4 ms·
Agreed. I wrote some of my thoughts down recently here: http://david.weebly.com/1/post/2009/02/does-capital-efficiency-matter.html http://david.weebly.com/1/pos
by drusenko 18y ago
Agreed. I wrote some of my thoughts down recently here: http://david.weebly.com/1/post/2009/02/does-capital-efficiency-matter.html http://david.weebly.com/1/post/2009/02/does-capital-efficien...
Essentially, while running a grossly underfunded company is definitely bad, that's not to be confused with a "raise insane amounts of money and spend it indiscriminately" attitude.
Doing the most with the least amount of money is still the best way to maintain maximum ownership, but it should definitely be balanced against the risks of not being properly capitalized, where "properly" is certainly open to interpretation.
- jacquesm 18y agoI even think that some initial funding constraints will sharpen your wits in ways that nothing else can.
- jacquesm 18y agoI read your post, and a similarity struck me between your situation and the one I was in with a competitor funded to the tune of 30M US by two very large companies. We were approached with the intent to acquire, but the management team there was - to put it mildly - a little strange, so we declined. After 3 years they had burned through the whole wad and the plug was pulled. It was the weirdest experience, to out-compete a company that has such enormous backing with a team of very few but very dedicated people in two small offices (one in Toronto, another near Amsterdam).