Re:37signals valuation tops $100 billion after bold VC inves...
by calinet6 on Saturday November 16, 2013 @11:23AM
(#6745253)
It would be insane to short any of these companies, because the perception is so far from reality; and it's perception driving the price, not reality. That's the point.
Re:37signals valuation tops $100 billion after bold VC inves...
by mdparker89 on Saturday November 16, 2013 @11:24AM
(#6745258)
The market isn't necessarily efficient at a given point in time. Just because the stocks are going up, doesn't mean the valuations represent the intrinsic value of the company.
Shorting is a dangerous strategy, especially if you feel the prices are delusional. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
Re:37signals valuation tops $100 billion after bold VC inves...
by nrao123 on Saturday November 16, 2013 @11:29AM
(#6745286)
Yes- agree with you. I think DHH/JF & 37s were not making as much fun of the actual valuation but the lack of monetization.
If we stretched the valuation analogy, it could be applicable to AMZN/Bezos as well- where there is always discussion on their lack of profits & nose bleed valuation. FYI - Bezos is an investor in 37signals.
I have lots if respect for Bezos, JF, DHH etc. I just think it's a little "unfair" (for lack of a better term) to make fun of companies before their monetization plans have kicked in.
Re:37signals valuation tops $100 billion after bold VC inves...
by paul_f on Saturday November 16, 2013 @11:27AM
(#6745273)
No. You're missing the point. FB and TWTR have already made it. If you could, short the vast pool of VC-backed pointless startups in the space that have not IPO'd yet and you would make a fortune.
Re:37signals valuation tops $100 billion after bold VC inves...
by nrao123 on Saturday November 16, 2013 @11:36AM
(#6745319)
Hmm- you may well be right. Because VC as an asset class have underperformed. But- you wouldn't have made a fortune shorting it. Maybe, even lost a little money but not much.
On the other hand, if you shorted USV/Sequoia/Benchmark's portfolios you would be hurting a lot.
This original post by Jason Fried was making fun of Twitter which went from 1bn to 25bn. More background here: http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/15/venture-capital-software-te...
Another post from DHH said that the value of FB was not 33bn & it's now roughly 120BN http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33...
Not saying 25BN & 120BN are the "right" valuations but most people would agree that the prices that 37s made fun of seems like great deals. They could still go back to less than 1bn & 33bn (users leave, consumer trends change, get bored etc) but those are different risks not monetization risks that 37s is making fun off.