31–40 of 53 posts
Thanks SEC for ensuring that all the returns from high growth tech companies are accruing to foreign billionaires and corrupt oil princes rather than to american retirement accounts and pension funds!
"Son tells Bloomberg Businessweek that he plans to raise a new $100 billion fund every two or three years and will spend around $50 billion a year. For perspective, in 2016, the entire U.S. venture capital industry invested $75.3 billion, according to the National Venture Capital Association." This is an absurd statistic. If that's actually true, startups have a long and potentially exhilarating road ahead of them. I…
I think it will support the trend for later stage startups to stay private and raise capital through the private rather than public markets. A $100B fund is unlikely to be a player in seed and early stage deals. There the existing seed-stage and VC ecosystem will likely remain dominant. If you're just starting out, it's not obvious to me that monster funds like these will affect your life very much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe Softbank wants to sell it to a bigger fool? How is Walmart a bigger fool incase of flipkart, they wanted to gain an entry into Indian ecom and prevent Amazon to capture the entire market.
Walmart could've started out on their own. They wouldn't have been far behind because e-commerce is still new in India. But no, they spent billions buying a glorified smartphone shop that people will desert the moment they stop offering deep discounts.
They could have and it would have taken years to build a brandname or they could buy an established player and get the brandname from day one. Walmart went with the other option.
That is how big companies operate, nothing to do with India.
Is Google a fool to buy youtube when they had Google Video?
"Son tells Bloomberg Businessweek that he plans to raise a new $100 billion fund every two or three years and will spend around $50 billion a year. For perspective, in 2016, the entire U.S. venture capital industry invested $75.3 billion, according to the National Venture Capital Association." This is an absurd statistic. If that's actually true, startups have a long and potentially exhilarating road ahead of them. I…
I watched Masayoshi Son make the same mistake of incorrect extrapolation, 20 years ago.[1] The pitch - the same one he made 20 years ago - only works while the tide is high, when the tide goes out it's ugly. There were countless articles touting his 300 year plan for the future back then, while he was riding very high on the epic Yahoo returns (at one point his investment into Yahoo was worth something like $44b, a particularly huge return to generate in a short amount of time back then). Alibaba will have legitimate staying power, unlike Yahoo's bubble valuation circa 1999/2000, however it won't change the fact that there aren't going to be endless lines of Alibabas to generate vast returns off of to justify raising $100 billion every few years. Alibaba will prove as rare in China as Microsoft or Google are in the US.
[1] http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053732,00...
"Son tells Bloomberg Businessweek that he plans to raise a new $100 billion fund every two or three years and will spend around $50 billion a year. For perspective, in 2016, the entire U.S. venture capital industry invested $75.3 billion, according to the National Venture Capital Association." This is an absurd statistic. If that's actually true, startups have a long and potentially exhilarating road ahead of them. I…
I'm a fan of Masayoshi Son's audacity. However, the outlandish premise floated in the article (raising $100b funds every few years) is all premised on the back of the freak Alibaba return being repeatable over and over again. That's not going to happen, there's one China and its boom phase is mostly over. The last China-like outcome, was a century prior to that (the US). I watched Masayoshi Son make the same mistake…
Next Alibaba will be in India and Mayoshi probably knows it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if $45B is a line item to them, but to give you a sense of scale of how much money the Saudis have, Aramco had a net income of about $34B in the first half of 2017 [0]. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-04-13/saudi-a...
$34B is a lot in company scales but not a lot when it is the vast majority of a government budget used to sustain a very plush lifestyle for millions of people. Saudi has been running huge deficits and have had to dig into their reserves to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to sustain their spending. In the first five months of '15 they had to draw $65B from reserves just to meet costs[0] They've introduced…
From 10m people in 1980, to 33m today.
This is only going to fuel ( accelerate ) the tech bubble helping already bloated unicorns burn more cash. Masayoshi is unquestionably a smart guy, but he's making some pretty big bets on an uncertain future. Uber has raised $22.2B so far and made a $891M Net Loss in its second quarter ending June 30. It's difficult for a mere mortal to see how Uber will ever be profitable considering the cumulative losses.
Thanks SEC for ensuring that all the returns from high growth tech companies are accruing to foreign billionaires and corrupt oil princes rather than to american retirement accounts and pension funds!
How is the SEC liable? Is there some regulation preventing US investment houses from investing in the same manner?
Thanks SEC for ensuring that all the returns from high growth tech companies are accruing to foreign billionaires and corrupt oil princes rather than to american retirement accounts and pension funds!
Why should a young founder/company/employee subsidize the lifestyle of the retired ?
Capital is in the same competitive market as labour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walmart could've started out on their own. They wouldn't have been far behind because e-commerce is still new in India. But no, they spent billions buying a glorified smartphone shop that people will desert the moment they stop offering deep discounts.
> Walmart could've started out on their own. They could have and it would have taken years to build a brandname or they could buy an established player and get the brandname from day one. Walmart went with the other option. That is how big companies operate, nothing to do with India. Is Google a fool to buy youtube when they had Google Video?
I could be wrong. With the absurd amounts of QE that went on for so long, maybe valuations that price in earnings decades away are justifiable.