3 ms·
I think the point of this article is not that people think they got a bad deal. The point is, if those 9500 people had pooled their money together beforehand a
by scythe 13y ago
I think the point of this article is not that people think they got a bad deal.
The point is, if those 9500 people had pooled their money together beforehand and negotiated as a collective -- maybe you could say they incorporated -- they could have probably gotten a much better deal. This is to say, hindsight is not very clear, because you don't know what the other road looked like.
If y'all had sent your $2.4m to professionals to actually negotiate the funding of Oculus, I'm pretty sure you'd have walked away with at least 500% return on investment. Instead, you're defending your decision by saying you got at least 100% return, maybe, even though the target price for the product is < $300.
And you're right -- this is a Wall Street-like way of thinking. It also turns out to be pretty effective, overall.
- jesusmichael 13y agoWell the reality of that is that 1 in 1000 start-ups make money. The odds are, they would lose money. They traded a 1 in a 1000 shot at big bucks for a guaranteed 100% return, that is the small investors take on risk mitigation. The wall street take on risk mitigation is to take and hold large chunks of equity, hoping for future growth which only occasionally materializes. They do this with other people's money. Those being people who can afford to take such risks. The people that "bought" into O have a different risk profile and appetite for loss and acted appropriately.