Live data from Hacker News

Indie.vc: Unicorns Are Out, Profits Are In

marker.medium.com

51–60 of 116 posts

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

#51
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.

When I was fundraising, we talked to a few of these type of funds (IIRC, this exact fund was one of them). It just seemed like worse terms for less money. It's a valid model, but I don't understand the self-righteous marketing.

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

#52

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,…

I Have no experience in the US, but at least for Germany, that won't work because the fees for lawyers, notaries etc will eat that investment completely. You can usually calculate 5-10k€ in external fees only, never mind the time and energy you spend on the talks. Doing a very small round just doesn't work.

> Could a tech company automate the shit out of all the toil involved with VC deals and do VC-funding-as-a-service?

At least for Germany: no. Things like notary fees are pretty fixed, and you can't do that stuff without them (well, you can, but than it'll basically be "here's money, please don't screw me as I have zero ability to enforce anything").

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

#53
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.

I agree. This isn't quite an apples-to-apples comparison. But middle-market companies with okay-ish financials can easily get covenant-lite leveraged loans from the gigantic private credit market, for well under LIBOR + 1000 basis points. The current yield-to-maturity on the leveraged load index is 5.64%[1]. 3X in 7 years implies a yield-to-maturity of 17%. Why would any company pay more than three times the cost of…

Virtually no startup can get loans without a PG at any non-loanshark rate.

This would be very attractive to someone who wants to grow their business without taking (more) personal risk than they have already.

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

#54

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…

"In short: this author is endorsing a funding model focused on low initial investment and faster profitability." -> so basically, Canadian "venture" capital. They don't even want to talk to you unless profitability is there or within a few months. So, basically, it distills to a barely riskier than usual bank loan, except you pay the loan with equity.

>Canadian "venture" capital.

I love this. I wish it were a thing, "The Canadian Model".

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

#55
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.

Once you're already profitable, it's probably not that attractive. I've explained it to myself in the past by thinking about the would-be founder who's bootstrap-inclined, but who'd rather "go for it" now rather than doing nights and weekends for 18 more months before quitting their job. This person might not want or have access to traditional VC, and wouldn't be able to get a traditional loan. If all goes according to their plan, when that 18-36 months is up, they've paid back this "really expensive" loan and own 100% of their now profitable company.

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

#56
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 ?

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 financial models for how much you might make.

Software is global, and is fundamentally an innovation business. Once you've written a piece of software that does something useful, you can sell additional copies at zero marginal cost. This tends to make software into a winner-take-all market: there is realistically only one Google, only one Facebook, only one Salesforce, one Amazon, etc. If you try to get into a known market, you are almost certain to fail, because you have to pay all the R&D costs that your competitor has already paid and they can just sell to the customers you would otherwise have gotten at close to zero cost. That means that successful software businesses are almost always doing something fundamentally new - either selling into a new market, or selling a new and different product into an existing market that has changed in some way. Banks are really bad at forecasting the success of new business models that have no financial data to go on - their whole core competency is evaluating financials, so if a company has no revenue but lots of expenses and an uncertain prospect of ever making money, it looks like a universally bad bet for a bank loan. The venture capital industry is all based around answering "How do we finance businesses where success is binary and information about whether the company will be successful is scarce?"

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

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In short: this author is endorsing a funding model focused on low initial investment and faster profitability." -> so basically, Canadian "venture" capital. They don't even want to talk to you unless profitability is there or within a few months. So, basically, it distills to a barely riskier than usual bank loan, except you pay the loan with equity.

>Canadian "venture" capital. I love this. I wish it were a thing, "The Canadian Model".

The Canadian model for business isn't all that great.

It doesn't do a great job of serving the country's social needs, and it also doesn't do a great job of producing competitive businesses.

There's a fair number of public funds that get funneled into unproductive firms through things like innovation grants, and there's a lot of protectionism for incompetent incumbents. All of this seems to enrich a small class of elites, at the expense of the public purse. Most Canadians just shrug their shoulders at all this, and move on with life.

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

#58
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Canadian "venture" capital. I love this. I wish it were a thing, "The Canadian Model".

The Canadian model for business isn't all that great. It doesn't do a great job of serving the country's social needs, and it also doesn't do a great job of producing competitive businesses. There's a fair number of public funds that get funneled into unproductive firms through things like innovation grants, and there's a lot of protectionism for incompetent incumbents. All of this seems to enrich a small class of el…

Ballard Power being a classic example of this, though there are many.

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

#59
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting, in that sense software is like making an art piece where value is uncertain. That definitely opens a viable case for public funded software. Plenty of movies are produced with the help of Govt for example.

Government often supports investors making movies; likewise, governments could try to get on board with good venture capitalists in funding software, and this does happen in some places. Government panels or individuals selecting which software to fund runs into the principal agent problem, due to lack of skin in the game.

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

#60
Let’s see how long that lasts when follow-on financing doesn’t materialize and limited partners pull capital and give it to Unicorn.VC because their results are more “exciting”.

I say this as a founder that prioritized profitability and outlasted many VC backed competitors and was sick of VCs telling me to increase burn and growth and ignoring my warning of the long term perspectives and risks. We decided not to take VC and are smaller but killing it.

I am glad to see this perspective but it only lasts during a financial crisis then it’s right back to fetishized hyper growth.

As far as I am concerned go ahead and keep your hyper growth VC dollars, I’ll buy your bankrupt portfolio company in a few years with our profit.

As YC says, get to ramen profitability as early as possible and be a cockroach that will survive.

Post reply on HN