4 ms·
I'll bite. Investors don't value early stage companies the same way they value mature companies - for example, a public utility company serves a defined populat
by etrain 14y ago
I'll bite. Investors don't value early stage companies the same way they value mature companies - for example, a public utility company serves a defined population in a defined geographic region, and operates at some predictable margin. Their value is simply the net present value of future distribution to investors (in the form of dividends, stock buybacks, or share price appreciation). They can still be good investments if the risk/return profile looks good.
Contrast this with early stage companies (which is what we're talking about here). VCs don't care as much if a company has a proven business model - what they're looking for is GROWTH opportunity. The opportunity to completely disrupt a huge market or invent a new one. While profitable companies have better odds of surviving long enough to get to that point, they may not be the best investments in the end.
To give you a concrete example of how this could affect investor decision making. Let's say that the total opportunity for Source Code Management solutions is $2bn/year in corporate spending (completely making this number up) - even if GitHub captures 100% of this market, which they won't, they're capped at $2bn/year in revenue, unless they figure out another way to make money. Once they're done paying the sales guys, engineers, and otherwise supporting operations, they make maybe $500mm/year in profit. With a standard P/E multiple, they'd be worth something like $5-$10bn.
Pinterest, on the other hand, has the potential to be the "facebook of online shopping" to amazon's "google of online shopping". If people really engage with pinterest, and they spend a lot of time on the site, and they're more likely to buy stuff when they're looking at what their friends like and are buying, then it could be worth a lot more than that. The point is, while they don't yet have predictable revenues or earnings, their potential market (online shopping) is so much bigger than github's, that it's possible to justify a high valuation based on growth potential.
I'm not saying I buy the Pinterest hype. I'm just saying that there are criteria beyond current profitability and cash flow on which one can value an early stage business.
- swalkergibson 14y agoThe last line is truly indicative of the echo chamber that is Silicon Valley. Only in the Bay Area do companies without revenues generate valuations of $1B+ with simple hand-waving and conjecture. GitHub charges real money for real services and are thus valued less than someone with a Powerpoint presentation on "proposed revenue models." Quite frankly, it is sad.
- obtu 14y agoHere's a bit more about perverse incentives that make VCs' decisions less rational: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/08/vc-insanity-economics/ http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/08/vc-insanity-economics... The differences between Pinterest and GitHub are that: GitHub is more unique (it's not strictly social media and there's more homework to do); it's bootstrapped and negociates from a stronger position; VCs want to give start-ups more money than they need because that's how they get paid.