We need to stop pretending the VC valuations are meaningful.
It's like asking someone playing roulette to value "13 black", after they bet on it.
There valuations are always based on expectations of huge growth, not current value. Growth predictions with an extremely low confidence level. VCs make up for it by making a lot of bets.
The companies NEVER have current profits (The actual measure of value) that would justify their valuation.
So, it's comparing gambling payouts to corporate valuations, aka "apples to oranges", which are not related.
When the predicted growth doesn't occur, the companies valuation becomes based on its actual value (profits).
> There valuations are always based on expectations of huge growth, not current value.
They're primarily a function of fund size. Everything else that can be fudged is fudged in order to make it look sane.
Funds make their money by taking a cut of AUM. Thus, they're incentivized to make bigger funds. They also can't spread out their portfolio over hundreds of tiny investments without losing control, so they need to write big checks. When you write a big check, the founders need a big post-money number to maintain a reasonable percentage of the cap table. QED.
As money flooded into VC, the funds got bigger, the checks got larger, and the number of unicorns shot up in direct proportion to the number of large funds competing for their equity. The revenue projections used to justify this charade were never really important, and couldn't be proven in any case.
It's indeed not that black and white. Growth and revenue can happen quite early and they are usually seen as signs that a company might eventually become profitable. The whole point of VC funding is to put all available resources in growth, not in profit. Investments in profitable companies aren't really venture capital investments. Different class of investors that do that, generally.
Where the whole thing starts looking like gambling is when companies get huge rounds based on essentially no proof whatsoever that the thing will ever grow or have revenue. And when the idea is basically "we'll pay famous people to send greetings to people" we're in obviously stupid money territory. That was never going to have the revenues to back up the inflated valuation. And somebody still sank a few tens of millions in that to find that out the hard way. That company had a paper valuation of a billion. But it doesn't necessarily mean all those tens of millions were spent and lost. Investors might commit the money but it's usually conditional on growth targets and milestones. When shit goes south, they'll pull the brakes and the money stops flowing. Good investors wouldn't wait until all the money is gone to do that.
The reason these investments happen is that VCs mostly aren't investing their own cash. They are being paid to make investments and to inflate their portfolios. By the time the shit hits the fan, they'll have gotten their payoff. It all looks great until it doesn't. And inflated valuations make them look shit hot even when they are clearly not. This attracts more capital for them to invest.
Of course at some point the shit does hit the fan and the money evaporates. That's when you get acqui-hires and other constructions that are usually portrayed as a successful exit that, again, makes the VCs look like they know what they are doing. This is all about damage control that is about both financials and reputations. Never mind that it's effectively a fire sale at that point. But investors get to swap their bad shares for good shares, and founders get to work in somebody else's company for stock options. And the "buying" company gets some nice people and they stay best buddies with the investors they just bailed out who might typically also be investors in those companies. In the end the madness gets written off against the overall fund performance. It only takes a few good gambles to work out for everybody to come out smelling like roses.
> It's like asking someone playing roulette to value "13 black", after they bet on it.
Even worse, because you don't get better odds or payouts by persuading others to bet on 13 black, but you do when they invest in the company you've backed.
I have a few friends who have gone into VC either starting their own or an existing. Hearing about some of the companies they are invested in makes me realize that half of these show HN posts are legit multi billion companies already with 2-5 person teams. As you’ve said, low to zero profit, and seemingly no corner on the market.
It’s like coin collecting, without the currency part - just hoping someone one day sees it, and wants to put them on their coin on their shelf. I can’t make sense of it, maybe that’s the point. I miss when VCs cared about helping people change the world, better or worse (ideally better).
Cameo (an example in the article) is an interesting one. It seems like a stable, steady business, making money, should be easy to accurately value if you have access to the financials. No surprise that the "It's $1bn!!!" valuation came from Softbank Vision Fund. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo_(website)
It also peaked during the COVID lockdowns, lots of actors needed alternative sources of funds. Maybe the numbers for 1BN came from multiplying revenue into the future, or hell, expecting it to grow even.
Companies being devalued is not news. It happens on the stock market everyday.
For companies that rely on outside investment to survive however it can become a slide to oblivion.
If the company itself is profitable, then typically it can continue. There's no interest rate on VC investment, and if profitable it can run forever. Customers, employees, users and so on are all fine. Investors? Well, they're potentially getting some returns through dividends, but its minor and not what they were chasing.
Of course the VC investment model is high risk. That's kinda the point. It's a bet on IPO or (valuable) acquisition. Most companies end up as neither.
