Live data from Hacker News

Revenue is easy, profit is harder

edge.ceo

81–90 of 175 posts

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#81
post #52

So I am a Silicon Valley outsider. I live in the northern EU and work with project management in the construction industry representing the owner. It’s mostly infrastructure, roads, water. Old industry, conservative, we basically hate new things. On my spare time I tinker with my computer, learn assembly or whatever. Hence HN. I have recently started a course in corporate finance at my local uni because my new role r…

There's an angle to consider – why is it that people who are technically skilled and financially experienced do not take on venture funding and build billion dollar plus companies? [1]

Perhaps, they know (from business experience) that the VC treadmill is not in their best interests, when everything about that life is considered! :)

Perhaps investors actually benefit from the naïvete (read: not incompetence, just naïvete) of their portfolio companies?

It's a symbiotic relationship, but there's a reason that the road between founder and VC is generally a one-way street.

[1]: There are notable exceptions to this observations. They're worth understanding, too.

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#82
post #52

So I am a Silicon Valley outsider. I live in the northern EU and work with project management in the construction industry representing the owner. It’s mostly infrastructure, roads, water. Old industry, conservative, we basically hate new things. On my spare time I tinker with my computer, learn assembly or whatever. Hence HN. I have recently started a course in corporate finance at my local uni because my new role r…

You have an issue with VC not SV specifically.

a) Yes in some cases engineers with no business experience get funding. But in most cases there is significant due diligence being done on the capabilities of the team.

b) There is plenty of history that engineers with great product sensibilities can learn to run a business and become successfully by augmenting their weaknesses with members of the SLT who are stronger at them.

c) The whole point is for them to deploy their LPs money rather than just letting sit around waiting for the perfect idea/team/market etc combination to arrive on your lap. That simply doesn't happen.

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a lot of theses articles are pretty basic corporate finance One take: yes, and venture-backed companies often forget or ignore the basics of corporate finance. Another take: orthodox corporate finance isn’t tailored for start-ups. If you’re developing a product, GAAP income is meaningless. So we bootstrap interim financial metrics, e.g. eyeballs and ARPUs and DAUs (oh my!). In truth, the latter dominates at the ear…

Difference is that corporate finance is focused on managing a company at its current size while startups are really focused on building a much larger company. Hence why the economics of it make no sense until it hits that mythical future size

> corporate finance is focused on managing a company at its current size while startups are really focused on building a much larger company

Circa 1810, maybe. Since the railroads corporate finance, particularly American finance, has been focussed on growth. Hell, the term venture capital pays homage to the financing of merchant vessels on high risk / high rewards voyages.

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#84
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would refuse to fund Google (Larry and Sergei being PhD students at Stanford at the time) because they "[have] no business experience"?

Google’s initial VC funding round pre-IPO was something like $25m. Even allowing for inflation you see that kind of money tossed around on pre-revenue NFT startups based on a pitch deck today.

Can you provide examples.

Pre-revenue NFT startup raising $25m pre-seed in this market ?

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#85
post #52

So I am a Silicon Valley outsider. I live in the northern EU and work with project management in the construction industry representing the owner. It’s mostly infrastructure, roads, water. Old industry, conservative, we basically hate new things. On my spare time I tinker with my computer, learn assembly or whatever. Hence HN. I have recently started a course in corporate finance at my local uni because my new role r…

> a lot of theses articles are pretty basic corporate finance One take: yes, and venture-backed companies often forget or ignore the basics of corporate finance. Another take: orthodox corporate finance isn’t tailored for start-ups. If you’re developing a product, GAAP income is meaningless. So we bootstrap interim financial metrics, e.g. eyeballs and ARPUs and DAUs (oh my!). In truth, the latter dominates at the ear…

Actually the problem with startups is that they focus on corporate finance too much.

When in reality they should be acting like a small business e.g. florist.

Often these startups are failing because of basic cash-flow management.

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#86
post #52

So I am a Silicon Valley outsider. I live in the northern EU and work with project management in the construction industry representing the owner. It’s mostly infrastructure, roads, water. Old industry, conservative, we basically hate new things. On my spare time I tinker with my computer, learn assembly or whatever. Hence HN. I have recently started a course in corporate finance at my local uni because my new role r…

Okay, as someone who has lived in the "heart" of Silicon Valley for a few decades I'll take a shot at this.

To be fair, I didn't appreciate how unusual it looked until I helped a friend start their business in Illinois and saw what they dealt with at a bank.

You are correct in your assessment that articles like the one linked here are pretty standard business explainers. The interesting thing for me is that it really is just math and systems so it "should" be interesting but for a lot of folks they don't seem interested and just want to sell product.

