Live data from Hacker News

Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

marker.medium.com

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#101
post #37

As a founder of a bootstrapped & profitable company, I don't really get what's so attractive about this funding model. It seems like it's just a really, really, really expensive loan. They make it sound nice with their anti-VC, pro-founder marketing angle. But at the end of the day, they are charging you 3x what you're borrowing.

From what I'm reading, The founder can choose to let the "anti-VC" keep its shares, or it can buy them back at 3x the investment. That's not equivalent to a loan, since it doesn't have to be paid back. With a conventional deal, if things turn out well, the VC doesn't have to agree to sell its shares to the founders at any set price.

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#102
post #72
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s tons of existing finance infrastructure for this already, it just doesn’t reach tech. Small business loans, traditional banks, franchisors, local business investor groups, etc all facilitate these sorts of businesses today. They just don’t do tech. This is because their risk models are built on 30+ years of priors and the financing is very often business sector specific. Tech is too much of an unknown for thi…

Are you saying banks won't provide loans to small tech businesses, but they will to things like restaurants?

For a running restaurant, sure.

The issue is that the banks will pretty much provide loans for anything with consistent cashflow. This includes tech companies.

The problem is getting investment when you have no cashflow.

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#103
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market structure is pretty different. Restaurants have geographic barriers to entry - your restaurant is probably only serving customers within a ~20 mile radius. And the economics and business model are well-known: you know exactly how much rent is going to cost, how much labor is going to cost, how much food is going to cost, and how many tables you can turn over a night, and so you can build reasonable financi…

1. Developer Salaries 2. Marketing Costs 3. Compute Power 4. Software Pricing can all be quantifiable in numbers. Again I don't know how loans operate. To be a cynic, I think the software free lunch is over. Data will be increasingly localised. More draconian laws to come, let's hope they are stupid. Algorithms have also become "scary" for normal folks.

Sure, and once you have those in place you have a startup that eats money and doesn't necessarily make any money. The vast majority of software startups end up building something that nobody wants anyway, because if there's something that lots of people want, somebody has already built it.

Whereas if you open a restaurant, you can make solid projections where "If we fill every table, we make $Y. If we're 1/3 full, we make $X. We're unlikely to be less than 1/3 full", and these are typically completely reasonable because you can see how other similar restaurants have done. For a restaurant, having a similar restaurant be successful is a very positive indicator. For a software company, having a similar software company be successful is an indicator that the market niche is already filled.

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#104

In short: this author is endorsing a funding model focused on low initial investment and faster profitability. The benefits key benefits are that this funding model results in more women and minorities getting funding, as well as higher rate of companies surviving (10% vs. 44% [1]). The former is good, but probably isn't sufficient to motivate most investors. The latter doesn't necessarily translate into better retur…

I think both worlds can exist. You can have the "traditional" VCs going for the high-risk, high-reward model. And you can also have "new" VCs going for low-risk, medium-reward. As an anecdote, in 2014 we looked for ~$250k investment. We had a business model that realistically took us to ~$5mm/year revenue in 5 years. We pitched various "traditional" VCs. The overwhelming feedback we got was that nobody doubted our te…

Sounds like a good outcome.

VCs need to have a chance of "returning the fund". If they are investing out of a $200m fund, and they own 15% of your company at exit after 5 years and subsequent dilution, that 15% has to have a chance of being worth $200m.

Otherwise the math does't work.

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> five years, Indie.vc has backed 34 companies That's hardly enough time or data to tell what the actual mortality rate is full cycle. A lot of startups will fail in year 6, 7 or 8 after years of pivots and trying to grow. > On average, they’re growing 100% in the first year, and 300% the second year Assuming $0 in rev on day 1, of course they grow 100% in Y1. These numbers don't mean anything. Philosophically I agre…

Why don't current traditional VC funding vehicles scale down ? Like if you took hypothetical paperwork that says the VC invests $10mm, at a $50mm valuation for Series-A, and just swapped in the numbers $10k and $50k? I'm assuming the overhead of vetting a deal is a mountain of toil for the VC firm, and there are going to be some fixed costs - eg filing fees for S or C-Corp paperwork, lawyer time. But outside of that,…

Also time... Series A investors make 1-2 deals per year. They sit on boards. Hard to do more than 10-12 board seats.

Find deals & founders worth investing in is super hard. Might as well back up the truck and put large amounts to work when you do...