Will this affect new VC funds in the future? Maybe in the short term. But there are still enough IPOs (like SpaceX now) and still enough greedy people willing to play the lottery. Sure the absolute amount of VC money may come down, but I don't think the model is going away.
Indeed it may start to lead to saner valuations along the way.
They might not easily be able to cash out, but they often have more options than people realise.
VCs will sometimes invest ‘convertible notes’ which start as debt and “convert” into equity in favourable scenarios.
‘Swamp’ and ‘drag’ clauses are also commmon: if a management team/CEO doesn’t meet their goals as set by the board (like give investors a meaningful exit) then investors can take over and replace that team, or force a sale.
Illiquid private equity in an early stage business, especially one that isnt growing, is hard to get rid of. That’s why investors derisk with terms that massively favour them at the expense of the business they invest in.
> Of course the VC investment model is high risk. That's kinda the point. It's a bet on IPO or (valuable) acquisition. Most companies end up as neither.
Cynically, I wonder how much of the insane (even in the moment) valuations were driven by VC firms trying to commit capital so they could collect management fees?
> If the company itself is profitable, then typically it can continue.
I only wish, but rarely. This is one of the great tragedies of the grow at all cost system. There have been so many great profitable companies, where the product is great, customers love it, employees love it, everyone is happy.. except it's not growing fast enough to satisfy the leeches so it gets destroyed.
As a society we should be supportive of small companies that make a great product that everyone loves, pays good salaries and makes a profit. The more of those, the merrier. But no, unless growth is on the hockeystick curve, private equity will destroy it sooner or later.
> Companies being devalued is not news. It happens on the stock market everyday
TFA points specifically at "recent funds" that have underperformed public markets.
More recently launched funds have been returning markedly less money to investors than those of earlier vintages, according to the World Economic Forum. They have also underperformed the S&P 500 by a wide mark, particularly those that did not invest in a small club of artificial-intelligence superstars, says Mr Cohan.
> Of course the VC investment model is high risk.
Power law at play, apparently: High risk with high rewards only for the top 5%.
... already, just 5% of them produce 90% of its profits.
My impression is a lot of these companies raised mega rounds right before interest rates went up, and are now able to tread water by cutting headcount enough that their revenue + interest can sustain them. To what end? Who knows...
I know a few who are really feeling the pressure from customers now being able to vibe code part or their product and also their cloud bill is about to explode because hardware prices are through the roof
SaaS was always destined for this, with or without AI. Excluding the small subset with network effects, the nominal nature of a remote execution aid in basic business process was always semi-farcical.
Zero interest rates kept many weak companies alive but they also have give great companies time to find product market fit, and the hard part is to separate the two in hind sight
It's simple really. If the VC's don't move the money, then it's dead money to them. These are calculated risks that they absorb under the premise of regret minimization. They don't really have a choice but to take occasional losses. It's nearly intentional.
If you think it's haunting Silicon Valley, wait til you see what's on the balance sheets of Private Equity, which holds these and many, many more overvalued companies!
Yeah, that really is a horror show. The hidden problem with the zombie firms is that as the liquidity dries up larger VC's firm will end up becoming private equity firms.
Falling valuations spell horror for vcs. More recently launched funds have been returning markedly less money to investors than those of earlier vintages, according to the World Economic Forum. They have also underperformed the s&p 500 by a wide mark, particularly those that did not invest in a small club of artificial-intelligence superstars
It's like asking someone playing roulette to value "13 black", after they bet on it.
There valuations are always based on expectations of huge growth, not current value. Growth predictions with an extremely low confidence level. VCs make up for it by making a lot of bets.
The companies NEVER have current profits (The actual measure of value) that would justify their valuation.
So, it's comparing gambling payouts to corporate valuations, aka "apples to oranges", which are not related.
When the predicted growth doesn't occur, the companies valuation becomes based on its actual value (profits).
They're primarily a function of fund size. Everything else that can be fudged is fudged in order to make it look sane.
Funds make their money by taking a cut of AUM. Thus, they're incentivized to make bigger funds. They also can't spread out their portfolio over hundreds of tiny investments without losing control, so they need to write big checks. When you write a big check, the founders need a big post-money number to maintain a reasonable percentage of the cap table. QED.
As money flooded into VC, the funds got bigger, the checks got larger, and the number of unicorns shot up in direct proportion to the number of large funds competing for their equity. The revenue projections used to justify this charade were never really important, and couldn't be proven in any case.
