operations as you grow. These will often lose money, just look at say Microsoft or Google to see how little an extra 100 billion 10 years ago would give them now. Nobody is saying they don’t have any upside, but as always it’s the opportunity cost that kills you.

dcolkitt 6y ago
Corporate entities have to make quarterly payments. Let's assume you're a $10 million company with 10% monthly ROE/growth. Paying an additional 9% in California corporate tax rates will result in the loss of a billion in market cap within five years. Literally a third of the terminal value of the startup. Point taken about diminishing marginal returns. But you can see that even taking that into account, the impact of lax tax planning for shareholders is humongous. (Plus many startups are in winner-take-all markets, and effectively have increasing returns to scale.) The opportunity cost is real. Tax arbitrage will take some amount of bandwidth. But it often takes much less effort to raise cash by minimizing taxes than it does to raise additional equity funding. The former can mostly be done by the CFO in the background, whereas the latter requires the attention of the founders.
- Retric 6y ago
  That a 9% income tax in California corporate tax rates are on profit. A profitable startup has unlimited runway so the classic X month of runway company is facing ~0 income taxes. Further it assumes your capital constrained, which might apply to some fast growing business but if your the magical unicorn of a profitable fast growing growing company then capital is the easiest problem to solve. Worst case you might trade a little extra equity, but again that’s linear dilution often based on growth at the current rate. PS: If your growing 10% per month it takes 6 years to go from 1 million per year in revenue to 1 billion per year in revenue. It’s very fast, but hardly instantaneous. Keeping that up for 12 years means 1 trillion in revenue per year which is extremely rare. Growth will slow eventually, and when it does there are a huge number of things to optimize.