Live data from Hacker News

Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

theatlantic.com

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#131

There’s another often unwritten element here around companies basing their valuation on false markets. For example, if I sell $2 for $1 that’s a false market. Of course I can grow like crazy and gobble up lots of customers. I could even “disrupt” existing players like those stodgy old companies (banks) that sell $2 for $2.15 (a loan). The VC subsidies for some of these companies are so high that they are basically se…

>The VC subsidies for some of these companies are so high that they are basically selling $2 for $1 in some cases (WeWork was basically losing nearly $1 for every $1 of revenue!)

Effectively none of these companies lose money on a marginal basis. In other words, an additional customer making an additional transaction helps their bottom line. There's always two major questions. (1) Can the company grow to where their overhead is covered in that marginal revenue and (2) can they acquire the customers cheap enough.

Your statement that WeWork loses $1 for every $1 illustrates a common misinterpretation. Those two numbers have basically no relationship with each other and don't tell us anything. Imagine that WeWork wasn't a total fraud. They set up their first 10 locations for $500,000, have annual revenues of 1 million and profit of 500,000. A VC comes along and says "Shit dawg, here's 50 million set up 100 more locations". So WeWork takes that money, spends 50 million and a year setting up new locations. \

What's their financial statement going to say? That they lost 49.5 million dollars on revenue of 1 million. Obviously that's an eye popping loss, but assuming they can replicate their success it's a smashing investment. The latter part of that last sentence is the important thing. Whether or not the money these companies is investing is going to see returns or if they're wildly optimistic in their long term projections.

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#132

There’s another often unwritten element here around companies basing their valuation on false markets. For example, if I sell $2 for $1 that’s a false market. Of course I can grow like crazy and gobble up lots of customers. I could even “disrupt” existing players like those stodgy old companies (banks) that sell $2 for $2.15 (a loan). The VC subsidies for some of these companies are so high that they are basically se…

For a lot of these companies, they are profitable on a per customer basis, they're paying to acquire more customers.

For example, if it costs you $10 in marketing, promotions, etc. to acquire a customer, but on average those customers will pay you $20 over their lifetime, what should you do? Raise money and spend as much as you can to acquire more customers, if you think it scales!

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#133
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of fast growing startups with ever-increasing valuations is to enable early investors to cash out at huge multiples. Everything else is a side show.

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme

Yeah, Amazon and Google are totally Ponzi schemes.

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an uncommon nor unheard of tactic in business. Fuel growth, and capture the market for your brand, by selling at a loss. The trick is always the transition to profitability. Generally, this comes through layoffs and maybe price increases.

Imo this should be illegal. Taking a loss undercutting smaller competitors in a way that's only possible because you have piles of money unrelated to your actual business is going to distort the market in a way that's really bad for consumers in the long run. Anecdotally I noticed this with Pita Pit in New Zealand. There used to be lots of independent pita places that had decent pricing, then pita pit started buying…

So during the expansion phase they are subsidizing consumers and as soon as the expansion phase ends they open up a space for competition again? Sounds pretty great for everyone except the owners of the independent pita places that go out of business.

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an uncommon nor unheard of tactic in business. Fuel growth, and capture the market for your brand, by selling at a loss. The trick is always the transition to profitability. Generally, this comes through layoffs and maybe price increases.

Imo this should be illegal. Taking a loss undercutting smaller competitors in a way that's only possible because you have piles of money unrelated to your actual business is going to distort the market in a way that's really bad for consumers in the long run. Anecdotally I noticed this with Pita Pit in New Zealand. There used to be lots of independent pita places that had decent pricing, then pita pit started buying…

I know retail stores in France cannot legally sell anything at a loss, except during government-decided 'sales' periods (twice a year, usually in January then June) which are mostly aimed at emptying stocks for the new 'season' (as if that mattered in the 21st century when most stores are a on a bi-monthly product cycle, but hey, that's the inertia of law/gov).

Not sure about businesses in general but I seem to recall it's a general law for commerce.

