Live data from Hacker News

Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

marker.medium.com

31–40 of 116 posts

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

#31

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…

> A high-risk high-reward investment model may still produce higher rates of returns than a low-risk low-return model. So, this isn’t really my area, but if the market is efficient shouldn’t these come up about the same over a long enough period? In other words if one or the other has dramatically better returns that just means the risk was mis-priced to begin with. The immediate objection I can see to this (without…

Behavioural economics dominates the messy real world. Especially when we are talking about startups, new technology that is poorly understood, etc. These are the leading edges of the markets, they are the least efficient of all.

Cue theranos on one hand and probably many companies with potentially profitable innovations that never got funded and we never heard of.

This is one thing that the left social justice crowd does get right - Never forget that at the end of the day, the system runs on wetware - people with faulty ideas, preconceptions, biases and limited knowledge.

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

#32

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 team, the product, or the model. The problem was that the returns weren't big enough. The product was niche and could never become an "Uber" without really stretching the imagination. In the end, we found an angel investor in our space. We indeed did turn that $250k into $5mm/year revenue in 5 years and sold the company for 8 digits.

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

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure this won't work? The article mentions the indie.vc "mortality rate" is 10% whereas for VC-backed ventures it's 44%. Granted, just because a company is alive doesn't mean it's making the investors much money. I imagine having more companies around for longer would ultimately mean a lot of little payoffs that cover their own investments rather than one big payoff that covers every other investment.

> 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, I'm not familiar enough with what a VC does to understand why current vehicles can't scale like , and why a different type of funding vehicle is necessary for $10k investments to become the norm instead of $1mm or $10mm?

Could a tech company automate the shit out of all the toil involved with VC deals and do VC-funding-as-a-service? Stripe Atlas already makes it trivial to spin up a company so further automation doesn't seem unrealistic.

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

#34
I remember this being a theme during the 2001 recession. I can't find the link right now, but I remember more than a few articles about this trend back then. I was able to find VC capital investment. [1]

Clearly there was more silly money being throw around in the late 90s and into 2000, but by 2002 the mantra in was "ROI, ROI, ROI!"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#/media/File:US_...

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

#35
Let's say the model is to get 3X return in 5-7 years - 10% mortality. Sounds like a great instrument to me.

It also sounds like it could work, if there's enough demand = enough obvious good apples, which are willing for the deal because of not enough supply in financing instruments.

I can understand that investing in unicorns can also work. As many unicorns fail after their initial hype, investing in these normal companies sounds less like gambling on hype than investing in unicorns.

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

#36
post #29

This is probably silly but I have often wondered why you don't get straightforward loans in Software. If I were to open a restaurant I would hardly go for a VC. Do banks have something against software businesses ? Are there software companies that have bootstrapped themselves with loans (not friend/family loans) as opposed to VC ?

You can always use Indie Gogo, Kick Starter, Patreon or any other similar platform to fund your project.

Banks are risk averse. Lending to a restaurant they can always recoup a lot of material and other physical assets as collateral. Not necessarily so for most software dev.

That's my perspective.

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

#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.

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

#38
post #29

This is probably silly but I have often wondered why you don't get straightforward loans in Software. If I were to open a restaurant I would hardly go for a VC. Do banks have something against software businesses ? Are there software companies that have bootstrapped themselves with loans (not friend/family loans) as opposed to VC ?

If your startup fails then you software is harder to value. If the bank have ovens at least they can resell them. If you have a piece of software it's much harder to value or sell.

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

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah! Substack > Medium.

Ghost > Substack

Wordpress > Ghost. Its 2020 and ghost does not support a table, as in normal table copy-pasted from excell.

Or audio. Or a gif, or comments. Sure you can host them elsewhere, but how many secondary services am I meant to use for a personal blog?

As i get older, I seem to be growing respect for legacy software: if people are still using it after 30 years, it probably got something right.

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

#40
in my humble and unwarranted opinion (see also not having run a vc company or a company for that matter) profits should have been the idea from the get go: all of this effort to get large and then use economies of scale to defeat rivals and then start making a profit is just wrong
Post reply on HN