So at least part of the venture community has convinced itself that it knows how to "productize" anything, if they just had something to work on. And along comes a person with an idea and hope. The venture capitalist (VC) thinks, "I'll provide the business sense, this person provides the creativity and the elbow work, and we'll split the profits." That can work out spectacularly well for the VC where they invest $X and get back 10 - 100 time $X in wealth. It doesn't always work out, but if it works out enough times, the VC can turn their money into more money faster that way than with say investing in government bonds.

In Silicon Valley this works because of two things, one there was a tradition of providing equity to employees which, when companies grew, put a lot of the wealth generated in the hands of individuals rather than companies. And secondly, California had some pretty good laws on the books about disallowing "non-compete" employment agreements so people who thought they could do the same thing their company was doing, only better, could go out and start a new company doing the same thing without too much risk of getting sued.

Having lived here I can tell you that 20 - 30 year old people are much more willing to invest in something risky than 50 - 60 year old people. So getting that wealth into younger hands adds to the risk tolerance.

To this point: Or maybe I am just poor and don’t get how people with large amounts of cash think. I expect it is a scale thing.

Imagine you have saved enough to pay for all your kids college education and you start your "retirement" fund. And you save money in that until the returns on that fund are actually enough to provide you with the same income, and in the US buy you the same medical coverage, you are currently experiencing working. Now you can "leave your job" and have a lot of free time. (It doesn't mean you can buy a yacht or an airplane and party all the time, just that you're new lifestyle looks like your old lifestyle with the single exception that you don't have to go into work every weekday). Now you end up with a few million $ more for this "third" account. What to do with that? Well a lot of people feel comfortable "gambling" some of that on new ventures because if they lose it, it won't change their life, and if they get a big winner, well it means more things they can try.

So to understand it, you have to imagine that you've got enough savings for all of the life expenses you expect to have going forward, and you have enough savings on top of that such that those savings are providing the equivalent to having a good job (pay and benefits), and now you have savings on top of that.

In the current batch, there are estimates of >100,000 former Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook employees are in that position today. Money did a story on how the density of billionaires in San Francisco was the highest in the world [1] (post Crypto-crash I'm guessing this number went down :-)).

So why do young millionaires and billionaires invest in crazy ideas? Maybe because it is more exciting than having a few million dollars sitting in a bank account doing "nothing"?

[1] https://money.com/san-francisco-billionaire-density-income-i...

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#87
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally believe that a lot of startups are misusing the Amazon example. I also believe many of those startups will be royally screwed now that an era of easy money is ending. And personally, I'll be popping plenty of popcorn when they get their comeuppance. But that doesn't mean I'm going to uncritically accept your claim that "Amazon was never profitable because they prioritized growth is a meme". Because it was b…

Can we at least agree that any profits above zero are actually profits? And the question of just how profitable is a different financial metric?

No? Because if you need tons of capital to make a minuscule profit your company is worth nothing. (A company has to outperform at least the interest people can get on bonds plus some equity premium.)

Amazon could make a significant profit, if Bezos wanted. But that’s a different question.

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#89
post #52

So I am a Silicon Valley outsider. I live in the northern EU and work with project management in the construction industry representing the owner. It’s mostly infrastructure, roads, water. Old industry, conservative, we basically hate new things. On my spare time I tinker with my computer, learn assembly or whatever. Hence HN. I have recently started a course in corporate finance at my local uni because my new role r…

A lot goes into making a product that people love, if you can master the customer, market dynamics, pricing, pitch, product, service, etc to be growing really fast, you can probably learn basic corporate finance. That's what the VCs are betting on and they will even give you a board member and resources to help you out! if your product is only successful because your unit economics are upside down which is giving an unfair market advantage where you have none otherwise, well then that's reckless

Re: Revenue is easy, profit is harder

#90

Revenue is easy only if you ignore survivorship bias. Organizations without revenue perish. Organizations with revenue whose balance sheets don't show a profit don't necessarily perish.

Sure, you need revenue to generate a profit, otherwise you'd be generating profits from nothing. You can also have organisations who are specifically "Not for profit", they balance sheets will frequently end up with a 0 dollars in profits each year, and that's as expected, but they too need revenue to do anything.

For certain types of companies, revenue is easy. I worked to a company that did mostly consulting, but would also sell you hardware or software licenses, so customers only need to interact with us, and no one else. Technically we could just have given away hardware, and we frequently did sell servers at a lose. That shows up as revenue. As long as you have money or credit to sell expensive stuff at a lose, then revenue is easy.

That's not the main point though. The point is measuring companies on revenue is pretty stupid, without also looking that profitability.

Post reply on HN