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VC without huge ROI expectations doesn't work. Like the actual economics don't work. I don't really understand the point of any of this. VCs need massive outsized returns because 99% of the companies they invest in will return $0 to the fund. You need that one company that returns the entire fund (ex: $500m) + some percentage. Also, from the article "And founders can even buy back the stakes (ranging between 10% and…

Another part of VC economics to understand is to look at Uber. Total disaster, right? Softbank and retail investors got totally screwed by the IPO due to questionable economic assertions made by Uber. But the angel and early series investors, circa 2011? Still made out like bandits. An IPO price of $72, when you paid pennies per share, times several hundred thousand shares equals a cool $10mm, easy. Perhaps not as mu…

I don't think you mean gregarious. Not sure what other word would fit; nefarious doesn't quite. Victorious? Voracious? Sagacious? Rapacious? Vexatious?

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#108
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cause or symptom (I'm not sure about causality here) is that the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) directly funds most private Canadian VCs. VCs now have public money as part of their LP base, with some strings attached. Most of these strings (eg. don't waste taxpayer money doing anything unethical or overly negligent) will nudge VCs to be more conservative. Plus, the VCs are guaranteed 20%+ of their 2% car…

I live in Montreal and intend to do a consumer oriented software startup. I would like to better understand what I would be getting into starting up here, vs. applying to YC. Can you suggest resources for understanding Canadian startup landscape, funding etc.? Perceived Pros: - Many STEM grads - Gaming and AI industry, 2+ top AI schools - Relatively little competition for engineering talent compared to SV - Many engi…

Remember in the SV costs are astronomical, so there's a kind of buy-in threshold necessary which won't make sense for most companies.

Shopify is a perfect company for Canada - they are not making 'tech for other techies' and don't require all the best devs in the world. It took a while to get going, so costs needed to be lower. They can make some income early on, thus 'proving the model'.

There is a reason that the nations top social network started at Harvard, which has an elite status among young people. There's a reason that Snap was started by an attractive young man from Cali, from a the top school in Cali. Glossier, a 'makeup company' is actually, truly a 'social network', and there's a reason it was founded by an ex-model/reality TV star with deep connections in LA/NYC.

On the technical side, there's a reason that certain companies really need to be in the Valley as well.

So if your business needs to be in the Valley, it might make sense to do that, but if it's a 2cnd-tier kind of thing, not something the FAANGS would ever look at, and doesn't require the best technical talent in the world, than you can do it other places.

Montreal a tier 2 cities, Ottawa/Vancouver, not really tier 2, Toronto is probably a solid tier 2. FYI that is actually not bad considering tons of American cities are not tier 2 either. Chicago, Toronto's 'twin' really might not even be Tier 2, there is a weird lack of entrepreneurial activity there for its relative size and power.

Montreal has cheap prices, decent AI grads, stable economy, supportive government, weak VC but the top could of firms are fine places to go for smaller up to round A, and if your business fits well into Quebec's strategy, following rounds can be supported by Desjardins and nationalist players.

Also, Porn.

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#109
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Developer Salaries 2. Marketing Costs 3. Compute Power 4. Software Pricing can all be quantifiable in numbers. Again I don't know how loans operate. To be a cynic, I think the software free lunch is over. Data will be increasingly localised. More draconian laws to come, let's hope they are stupid. Algorithms have also become "scary" for normal folks.

Sure, and once you have those in place you have a startup that eats money and doesn't necessarily make any money. The vast majority of software startups end up building something that nobody wants anyway, because if there's something that lots of people want, somebody has already built it. Whereas if you open a restaurant, you can make solid projections where "If we fill every table, we make $Y. If we're 1/3 full, we…

Thats a simplistic view of restaurants. From a purely market perspective, people already do this with personal loans, credit card or otherwise. I do agree that evaluating the final software's value is difficult but for a loan lender, it's only a matter of credibility rather than success.

As long as market actors don't do anti-competitive practices, I still don't see why a successful software can't be replicated and you can't compete in the same market niche. The user interfaces are one area which can obviously be different. Enterprise software is full of replicas.

Re: Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

#110
post #71

Does anyone know a VC similar to Indie however that doesn't convert to equity if more funding occurs from another party? Give me $100k and sure I'll pay you back $300k, however let me use that $100k to see how much more valuable I can make my company and therefore leverage its new metrics including revenues. These current models don't only want the icing (their returns on initial investment) but they want to eat thei…

https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/19/who-are-the-major-revenue-...
Post reply on HN