3 ms·
Sorry 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, a
by analog31 1y ago
Sorry 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]