The problem is that retail is thus basically unable to compete on price beyond a certain (very mild) degree, notably forbidden to say "I'll sell item X at a loss to attract customers, and then make up for it on other items they buy". It's just illegal to do it in France.

A little bit too reminescent of a planned (communist) economy if you ask me, because it applies to each and every item taken individually, not the store overall or over a certain period of time. Needless to say this doesn't help thwart the collapse of retail versus online shops, especially in the way of services — and consider that foreign online businesses don't even have to follow such regulation, obviously, so...

It's a very, very grey area to regulate, and government being just awful at understanding how business works makes it ill-suited (often misguided) to regulate such things. I think branch negociations (within a given sector) is a much better approach: let actors (businesses) decide how they will compete, and only regulate if there's anti-consumer (cartel) behavior, not prior to any wrongdoing! — it reeks of a view that 'capitalism is bad' yadi-yada (typical French view) and hurts consumers' purchasing power in the end.

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#136
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be gentle please, I understand and agree that these industries got complacent but these are people. I think our societies should integrate this 'kick' phases to make them smoother and more respectable rather than have toxic competitors attack them.

yes, state sponsored 'economic efficiency' purges. what could possibly go wrong?

You've been posting flamebait and unsubstantive comments quite a bit to HN lately, and we've already asked you not to. If you keep doing this we will have to ban you. I don't want to do that, so please read the site guidelines and follow them from now on: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#137

There’s another often unwritten element here around companies basing their valuation on false markets. For example, if I sell $2 for $1 that’s a false market. Of course I can grow like crazy and gobble up lots of customers. I could even “disrupt” existing players like those stodgy old companies (banks) that sell $2 for $2.15 (a loan). The VC subsidies for some of these companies are so high that they are basically se…

The whole point of fast growing startups with ever-increasing valuations is to enable early investors to cash out at huge multiples. Everything else is a side show.

How do they generally cash out? Sell to other investors? IPO?

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#138
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think calling Juicero a shitty idea is too strong. It didn't end up working, and probably it was knowable in advance that it wouldn't, but the difference between early-stage Juicero and early-stage Keurig is smaller than most people gave it credit for. There's a strong and robust market (at least in the SF Bay Area) for weird expensive juices.

I agree, fresh juice on demand is a good idea (besides the fact that the amount of sugar is usually terrible for you). But they had to have found out very early on with Juicero that squeezing the packets by hand basically produced as much juice as their expensive machine.

[deleted]

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#139
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo this should be illegal. Taking a loss undercutting smaller competitors in a way that's only possible because you have piles of money unrelated to your actual business is going to distort the market in a way that's really bad for consumers in the long run. Anecdotally I noticed this with Pita Pit in New Zealand. There used to be lots of independent pita places that had decent pricing, then pita pit started buying…

I know retail stores in France cannot legally sell anything at a loss, except during government-decided 'sales' periods (twice a year, usually in January then June) which are mostly aimed at emptying stocks for the new 'season' (as if that mattered in the 21st century when most stores are a on a bi-monthly product cycle, but hey, that's the inertia of law/gov). Not sure about businesses in general but I seem to recal…

Wow.

So if a merchant buys in too much stock and can't offload it - they're literally banned from selling it below cost?

I assume they can still sell it on a secondary market (just not direct to customers)? Or do they actually have to eat it entirely and just like, burn the stock or something?

Re: Today’s correction isn’t much like the dot-com bubble

#140

There’s another often unwritten element here around companies basing their valuation on false markets. For example, if I sell $2 for $1 that’s a false market. Of course I can grow like crazy and gobble up lots of customers. I could even “disrupt” existing players like those stodgy old companies (banks) that sell $2 for $2.15 (a loan). The VC subsidies for some of these companies are so high that they are basically se…

I think that we call this sort of thing a "loss leader" in retail. Unfortunately, it seems like some of these companies' entire market is a loss leader.
Post reply on HN