8 ms·

Fuzzy Math That's Creating Many Billion-Dollar Tech Valuations

• shrikant 12y ago
  > Snapchat, the photo-messaging app raising cash at a $15 billion valuation, probably isn't actually worth more than Clorox or Campbell Soup. Why not? Edit: Okay, personally and intuitively, I'd value a convenient means of communication more than processed food and snacks.
  • josefresco 12y ago
    "investors agree to grant higher valuations, which help the companies with recruitment and building credibility, in exchange for guarantees that they'll get their money back first if the company goes public or sells" That's all she wrote- unless of course your startup actually sells something, than you might have a bottom number that still looks impressive once the initial investors have moved on.
  • wavefunction 12y ago
    Some are these are companies with products that produce profits and the other is a photo-sharing app that doesn't.
  • balls2you 12y ago
    when internet is down, snapchat will not work but clorox and campbell soup will still continue to do their job. that's why :)
    • x3c 12y ago
      Same goes for Google.
    • Chichikov 12y ago
      The internet will never be down again (barring the Apocalypse). Human life changed in the nineties in ways that we have not even begun to grasp.
      • balls2you 12y ago
        tell that to users of Comcast
    • balls2you 12y ago
      haha, downvoted due to lack of a sense of humor in the crowd.
  • pkaye 12y ago
    You too can invest in my $1 million company for investing just $1000 to buy 0.001 shares.
  • bko 12y ago
    Probably because Clorox and Campbell pull in ~$5 billion and ~$8 billion in revenue and have done so for the last 5 years. Pretax earning for both are ~$1 billion. I agree that future cash flows are more important than historical performance but a track record counts for something, right?
    • nqureshi 12y ago
      Would you rather invest in Campbell soup or Snapchat?
      • bko 12y ago
        Clorox stock price 5 years ago: ~65 Clorox stock price today: ~108 Annual return: 10.7% Campbell stock price 5 years ago: ~35 Campbell stock price today: ~45 Annual return: 5.15% I get it, soup isn't sexy. Doesn't mean its not a good investment. Personally, I don't claim to have a preference for one or the other. Investment is more about risk profile than blind speculation.
        • adventured 12y ago
          Clorox is also paying a 2.7% dividend. Campbell is 2.8%. Would be reasonable to bump those five year annual returns up to perhaps ~13% and ~7.5% (let's assume the dividend was lower five years ago).
      • discardorama 12y ago
        Chlorox is the slow-and-steady type. SnapChat is the hare, to Chlorox's tortoise. The chances that Chlorox or Campbell will still be around in 10 years? Very high. Snapchat? Not so much.
      • tortilla 12y ago
        I would invest in Campbell soup all day long. And I would gamble on Snapchat.
      • l33tfr4gg3r 12y ago
        On the other hand, I personally think the chances that Snapchat (or its technology) will be acquired down the road are a lot higher than either Campbell or Chlorox.
  • venomsnake 12y ago
    I can clone Snapchat in a weekend. So can couple of million other people. It's fall could be as rapid as its rise. I cannot even begin to grasp the challenges of delivering canned soup around five continents. Campbell solve hard problem. Snapchat - easy one.
    • kowdermeister 12y ago
      It's amusing to see that you think that to compete with SC is as simple as copying its functionality.
      • brohee 12y ago
        It sill makes the idea that someone would pay billions (in cash) for Snapchat technology pretty funny. As how to value their users...
      • phatfish 12y ago
        It's not that it's easy, it's the barrier to entry. One person can build a potential SnapChat clone (or next big thing that ends up being hip), and have access to the same potential user/customer base. I can sell home made soup on my front lawn, but i sure as hell can't scale to Campbells size overnight. This is why Campbells is the safe investment.
    • megaman821 12y ago
      Because Snapchat's valuation is solely based on their technology? Snapchat had the right product with the right marketing that lead them to gaining a large user base with high engagement. Furthermore, is Campbell's valuation based on their soup recipe? I can make chicken soup in hour. They are valuable for their brand, distribution, and production capabilities.
