Live data from Hacker News

Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

techcrunch.com

71–80 of 121 posts

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#71
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Craiglist generates tons of cash, wildly profitable, no investment Bose has always funded itself via profits for 50 years with no outside investment. $3b-$4b revenue last year. Beats waited 4-5 years and was huge before taking first equity investment from HTC

Wasn't Beats founded by a celebrity? I feel like this kind of goes against the spirit of the list.

Recent docu-series "The Defiant Ones" on HBO [1] features the story of Iovine and Dre regarding their partnership on Beats (and beyond).

[1] https://defiantones.com/

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#72
If you were an engineer from 2117 transported back in time by 100 years (the conceit - just assume this) and decided to get rich here in 2017 by taking the largest breakthrough you can think of from your time which is surely subject to patent protection and can surely work with the mechanics and technology of today, and is simple enough that you are 100.00% sure that you fully understand the mechanics of it and cannot possibly make any mistake, and, further, gives obvious utility so that it's basically impossible to get wrong and market incorrectly, then you would have a 0% chance of raising money and bringing it to market as a startup within 1 year. This is extremely certain. Nobody will give you the money to build your prototype, no matter what you say or show, as though every VC you spoke with were cursed with an inability to engage in abstract thinking or as if it were impossible to find a single VC anywhere in the world who can apply high-school level of physics. Your experience would be as though everyone you spoke with, while they spoke with you, had an 80-point drop in their IQ.

Under these conditions the real invisible unicorns are the ones that simply fail to climb out of this hole: they are the billion-dollar companies that are totally unfundable and simply do not make it past that stage and die.

Here is a Quora link to one of the best ideas I've ever heard in my life and easily the basis for building a $50B+ company. I ran across it as a VC quoted it as something like the "dumbest pitch they ever heard."

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-horror-stories-about...

Actually the exact words were: "the most breathtakingly clueless company I have ever had pitch me (and I am not making this up.)"

This company was seeking $2 million only and clearly outlined a very specific growth plan. It is very easy to see the author's reasoning and the clear path they had for $50B+ as well as the likely reactions of other market participants.

If you are a founder of an invisible unicorn, it is important for you to not subject yourself to this ridicule. Not only will VC's waste your time and drive your company into the ground: they will gloat about it on Quora. The correct approach is to completely ignore them and be and stay invisible.

The seed-stage funding climate is completely broken and lots of great companies and ideas die for this reason; a few manage not to die somehow, as we hear about here.

For every invisible unicorn, there are a lot of premature unicorn deaths.

(Actually for this reason the word "incubator" is an excellent one, as it really is like an incubator of a premature birth of a youngling that will die if exposed to the elements and without intensive care and treatment.)

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#73
It's nice to see attention like this on solid business growth (which is how 99% of the companies on the planet actually do it).

VC is great for certain scenarios but it's easy to forget that anyone can spend money and do the financial engineering dance - it's the opposite examples of self-started slow grind that shows the true successes.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#75

If you were an engineer from 2117 transported back in time by 100 years (the conceit - just assume this) and decided to get rich here in 2017 by taking the largest breakthrough you can think of from your time which is surely subject to patent protection and can surely work with the mechanics and technology of today, and is simple enough that you are 100.00% sure that you fully understand the mechanics of it and canno…

While I definitely have my issues with David Rose, I am floored that you think this business had a "clear path" to a large business.

They are essentially trying to become a web portal for every service imaginable, but need $2M to build a website to do this? There are just too many red flags. I don't understand what you see here.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#76
post #38

Isn't this the way companies, until fairly recently, have always been started and grown? Basically, come up with an idea/product, reach around to back pocket (or into your purse) and fund it ad-hoc. That, or take out a loan or such. It seems like this was the way things were always done - until fairly recently. It seems like things changed sometime around the early 1990s. I tend to wonder if this had anything to do w…

It is certainly still possible to get loans on collateral. If you have equity in a home then most banks will give you a loan using the home as equity and they don't much care how you intend to use the money. This is what a HELOC is (Home Equity Line of Credit).

The bank gives you a loan that is somewhere less than the amount of equity you have in the home for you to spend as you please. If you don't pay it off they take the house. I know several people who have started their own businesses later in life and used this time of lending to finance their own startup capital.

I'm not surprised that the bank would do this for a car loan for your dad, but I am a bit surprised that it was even needed. Typically when purchasing a vehicle on loan the vehicle you are purchasing serves as it's own collateral.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#77
post #51

Autodesk. Started with $60,000 put in by the founders. No further investments until the IPO. Current market cap $24 billion. (Autodesk did have some conversations with VCs, but they were so profitable and growing so fast that by the time the VCs had made an offer, it was ridiculously low. Here's the history of those deals.[1]) [1] https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_32.html

>We couldn't believe that this was the best deal obtainable for venture funding of the company, and we were inclined to ask around to see if this was reasonable. But, our Distinguished Financial Advisor informed us that this would constitute ``shopping the deal'' when ``a deal was on the table'' which was right out by the genteel standards of the venture community, and that he could not countenance such unrefined behaviour (notwithstanding the fact that in the real world this kind of collusion is called ``conspiracy in restraint of trade'' and people go to jail for it).

Fun read!

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#78

I'm one of the authors of this post and plan on releasing an updated version with some companies that we missed on the first pass. If you know of other substantial startups that went far before raising capital, please let me know: JoeFlaherty@FounderCollective. The current list of misses includes: + Grammarly + 37 Signals/Basecamp + Zip Recruiter + Outcome Health + Wistia Who else?

Datto, Inc. - First CT unicorn, started in a basement and made it very far before taking VC money: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-datto-startuprecovered-mo...

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#79

If you were an engineer from 2117 transported back in time by 100 years (the conceit - just assume this) and decided to get rich here in 2017 by taking the largest breakthrough you can think of from your time which is surely subject to patent protection and can surely work with the mechanics and technology of today, and is simple enough that you are 100.00% sure that you fully understand the mechanics of it and canno…

While I definitely have my issues with David Rose, I am floored that you think this business had a "clear path" to a large business. They are essentially trying to become a web portal for every service imaginable, but need $2M to build a website to do this? There are just too many red flags. I don't understand what you see here.

By no surprising coincidence, you've written nearly an exact quote from a VC in the alternative universe mentioned in my first paragraph. After the engineer was turned down, another VC happens to say to him:

>[To the engineer from 2117:] While I definitely have my issues with David Rose, I am floored that you think your business has a "clear path" to a large business.

>You are essentially trying to completely replace every single (item) in (industry), but need $2M to build a prototype to do this? There are just too many red flags. I don't understand why you're in my office.

hugs and kisses, swampthinker :)

-

Note that I have no relationship with David Rose nor the company whose business plan he quoted.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#80
post #38

Isn't this the way companies, until fairly recently, have always been started and grown? Basically, come up with an idea/product, reach around to back pocket (or into your purse) and fund it ad-hoc. That, or take out a loan or such. It seems like this was the way things were always done - until fairly recently. It seems like things changed sometime around the early 1990s. I tend to wonder if this had anything to do w…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN