3 ms·
Was that the real reason companues failed? By not burning money, instead of burning through it too fast?
by triknomeister 1y ago
Was that the real reason companues failed? By not burning money, instead of burning through it too fast?
- analog31 1y agoSorry for the late reply. I was being somewhat sarcastic, or maybe not. During the "dot com" era, investors were throwing money at anybody willing to take it, and a start-up was questioned about whether it was maintaining a sufficient "burn rate." In hindsight, it was a speculative bubble. The company that I work for survived that era by not doing those things.
- lesuorac 1y agoI guess, but if you invested $1 million into 100 companies in 2000 and one of them was Amazon (and other 99 went to zero) your investments combined would have had an annual growth of 24% over the past 25 years.
- staticman2 1y agoSomeone in 2000 would not have done your proposed strategy unless they could name 100 .com like tech companies from 1975 that, if you had invested $1 million dollars in, would have returned 24% over the previous 25 years. If the idea is just look at what worked 25 years ago, the 2000 investor would probably have followed a different approach.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]