      • venomsnake 12y ago
        Snapchat success came by fraud. They lied their audience about the self destruction of their messages.
      • 12y ago
• howeyc 12y ago
  It looks to me, with liquidation preferences, like the valuation the investors believe is probably closer to "all the money raised"+x% than the published "valuation".
  • mdda 12y ago
    Agreed - what I don't understand is why most of the discussion here is about high valuations. The big reveal of the article is that the valuations are known by investors to be illusory - and (colloquially) the VCs are ripping the faces off the entrepreneurs.
• kylelibra 12y ago
  Seems to me (as a startup employee) that downside protection and liquidation preferences should be required to be disclosed to all previous stakeholders (employees, prior investors, etc.).
  • balls2you 12y ago
    as someone who has worked in startups for the last 10 years as always an early employee and disillusioned by it... the VCs think of you as replaceable unlike themselves... more money buys more power... you as an employee have only a single power - "quitting".
    • kylelibra 12y ago
      I get that incentives are misaligned between involved parties (VC's, founders, employees), but it seems very disingenuous to knowingly withhold this information.
      • droopyEyelids 12y ago
        Hey! That is sort of the beginning of class-consciousness.
      • loumf 12y ago
        Is it being withheld? Have you asked? Liquidation preferences are mostly there for the low exits -- the VC is trying to stop the founders from making ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! by just selling it out right away for a low (but still very high for a pair of people) amount of money. I haven't found that this is a secret. As an employee, you should assume that you aren't going to see much if the exit is low (no matter what the founders/VCs tell you). I would also say that this is basically true for Angels if the company goes through a few more rounds and then fails to reach real exit velocity.
        • q2 12y ago
          >>> Is it being withheld? Have you asked? Does it needs to be asked? Isn't it transparency in operations and responsibility to people who believed and invested before in terms of effort or money? It is unbelievable, if they are hidden/undisclosed to remaining stakeholders.
• ccozan 12y ago
  There is nohing strange here. It's a market and the price is set to any amount you wish. If someone buys it, good for you. I saw recently a movie, where there was an example of this happening in the past too, the Tulip Mania[0], where the evaluations were way of the scale. What followed was a crash. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
  • tghw 12y ago
    This isn't just simple price-setting. It's advertising a very different price than the actual valuation, mostly because of the downside protection.
    • loumf 12y ago
      The stock that the VC owns and the stock that the employee owns are materially different and thus have different values. The kind of stock the employee has is not for sale. It is better for employees if the stock they own (or have options for) is initially low-priced (for tax reasons). This whole "valuation set by auditing" is kind of meaningless -- it's as artificially low as some might think the VC valuation is high. It's based more on regulations about what is valuable than what the market thinks is valuable. For example, cash in the bank, factory equipment, and accounts receivable are worth something -- having a billion free users is not.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• SoCalNS_902 12y ago
  I think the fear of using the word 'bubble' is reaching a bubble.
  • hacknat 12y ago
    You could call it a bubble, but it really doesn't matter to anyone if it pops. VC money is a rounding error in the overall economy.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • nilkn 12y ago
      It's not a rounding error in the technology industry. Many startups would die within a year if VC funding dried up, which means thousands of talented programmers would be unemployed. Many others would survive, but would be forced to significantly curtail growth and have large layoffs. Any "growth now, revenue later" startups would be in serious trouble. Salaries would go down (demand for programming jobs would outstrip supply) and there might even be a real estate crash in geographic areas heavily dominated by startups (e.g., Silicon Valley/San Francisco).
