Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reasons I Won’t Fund You

saastr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Reasons I Won’t Fund You

#13

Post by nickpsecurity »

randomdata wrote: post #9
nickpsecurity wrote: post #5

Number 12 surprised me given the number of billionaires that would've failed it. Most are hyperfocused and opinionated early on to the point they don't care who they piss off or destroy to dominate the market they're creating. He'll either get the ones that are consistently good on P.C./P.R. at the beginning or filter out the unicorns he might have gotten. That would be my guess based on what I've seen. How many unic…

> How many unicorns or higher have his venture firm created in practice? I've never heard of any of them. https://angel.co/esignature The one exit was to another company held by the same firm.

Best part of your link was:

"Babycenter (a Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies)"

Exact kind of line item you expect on the resume of unicorn-creating investors in Silicon Valley. ;)

Re: Reasons I Won’t Fund You

#14

Post by pryelluw »

new299 wrote: post #10

One thing I find a bit weird is the investor focus on SaaS. The desire for Hardware/science based startups seem to get talk about a lot, but almost every one of these "how to pitch"/"what I'm looking for as an investor" articles is focused on SaaS. I know this particular investor is exclusively SaaS, but isn't there a wider desire for hardware/science based startups? Or is it all just talk?

A SaaS allows them to track growth easily. You have n susbcribers who pay x a month. It costs y to bring them in and they use the product for z months. It a matter of then looking at the numbers and knowing how much ghr company will be worth in a given time period.

Other types of tech products are not as straightforward. Becomes more of a coin toss. Not that a SaaS is a safe investment.

Re: Reasons I Won’t Fund You

#15

Post by maehwasu »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #5

Number 12 surprised me given the number of billionaires that would've failed it. Most are hyperfocused and opinionated early on to the point they don't care who they piss off or destroy to dominate the market they're creating. He'll either get the ones that are consistently good on P.C./P.R. at the beginning or filter out the unicorns he might have gotten. That would be my guess based on what I've seen. How many unic…

Yeah, selecting for founders who are PC-compliant seems mildly retarded, to say the least.

The charitable reading is that the guy has a way he wishes the world were, and is trying to impose that vision on people he funds; which I mean, go with god dude.

Re: Reasons I Won’t Fund You

#16

Post by new299 »

pryelluw wrote: post #14
new299 wrote: post #10

One thing I find a bit weird is the investor focus on SaaS. The desire for Hardware/science based startups seem to get talk about a lot, but almost every one of these "how to pitch"/"what I'm looking for as an investor" articles is focused on SaaS. I know this particular investor is exclusively SaaS, but isn't there a wider desire for hardware/science based startups? Or is it all just talk?

A SaaS allows them to track growth easily. You have n susbcribers who pay x a month. It costs y to bring them in and they use the product for z months. It a matter of then looking at the numbers and knowing how much ghr company will be worth in a given time period. Other types of tech products are not as straightforward. Becomes more of a coin toss. Not that a SaaS is a safe investment.

Right... which comes down to: "it's easy for them to measure and understand".

And ultimately investors say they want hardware/science. But they don't really...?

Re: Reasons I Won’t Fund You

#19

Post by Robin_Message »

dkural wrote: post #2

Looks like he won't fund you if billionaires find your company before he does, and he can't get the cheap equity he'd like. Makes sense for him, but you're also better off not raising from him in that particular scenario. He calls this 'cap table is messed up', whereas he's just late and out-priced by the bigger boys. Your cap table is just fine.

He does come off as pretty arrogant, but in the cap table example I thought it was the raising new money at a lower valuation that was the problem. Most investors wouldn't want to be in such a down round; and I guess one source of down rounds is too rich initial investors?
Post reply on HN