Where the whole thing starts looking like gambling is when companies get huge rounds based on essentially no proof whatsoever that the thing will ever grow or have revenue. And when the idea is basically "we'll pay famous people to send greetings to people" we're in obviously stupid money territory. That was never going to have the revenues to back up the inflated valuation. And somebody still sank a few tens of millions in that to find that out the hard way. That company had a paper valuation of a billion. But it doesn't necessarily mean all those tens of millions were spent and lost. Investors might commit the money but it's usually conditional on growth targets and milestones. When shit goes south, they'll pull the brakes and the money stops flowing. Good investors wouldn't wait until all the money is gone to do that.
The reason these investments happen is that VCs mostly aren't investing their own cash. They are being paid to make investments and to inflate their portfolios. By the time the shit hits the fan, they'll have gotten their payoff. It all looks great until it doesn't. And inflated valuations make them look shit hot even when they are clearly not. This attracts more capital for them to invest.
Of course at some point the shit does hit the fan and the money evaporates. That's when you get acqui-hires and other constructions that are usually portrayed as a successful exit that, again, makes the VCs look like they know what they are doing. This is all about damage control that is about both financials and reputations. Never mind that it's effectively a fire sale at that point. But investors get to swap their bad shares for good shares, and founders get to work in somebody else's company for stock options. And the "buying" company gets some nice people and they stay best buddies with the investors they just bailed out who might typically also be investors in those companies. In the end the madness gets written off against the overall fund performance. It only takes a few good gambles to work out for everybody to come out smelling like roses.
Even worse, because you don't get better odds or payouts by persuading others to bet on 13 black, but you do when they invest in the company you've backed.
It’s like coin collecting, without the currency part - just hoping someone one day sees it, and wants to put them on their coin on their shelf. I can’t make sense of it, maybe that’s the point. I miss when VCs cared about helping people change the world, better or worse (ideally better).
Let it ride !
For companies that rely on outside investment to survive however it can become a slide to oblivion.
If the company itself is profitable, then typically it can continue. There's no interest rate on VC investment, and if profitable it can run forever. Customers, employees, users and so on are all fine. Investors? Well, they're potentially getting some returns through dividends, but its minor and not what they were chasing.
Of course the VC investment model is high risk. That's kinda the point. It's a bet on IPO or (valuable) acquisition. Most companies end up as neither.
Will this affect new VC funds in the future? Maybe in the short term. But there are still enough IPOs (like SpaceX now) and still enough greedy people willing to play the lottery. Sure the absolute amount of VC money may come down, but I don't think the model is going away.
Indeed it may start to lead to saner valuations along the way.
This isn't how VC funding works. The fund has a time limit, usually ten years, and has to wrap up and pay back in that time limit.
If your company is not profitable in that time limit, tough. The VC will exercise whatever rights they have and pull whatever they can out of it.
VCs will sometimes invest ‘convertible notes’ which start as debt and “convert” into equity in favourable scenarios.
‘Swamp’ and ‘drag’ clauses are also commmon: if a management team/CEO doesn’t meet their goals as set by the board (like give investors a meaningful exit) then investors can take over and replace that team, or force a sale.
Illiquid private equity in an early stage business, especially one that isnt growing, is hard to get rid of. That’s why investors derisk with terms that massively favour them at the expense of the business they invest in.
In other words, the sale wouldn't really achieve anything other than lock in the capital write-off. The return would be trivially small.
Cynically, I wonder how much of the insane (even in the moment) valuations were driven by VC firms trying to commit capital so they could collect management fees?
I only wish, but rarely. This is one of the great tragedies of the grow at all cost system. There have been so many great profitable companies, where the product is great, customers love it, employees love it, everyone is happy.. except it's not growing fast enough to satisfy the leeches so it gets destroyed.
As a society we should be supportive of small companies that make a great product that everyone loves, pays good salaries and makes a profit. The more of those, the merrier. But no, unless growth is on the hockeystick curve, private equity will destroy it sooner or later.
I think it depends way more on where and how much the wealth is concentrated than anything else
SpaceX’s valuation + “data centers in space” being taken as a serious pitch leads me to think it’s only getting worse.
TFA points specifically at "recent funds" that have underperformed public markets.
> Of course the VC investment model is high risk.Power law at play, apparently: High risk with high rewards only for the top 5%.
Zune-icorn?
Zombicorn!
I know of some actual in use Microsoft Zune that have outlasted many companies that were predicted to become unicorns.
Same article:
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion-features/zombie-uni...