    • hnnewguy 12y ago
      >VC money is a rounding error in the overall economy. According to Wikipedia, it's no rounding error: "11% of private sector jobs come from venture-backed companies and venture-backed revenue accounts for 21% of US GDP." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital
• mrdrozdov 12y ago
  Seems to me, that if you take a rational perspective, then if a company like SnapChat has a high valuation then it must have some competitive advantage and effective market plan. Of course, this might just be confirmation bias because I want to believe that such a high valuation could not be the effect of just poor estimation. A different situation could also be true. One might not want to believe that a four year old messaging app might be worth more than some of the most well known names in household products. It's confirmation bias all the way down.
  • aros 12y ago
    The main difference is that those household products have actual revenue. Snapchat has yet to make any sort of significant money nor does it even have a plant to make money.
• tlarkworthy 12y ago
  From the title I thought this was going to be a deep belief network hype piece.
• csense 12y ago
  This article is trying to express that "valuation" has different meanings for different companies. For most companies, valuation is based on the price investors are paying for the stock alone. The point of the article is that, for some tech companies, it's based on the price investors are paying for the stock plus some form of "downside insurance" which pays them back if the stock loses value. It makes sense that the stock-plus-insurance basket would be more valuable than the stock alone, especially if there is a small probability of the insurer folding and thus a small probability of losing money.
• neilk 12y ago
  So why aren't startup valuations published as a range? This is like a measurement with no error bars. I know the "real" reason - same reason why TVs are compared on the diagonal measure. But, why don't later investors insist on also learning the lowest possible imputed value, taking into account how investors are acting to protect themselves. Risk is hard to compare, but isn't this what Wall Street does all day?
  • mason55 12y ago
    > But, why don't later investors insist on also learning the lowest possible imputed value, taking into account how investors are acting to protect themselves. Risk is hard to compare, but isn't this what Wall Street does all day? Presumably the later investors ARE doing this. But it's not in the investors' interest to publish their internal research on the error bars and it IS in the interest of the startup to publish as high a valuation as possible. Combine that with the fact that big numbers get pageviews and there's no incentive for anyone to report on the lower bound. One way that you know this analysis is happening is that it's needed for an S1 filing. There's just no reason to publish any of it before then.
  • bengali3 12y ago
    > So why aren't startup valuations published as a range? Because it's marketing hype and merely negotiation tactic. Newcomers always have the opportunity to get the truth before investing. Who are the parties who care about accurate valuations enough to sue if they get lied to? 1. Investors 2. Banks & Insurance 3. SEC If you aren't one of those parties, then i'm guessing you can be told to trust any valuation on a whim.
  • dd36 12y ago
    Analysts do exactly this. They pick a handful of metrics and produce a range. For an IPO, this information is usually published by varying sell-side firms for the benefit of their clients and to attract new clients (unless they are underwriting the deal then there's a lock up period - 45 days, IIRC). The company itself will also have a slide deck for its pre-offering road show that has this analysis done by management. You can usually find these slide decks on an investor relations website or on the SEC Edgar system. It also may be in the SEC registration statement under management analysis - or even under risks.
• zxcvvcxz 12y ago
  Based on the headline, did anyone else expect this article to be about "deep learning"? Seems like everyone and their mother is using machine learning to do X these days. My concern would be that neither the founders nor the investors understand the math/science behind it well enough to accurately forecast if most of these products could work. I don't know how many VCs have CS PhDs doing their due diligence, hopefully more than I think. Personally I don't care either way, but some academics are gonna get mad if/when the media starts comparing deep learning stuff to financial engineering... To be clear I think machine learning methods add a lot of value, but given the current climate of hype, I'm seeing more noise and fluff surrounding product possibilities based on these technologies.
