3 ms·

Wow, these numbers are like those from pets.com: > "During its first fiscal year (February to September 1999) Pets.com earned $619,000 in revenue, and spent $1

Wow, these numbers are like those from pets.com: > "During its first fiscal year (February to September 1999) Pets.com earned $619,000 in revenue, and spent $11.8 million on advertising." (Wikipedia) > "The company raised $82.5 million in a February 2000 IPO but filed for bankruptcy nine months later." (Investopedia) Fast rasied $102 million in capital and had $600k in revenue that year... Is Big Finance about to hit the panic button again?

nly 5y ago
$100M is a lot less money today than it was in 2000 after factoring in inflation and low rates.
- pphysch 5y ago
  So is 600k
- tomrod 5y ago
  Yes, but also no. Per the CPI, for every $1 in 2000, you need $1.68 today. 1.68^1/22 - 1 is about 2.39%/year inflation. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=200001&year2=202202 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=200001...
  - propter_hoc 5y ago
    For the purposes of engineering salaries, CPI is not an accurate representation of the change in what $100M can buy.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      I can't imagine PPI is too far removed.
    - nikanj 5y ago
      For the purposes of corporate exits too, or for the purposes of real estate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cush 5y ago
  But the revenue is also inflated, so it all works out in the wash.
  - whymauri 5y ago
    So Pets.com actually drove more revenue than Fast?! Oh my god.
    - itronitron 5y ago
      Also, most people in the US had heard of Pets.com while it still existed.
ben7799 5y ago
This does seem like a 1990s story. I'm just barely young enough to have missed it. Friends who quit school early were in on it. I don't know if this was the case at Fast but in a lot of cases back in the 1990s a lot of the engineers knew everything was screwed up.. and they just didn't care, the money was good while it lasted. The experience almost always helped people get ahead, no one ever gets punished for doing good work at a company that fails due to bad management and investor decisions.
- ergocoder 5y ago
  I disagree that it looked like pets.com. One key difference is pets.com is public and got money from common people. Fast got money from highly sophisticated VCs. They all made calculated bet. No VCs would tell you their deals have 100% success. Employees that join are highly educated. They also know that it is a startup with high failure chance. Much higher than FAANG. Every educated person knows this. And it is normal to be disappointed when a bet doesn't work out.
zerocrates 5y ago
I wonder just how much difference it makes that all this wacky startup action is private equity (writ large) rather than the public markets. Seems like... maybe a lot?

nly 5y ago

$100M is a lot less money today than it was in 2000 after factoring in inflation and low rates.

pphysch 5y ago
So is 600k
tomrod 5y ago
Yes, but also no. Per the CPI, for every $1 in 2000, you need $1.68 today. 1.68^1/22 - 1 is about 2.39%/year inflation. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=200001&year2=202202 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=200001...
- propter_hoc 5y ago
  For the purposes of engineering salaries, CPI is not an accurate representation of the change in what $100M can buy.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    I can't imagine PPI is too far removed.
  - nikanj 5y ago
    For the purposes of corporate exits too, or for the purposes of real estate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cush 5y ago
But the revenue is also inflated, so it all works out in the wash.
- whymauri 5y ago
  So Pets.com actually drove more revenue than Fast?! Oh my god.
  - itronitron 5y ago
    Also, most people in the US had heard of Pets.com while it still existed.

ben7799 5y ago

This does seem like a 1990s story. I'm just barely young enough to have missed it. Friends who quit school early were in on it. I don't know if this was the case at Fast but in a lot of cases back in the 1990s a lot of the engineers knew everything was screwed up.. and they just didn't care, the money was good while it lasted. The experience almost always helped people get ahead, no one ever gets punished for doing good work at a company that fails due to bad management and investor decisions.

ergocoder 5y ago
I disagree that it looked like pets.com. One key difference is pets.com is public and got money from common people. Fast got money from highly sophisticated VCs. They all made calculated bet. No VCs would tell you their deals have 100% success. Employees that join are highly educated. They also know that it is a startup with high failure chance. Much higher than FAANG. Every educated person knows this. And it is normal to be disappointed when a bet doesn't work out.

zerocrates 5y ago

I wonder just how much difference it makes that all this wacky startup action is private equity (writ large) rather than the public markets. Seems like... maybe a lot?