5 ms·
Its funny that in 2008 - we see posts like "RIP Good Times" - http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/06/r-i-p-good-times-one-year-later/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/06
by timmyd 15y ago
Its funny that in 2008 - we see posts like "RIP Good Times" - http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/06/r-i-p-good-times-one-year-later/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/06/r-i-p-good-times-one-year-l... - and yet nothing - fundamentally - came of it. I'm sure Sequoia's companies left that meeting - scared, sacked a bunch of employee's, cleaned out the closest - and the VC's were happy because the capital lasted longer ensuring no more dilutions for themselves and a "trimmer" business even if it was not required. VC's love to blow hot air because it's self-serving. "OMG da world is ending - raise cash now". Of course, many go out and do this [for whatever reason] and get hit by lower valuations [VC's +1 up]. VC's have already raised their HUGE current funds - most in the vicinity of 500m+. So how does any of this affect VC's ? They want more "bang-for-their-buck" and by getting lower valuations, they get higher returns and larger management cuts on exits. I'm not suggesting this is a flaw - it's capitalism and the opposite side of what a start is doing in trying to get larger valuations.
Seemingly, the fundamental problem that exists in the United States is that the debt level has been never ending. The spending mentality of the U.S. government since Regean, Bush, Clinton [not so much], Bush and now even Obama [in my view - cleaning up the mess] was never one of fiscal or monetary conservatism. I'm an Aussie - our country doesn't have hardly any debt [queue smart-ass arrogance smirk]. Good fiscal and monetary policy ? Not really - as much as our politicians love to think so - it's just not over promising and over spending for political gains. "I'll give you tax-cuts of 5%" - "I'll do 10%" - "I've just discovered I can do 15%!" and so on it seems in the US - then the whole country argues about whether tax-cuts are better or worse or giving the wealthier socioeconomic bracket more money is better or worse. I don't premise to understand the entire US Financial or Political system - I'm merely an international observer. What you can observe - large socioeconomic cuts to fundamental social welfare results in those scenes unfortunately unfolding in London. You rip apart societies most vulnerable social fabric and it's not going to respond happily.
To suggest we are heading for another "dot-com" boom - at least in my opinion - is totally unfounded. The internet is in another era juxtaposed against the 2000's with widebroadband adoption and reliance. IPO's are not finished when they are based on real fundamental revenues and profits underlined with good talent. Any rational investment is unpinned by this - Facebook would still raise a huge IPO - because large financial institutions still have huge funds available to them and see the rationality of the investment. Similar to other business' that have real revenue and real values.
Solid business basics win as per Warren Buffet "Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful". Convince investors to be greedy in the current climate and nothing matters. You'll win.
- Hisoka 15y agoExactly my thoughts... wasn't 2008 doomsday?? If so.. doesn't that mean it's GONNA be summer soon (let alone summer came and freaking passed...)? I think we should stop the macro outlook and worrying. It's pointless. Focus on what you're doing right now, and producing something of value. In most cases, what you have control over day-to-day, whether it's developing a quality product, speaking with customers, improving business processes, hiring, etc will affect your success much more than whether the country's economy is going down the tubes.. You have no control over it, so stop worrying about it. Worry about getting customers. Worry about developing.
- atsaloli 15y agoFYI http://www.debtclock.com.au/ http://www.debtclock.com.au/ shows Australia with $68 billion in debt and rising. That's much better than the US, not in the black, either. Given Australia's much smaller population, this works out to $7,889 per capita. Compare to USA $46,780 per capita. Country's headed in the wrong direction, mate. Same direction as the USA, I'm afraid.
- timmyd 15y agonot really - focusing on this figure is somewhat non-nonsensical and spreads FUD albeit other than to keep prudent awareness of it. The difference between Aus and USA - is our net growth far outweighs the debt we owe and therefore we are relatively liquid if we needed to double-down on this debt. Further, much of our debt has been localed in foreign currencies - which are now all depreciated against the AUD - which is seen as a relatively safe currency given the USA downgrade. I don't propose to know when this will revert. Further, the regulation of our financial institutions has typically been quite tight through judicial activism and aggressive regulation. Unfortunately [for the world] - Wall St wasn't to the same degree. My personal view is that Governments should not adopt fiscal policy which encourages surplus - a responsible government is adopted to spend money on essential services - not carry on for political gain that it is in "surplus'. It should be net-neutral. Anyway, Feel free to browse this document - http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1496/PDF/01_Debt.pdf http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1496/PDF/01_Debt.pdf "A government’s balance sheet comprises both assets and liabilities. This article has demonstrated that only considering gross debt can result in an incomplete picture of public finances. By taking into account assets the public sector owns, a more accurate view of a government’s ability to respond to economic conditions can be determined. This article has shown that Australia has undergone several periods of debt accumulation, followed by periods of fiscal consolidation. Periods of strong economic growth following episodes of debt accumulation have helped support relatively quick improvements in the public sector’s net debt position. Australia has a low level of net debt both historically and when compared with G-7 economies."