  • nilkn 12y ago
    I was expecting this to be about simple fuzzy logic getting billed as sophisticated machine learning to drive up valuations and hype, or something like that. The actual value of data science is another discussion, but it sure is popular right now.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• Balgair 12y ago
  Notice that the Investor Fear of Missing Out = [(Hopes & Dreams x Rate of Growth) - Valuation]/ Downside Protection . Though you have to guess on some of the values, you can then use this to figure out what people actually think valuations are. Say my Drone Delivery Tacos startup is going well, we have 10 guys all tacoed out and have delivered 100 tacos, on track to deliver 250 by Friday. We than have a growth rate of 250%. Our hopes and dreams are high, out of a 10 point scale, we are at 9.5. Also, one of the guy's cousins knows a guy that could value us at 100 million dollars. That guy wants a lot of protection though, say 8.0 out of 10. Plug in the numbers and you get: $ -12,500,000 ish. That's how much they actually think you are worth to them. To say this is all about appearances is putting it lightly. For Uber we know the valuation is 40 Billion smackers, hopes and dreams are at 10/10, Downside protection is lower, call it 5/10, and growth rate is ~300% (http://www.profitconfidential.com/stock-market/how-does-uber-make-money-anticipated-ipo-of-2015/ http://www.profitconfidential.com/stock-market/how-does-uber...). So, we get $ -8 Billion dollars, what the investors actually think that Uber is worth. Crazy times. {Edit:} My math is off. Hopes and Dreams is in units of $/%/year and Downside Protection is in units of $. Assigning these to a 10 point scale is not exactly correct and they obviously do not cancel each other.
• downandout 12y ago
  This is very similar to "death spiral financing" in which lenders are guaranteed enough stock to return the loan plus interest, regardless of the stock price. Here, investors instead of lenders are receiving very similar guarantees. It doesn't usually work out well for later stage investors.
• julienchastang 12y ago
  Can anyone here comment on the broader societal and economic impacts and whether this is a threat to capitalism? It seems to me to be a bad thing when inside players can rig the game to become immensely wealthy based on companies that are making little or no money.
• xtrumanx 12y ago
  > investors agree to grant higher valuations... in exchange for guarantees that they'll get their money back first if the company goes public or sells. Is that not normal? To pay your investors and other preferred stock holders first (along with your creditors and such) back first before those who were granted common stock. Or is the author saying the preferred/common stock deal is just a tech industry thing?
  • mrgordon 12y ago
    It is normal
  • earlyrounder 12y ago
    Yes it is normal for investors to be repaid first, However the article is saying is that there is a LIFO arrangement for different investors. Last in , first out. Example: C round investors , in exchange for new, higher valuation, will be repaid before B or seed round investors. The Liquidation Preference. If C rounders are paying up for this protection, then I guess it's ok. And if the C round is led by firms that primarily invest in public markets ( T Rowe Price, Wellington, Fidelity etc) then the private company is hoping those firms anchor the next round - an IPO at at least the same or higher valuation. What is the disaster is when the exit comes, and other public fund managers not previously involved in the deal that need to absorb the remainder of the demand balk at the valuation proposed by the investment bank leading the deal. The public round fetches a lower valuation than the most recent private round(s), and people are not pleased.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• gjem97 12y ago
  This article is completely missing the point. These valuation numbers are made up. Say you have a basket of ten oranges, ten apples and ten pears. Someone comes along and says, "I'll give you $20 for your oranges." You give them the oranges and put the twenty dollar bill in the basket. You now announce to the world "This basket of fruit/cash is now worth $60!" It's not. You have no basis for assuming that the market will also pay $2 per apple or pear, but you need a nice round number to shout out to the world. In this allegory, your oranges are preferred shares that may have "economic terms" like liquidation preferences and participation clauses that could make them 10 or more times more valuable than the common shares of your company. These companies that are now going through 5+ rounds of private financing often are negotiating different terms for each round. But when it comes time to issue a press release--even if they're not intentionally being disingenuous--it's easier to communicate a single number. That number is often just number of outstanding "shares" * purchase price of last funding round.
• markbnj 12y ago
  Did Bloomberg just discover preferred shares and liquidation preferences? Or is this meant for a lay audience? I'm not sure how many of Bloomberg's readers would find this surprising or newsworthy.